IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 i^MM 112.5 if?. IIIIIU 1^ 12.2 2.0 U IIIIII.6 vl V] /a V /A Photographic Sciences Corporation %^ « ^ 4 A "% v 4^ # 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 87^-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de mtcroreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiquee The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibiiographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D n \/ D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur r~~| Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou peliicul6e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured init (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relit avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge inttrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t4 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleurexemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempiaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mtthode normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurtes et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxet Pages d6coior6es, tacheties ou piqudes I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ rrn Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ n Pages detached/ Pages dttachdes r~n Showthrough/ 1—1 Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Th to Th po of fill Or be thi sic oti fir sic or Qualit6 in6gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplimentaire I I Only edition available/ Th sh Til wl Ml dil en be rig rei m( Seule Mition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmies i nouveau de fa^on d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 10X >WUIII Bill a m\ III HIV a 14X u lau M ua ■ auu btlUII 18X IIIUII fUO u i-uoa Buua 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X aox 24X 28X 32X tails du >difier une nage The copy filmed hare hati bean raproducad thanks to tha ganaroalty of: Douglas Library Quaan's Unlvarsity Tha imagas appearing hara ara tha baat quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and In keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies ara filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or Illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or Illustrated impression. L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce A la ginArositA da: Douglas Library Queen's University Lea Images suivantes ont AtA raproduites avac ie plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at da la nettetA de rexemplaire filmA, et an conformitA avac las conditions du contrat da filmage. Lea exemplalres origlnaux dont la couverture en papier est ImprimAe sent filmAs en commen^ant par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la darnlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustratlon, soit par ie second plat, salon Ie cas. Tous las autras exemplairas origlnaux sont filmAs en commen9ant par la pramlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'lllustration et en terminant par la darnlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaTtra sur la darnlAre image de chaqua microfiche, selon i cas: la symbole — »- signifie "A SUIVRE". Ie symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. Tl'ie following diagrams illustrate the method: Lea cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., pauvant Aire filmAs A des taux de rAduction diff Arents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA. 11 est filmA A partir de I'angia supArieur gauche, de gauche A droits, et de heut en bas. en prenant la nombre d'imagas nAcessaire. Las diagrammes suivants lllustrant la mAthoda. rrata to pelure, n A n 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 mmmmmm. mmmmm ] 45th Conobess, ) HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. ( Ex.Doo. 2d Session. § { No. 89. AWARD OF THE FISBERY COMMISSION. DOCUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS OK THE HALIFAX COMMISSION. 1877, UNDER THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON OF MAY 8, .1871. IN THREE VOLUMES. VOLUME II. WASHINGTON: OOVEBNUENT PBINTING OFFIOB. 1878. ^FI^ENDIX G. AFFIDAVITS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OP THE CASE OP HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT. No. 1. Dominion of Canada, Province of Prince Edward Island, Queens County, to tcit : I, Alkxander M. McNeill, of Cavendish, in Prince Edward Island, farmer and tisberinan, a justice of the peace for Queens County, Prince Edward Island, make oath and say : 1. That I have been actively en^aj^ed in the fisheries oCF ray farm at Cavendish since the year 1851, and have personally carried on the fish- ing. 2. I have had three boats engaged fishing every season, employing seven hands besides myself, and at the same time cultivating my farm. 3. The first few years my catch was not very good, owing greatly to the presence in such great numbers of the American fleet. 4. The numbers of this fleet throughout the gulf — I don't know but I have counted from my own shore over one hundred sail of American flsliing-vessels, and that within three miles of the shore. 5. 1 attribute the poor boat-fishing of years gone by, during the Re- ciprocity Treaty, to the presence of the American fishing fleet. 0. Their custom was, to the number of from sixty to one hundred sail, to harbor in Malpeque, and then start out in the morning for the Ashing grounds. If they saw a small boat taking mackerel, thsy would steer straight for them, going to windward and drift down, throwing b.iit, and either take the fish away or injure the boats. This was common fur years, and very largely and materially prejudiced the boat-fishing. 7. During tlie past four or five years we have not been much annoyed with them. The British and Canadian cruisers had something to do with keeping them in order, and during the last two years only a small fleet has frequented the gulf. 8. The consequence has been that the catch by the boats has been very largely increased, and also the number of fishiiig-boats, which has more than doubled during the past four years. Many new boats are being built, and my opinion is that their number will increase every year. 9. During the past nine years my catch would average about one hundred barrels each season ; but I do not make a business of fishing. In fact, I only prosecute it about two months in the season, combin- ing fishing and farming. 10. I would think the number of fishing-boats at Rustico harbors would number about one hundred and fifty. 11. My twenty years' experience has proved to me that the best mack- erel-fishing around our coasts is about a mile from the shore, in frou; seven to ten fathoms of water. 12. All the fish caught by the boats are taken within a mile of the coast, many of them within half a mile, daring the mouths of July and S2107 1092 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMI88IO AiiRiiRt ; Itut (Inriiif; the months of September anil October the boat.s take their catvh further out, say two miles or two an^ain and renew operations. I can't say the proportion of their catch taken within the limit, because they sometimes make ii good catch outHide in deep-st>a waters. The fleet have always flshed within the three miles before the abolition of the Reciprocity Treaty and afterwards. They never gave up. The cruisers frightened them a little, but as soon as they were i>ast, the flshing-vessels went right to work again and tished as before. 15. I prosecute ':he berringflshiug in the spring for bait, and get enough for that pur|)ose, and to a small extent the cod-flshiiis;, but my previous statements have entire reference to the mackerel fishery. Tuu herring are all taken close to the shore. ALEX. M. McNeill. Sworn to at Cliarlottetown, in Queens County, Prince Edward Lsland, this 18th day of Juue, A. D. L877, before me. E. .JAMES SALMER, Commissioner for ialcinff Affidavits in the Supreme Courts and Xotarif PublioJ'ur Prince Edward Island. No. 2. Dominion of Canada, Province of Prince Edward Island, Queens County, to wit: I, Hugh John Montgomery, of New London, in Prince Edward Island, merchant, make oath and say: 1. That I am aged thirty-six, and have resided all my life, excepting tho last four or Ave years, on the north shore of this islann Harbor, and from one hundred and flfty to two hundred out of Rustico Ilarbor, while other harbors with which I am not so minutely acquainted, such as Malpeque, Cascumpec, Tignisb, Nail Pond. Mimenegash, Eginont Bay, Murray Harbor, Souris, Tracadie, and Saint Peters, send out, every season, very large numbers of well equip[)ed fish- ing boats. That during the past winter still larger preparations were made ft>r the coming season, and I fully believe the number of boats flshin^ around the coasts of this island will be, this year, largely in excess of AWARD OP THE FISUERT C0MMI88I0N'. 1093 pri'vioiiH .vears. Tlint the itinroiiHe in the tiiimlior of flshinff hontR dopg not siMMii ill tlie Hii);lit .•« tiie American flshing Heet in the gulf has Iteeii small, while for many years previously it would average six linn- (lied sail. That the presence of the fleet along the shores injured the boat-flsli- ing l»e<'^iuse of the mode of fishing, which was, with the wind off shore, to approach the shore as closely ns possible and commence Ashing, keeping constantly throwing bait and drifting to sen, taking the mack- erel (»if the shore with them end away from the lioats. That, as a general rule, my experience has led me to conclude that the American Hshing-vessels usually se<;ured two fares during the sea- son in the gulf, and in some cases as many as three fares would be Kfciireil. Tlie vessels ranged, as a rule, from sixty to seventy tons, and a sin- gle fare would be in the neighborhood of six hundred or seven hundred Itarielrt. That in the spring of the year large quantities of herring are takeu around our shores, which are use4. erience. The average catch of mackerel would be about forty-five biurels for each boat; for codfish and hake, the average for all the boats would be about forty quintals each. The average catch of herring for ail boats would be about twenty barrels; the fishermen only try to get; eiKuigh herring for mackerel bait and for home use. 3. The boats have trebled in number in the last ten years, and they are three times better boats ; they are larger, better sailers, better rigged and fitted out. There is a large amount more money invested in the boat business than there was ten years ago. The business has enor- mously increased. 4. The boats carry, on an average, crews of four men each. 5. I would account for the increase in the number of boats, and the increased attention given to the business, by referring to the increase of population. There are greater numbers of fishermen springing up all the time; they are more enterprising, and they find the business pays. The boat-fishing also aft'ords employment to numbers of men. (i. With some few exceptions, the boats get their fish close to the shore. The best fishinggrounil is looked upon as inside of three miles of the shore. 7. For the last ten years the American fleet fishing off the coast has averaged, I should say, about five hundred sail. When the cutters are not here, the Americans must catch three quarters of their fish inshore. When the cutters were here they also caught more fish withiti three miles of the shore than o.itside, but not so much as when the cutters were away. They used to dodge the cutters and get inshore. There were not enough cutters to keep them oft' altogether. The Americans were frightened oft' a good deal by the cutters. If the Americans were prevented from fishing within three miles of the shore, it would not be worth their while to fit out for the gulf fishery. It would not pay them. 8. When the Americans come down they do a great deal of harm to the boats, as they throw a great deal of bait and draw tlie fish out. They come inshore, throw out bait, and draw the mackerel out after them. This leaves our boats without fish and destroys their chance of a catch. They have better bait than we have, and are enabled to do this damage. 0. Our fishermen look upon the coming of the Americans as an injury to the boat and island fishermen ; the vessels draw away the fish. The fieet, in fact, puts an end to the good fishing, and are the cause of great loss to us. 10. The Americans, when they see boats getting flsh, come np and "lee bow" them, thus depriving the boats of the fish. " Lee-bowing" is getting to windward of the tide or current and throwing out bait and drawing off the fish. The American schooners also frequently drift down upon our boats, when the latter have to get out of the way. The boats are often injured by the vessels drifting down on them. U. It would certainly be au advantage to the Americaus to be able r 1096 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. I I to transship tlieir flsh here. Tbey woiilil thti8 bo able to fit out a^aia for fiHliiii); and go back to the grounds without losing much time ; where- as, if they had to go home with tlieir loads they would lose from three to four weeks right iu the middle of the tlshing season. It would be also a great advantage as enabling them to watch the tiuctuatious of the mackerel market, A^hich is very variable. 12. The mackerel season here lasts from about the end of June till the middle of October. The Americans get uere about the end of June. Home of them are off here now. 13. The mackerel I believe come down from the direction of the Magdalen Islands, or from the southward and eastward, and work north- ward and westward till some time in August, and then work back, and they strike this island both ways. The Americans follow the course of the fish. S. F. ARSINEAUX. Sworn to at Tignish, in Prince Connty, Prince Edward Island, this 2Sth day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVAUY, J. P. for Prince County^ Prime JEdward Island. No. 5. I Alexander Francis Larkin, of Nail Pond, in Prince County Prince Edward Island, tishtrader and fisherman, make oath and say *. 1. That I have been engaged in fishing and in the fishing business practically for over twenty years, in both boats and vessels, and know the fishing-grounds right round this islnnd, particularly the north end of this island. I have been on board of fishing schooners four years, in one of which I owned an interest, and the last year I was master of faer. 2. Tlie first two years that I was on board a schooner was in the Pearl, with Captain Champian one year and with Captain Fidele Gal- lant iinotlier year. Onr catch of fish that year was small, as we were not fitted out for the buoiness, and were only out a small part of the season. That was eighteen or nineteen years ago. 3. That I fljshed in the schooner Kechabite for about two years, but only for part of the season. I owned a third interest iu her, and the second year I was master of her. She was thirty-seven tons burden. She was only out about five weeks that year, as we took freight both spring and fall. We caught iu that time about three hundred quintals of codfish each year. All these Ash were caught within thk-ee miles of the shore. 4. The American schooners often very seriously interfere with our cod- fishing schooners, as they often carry away the nets our schooners have out for catching bait. The greater part, I should say nine tenths, of our island catch of codfish are caught within three miles of the shore. An- other very serious trouble that the Americans cause our cod-fishing with- in three miles of the shore is, that when we put out our set-lines the Americans, when springing their vessels up to anchor for the purpose of fishing mackerel, often in getting in their gear interfere with onr set- lines, and this trouble is increasing, as we are going more in for set-lines now. The set-lines are now taking the place of hand-lines, and the island coast will soon be a perfect network of set-lines. I myself have now about three thousand hooks out in set lines. 5. That the Americans interfere very seriously with the cod-fishing AQd with our set-lines within three miles of the shore by their seining. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1097 Tti(\v throw a pnrse-Reine of Hometimes one hundred and flfty fathoms ill length, and sometinies twenty in depth, and sweep the liottom, thus often cHUHing great Iosm to our uod-flshing, l)eHide8 disturbing our boats lying at anchor. This I look upon as a most serious trouble, and it is iucreasing. 0. That when mackerel strike in here and we have a biting school of them, I consider the coming of the Americans as the end of the fishing; they interfere with our boatM and draw the school right oil' the coast, and break up the school. They do this by throwing bait and drifting away, drawing the mackerel after them. In a number of cases they drift down on the boats, and I have known a number of boats to be dis- masted by them. Often the boats have to get under way to get clear of them. 7. The privilege of transshipment I consider is a very great one to tlie Americans; they are thereby enabled to come into our harbors, ]iiu;k out and send homo their fares by railway, without losing much time, and I believe they can refit here much cheaper than at home. This must save them at least three weeks in each trip, in the matter of going home, which would be equal to another trip in the course of the sninmer. They also get their fish home much quicker, and can take advantage of the fluctuations of the markets. I have known instances of Americans making as much as three and four trips a season into Charlottetowii to transship. 8. Since having the Island Railway, they can pack out in Alberton with greater facility thau in Charlottetowu, and without leaving the fisiiing ground. i). The cleaning of large quantities of mackerel on our coast by the Americans, and throwing over the offal, injures our cod-fishiug. lU. The American schooners often cause great injury and annoyance to our boats fishing mackerel, by drifting down upon them and taking away the mackerel, and compelling the boats to give way. 11. To my own knowledge a large fleet of American schooners fish around this island, from New London Head to North Cape, and thence to West Point, anoat's summer's work. 1.1 Their cod-flshermen do harm to the fishing by throwing overboard the ofl'al to the codfish. We know well enough when we see theAmtri- can fleet coming that there is an end to our goo«l fishing. The fisher- meti here look upon the arrival of the Americans as a serious injury and damage to the island fishing. 10. That there is, on an average, three hundred sail of American vessels every year engaged in herring fishing at the Magdalen Islands ; they seine the fish, and take, on an average, about one thousand barrels each vessel. The herring fishing there is right inshore. 1 were herring fish- ing at the Magdalen Islands three years, and each year there were about three hnndretl sail of Americans there fishing. They send some home and more they ship away to foreign markets. That herring fishery is a very important trade to them. 17. That the right of transshipment is a very great advantage to the Americans, in two ways : they can ship their fish in time to catch good markets, which is very important to them, as the mackerel market is a very fluctuating one ; they also save ten days clear fishing, right in the heart of the fishing season, that is clear of the three days they would take to unload and refit her. In good years that would amount to an- other trip in the course of the summer. The fish are also better and command higher prices by being sent up quickly; if kept in the vessels till they get to market, they are not nearly so good nor worth so much. JOHN CHAMPION. Sworn to at Alberton, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this 30th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County. No. 11. I, Sebastian Davidson, of Tignish, in Prince County, in Prince Ed- ward Island, accountant, make oath and say : 1. I have been connected with the fishing business as accountant and bookkeeper in different establishments for over twenty years in this part of the country. The business, so far as I have been engaged in it, has always been with boats. 2. There are a hundred boats fishing from Kildare to the North Cape of this island. The number of Imats, I should say, has doubled in the last ten years. The quality of the boats has very much improved ; they are fitted out better, have every requisite for fishing, and are better sail- ers than formerly; they can now stay out, instead of being oidiged to return to shore every evening. 3. The American fleet is not now so numerous as it was a few years ago. A few years ago, before the Reciprocity Treaty was done away with, I should say it numbered from three to four hundred sail. I have seen them as thick as bees all along the shore. They used to fish all along this shore, up Bay Chaleur, at the Magdalen Islands, at Port Hood and other places, within three miles of the shore along here. 4. The herring fishery is important for bait about here ; it was a fail- ure here this year except in traps. 5. The right of transshipnient is a great advantage to the Americans, inasmuch as they can land their first, refit, and be on the grounds again \^ithout much loss of time. They are also enabled by virtue of this right to take advantage of the fluctuations of the markets, and can even 1108 AWABD OF THE FISHEBY COUMISSION. Bell their fifth *' to arrive." Under ordinary circumstanced, I should say that the right of landing their fish, instead of taking them to the States in their own vessels, v.ould be a saving of a fortnight each trip. They used to nialie two trips a summer. SEBJi. DAVIDSON. Sworn to at Tignish, in Prinze County, in Prince Edward Island, this 27th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH MaoGILVKAY, J. P. for Prince County, Priiice Edward Island. No. 12. I, William Champion, of Cascumpec, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman and fish dealer, make oath and say : 1. I have been engaged in fishing for over ten years in both boats and schooners, one summer of whii;li time I fished on board the American schooner Banner, of Belfast, Me. 2. There are fifty boats, I should say, fishing out of this harbor (Cas- cumpec) at the present time. The number has trebled in the last ten years. But Kihiare, Tignish, Mimnigash, Nail Pond, and that way generally, the number has increaseil at a greater rate than here. Tlie boats themselves are also very much better than they were some years ago. The number is still increasing ; has increased ten bouts this spring in this harbor alone. 3. The average catch of mackerel for each boat is about seventy-five barrels, and about fifty quintals of codfish, and the same of hake. 4. Each boat carries on an average a crew of four men. 5. The boats fish along the shores, mainly within three miles of the shore. There are about nine-tenths of the mackerel caught by the boats caught within three miles of the shore; the best ground is within that distance. About two thirds of the codfish and half the hake caught in boats are caught within three miles of the shore ; in fact, the best ground for the two last-mentioned fish is about three miles out or thereabouts. Down eastward on this island, and about Port Hood, Antigonish, Cape George, and other places in that direction, the boats, and also the Ameri- can schooners, fish close inshore. 6. I fished two summers in an island schooner, and one in the Ameri- can Banner ; the Banner was about eighty tons burden ; I was fishing in her the year the cutters were around fur four months ; we had a license to fish, so the cutters did not disturb us. She carried a crew of six- teen hands; we caught four hundred barrel of mackerel, of which we transshipped three hundred at Charlottetown ; we were only three days out of the bay lauding and transshipping the fish, and saved more thau a fortnight in time. 7. The year I was in the Banner she and other American vessels used often to drift down on the boats, and used often to "lee-bow" them, thowing out bait, and taking the fish away ; there were about four hun- dred Americans fishing that year; we fished right up in the Bay Cha- leur and around the other shores of the provinces ; there were also a great many seiners out that year. 8. The average number of the American fleet each year is between four and five hundred. They catch on an average between five and six hundred barrels of mackerel each ; the Americans fish as a rule near the shores ; I do not think it would be worth their while to come dowu to fish unless allowed to fish within three miles of the shore ; the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1109 fishermen and captainn say they would not comn down if kept away Irom the shore fishing; our captain insisted on i;etting a license he- lore lie would tlsh, and he and the crew paid tor it ; if there were enough cutters about, the Americans would keep away; ten or twenty Hiiiall vessels titted out as cutters would keep them olf ; schooners would he liest for cutters. !K Hy tlshing near the shore the Americans do a groat deal of harm to tiie mackerel, they chuck out so much bait. They have the very best of bait, and can carry the mackerel otf shore with them, as the mack- erel follow the bait. They " leebow " the boats and prevent their catch- ing; fish. The Americans often get right in among the boats tlshing and spoil their chances of a catch. 10. Fishermen in boats look upon the arrival of the American fleet as the ruin of the good Ashing, and I know it to be the fact. Their cuining is thus a very great loss and injury to boat fishermen. The boats lie at anchor and the schooners drift down upon them, when the former have to get out of the way. 11. The mackerel fishing begins as a rule about the twenty-fifth of June and lasts till about the end of October. 12. The right of transshipment is a very great advantage to the Americans. They are thus enabled to take advantage of the markets. When we transshippe Ikt- men in Newfoundland, but these are not included in the above estimate. JAMES Mcdonald. Sworn to at Souris, in Kings Oounty, in Prince Edward Island, this 2Gth day of June, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES R. Maclean, J. r, for KinfjH County, No. 14. 1. James H. Davidson, of Tignish, in Prince Oounty, Prince Edward Island, Hslidealer, make oath and say : 1. 1 have been for the last seven years running a fishing stage at the North Cape, and have been engaged in fishing all my life, as a practical fisherman, in boats all the time except one year, when I was on board the schooner Frank of this island. 2. That I believe there are fully two hundred boats fishing between Cascumpec Ilarbor and North Cape. During the last seven years the number of boats engaged in fishing has certainly tre()]ed. The boats are better models, better rigged, better equipped, are better sailers, and are sni»erior in every respect to what they used to be. J3uring the last ten years the capital invested in the boat-fishing business along this co.ist has multiplied tenfold, and that is a moderate statement. 3. The boats will average three men to a boat, all round, for crew, and one man on shore, so that the two hundred boats would give, during the summer, constant employment to eight hundred men, and the num- ber of boats is constantly increasing. I believe that the fishing in this part of the island is still in its infancy. 4. I should put the average catch of mackerel per boat, taking one year with another for the last ten years, at seventy five barrels, and the average catch of codfish and hake at fifty quintals. Thi^ boats nearly always catch as many herring as they require. They get abundance for mackerel bait, for home use, and some to export. The boats would re- quire, on an average, fifteen barrels of herring for bait, each boat, during the mackerel season. 5. Seven-eighths of the boat-fishing is done within three miles of the shore. All the mackerel and herring are caught within that limit, the codfish sometimes further out. G. The reason for the increase of the number of boats is that ]>eople find it a profitable business, and the young men are going into it more and more. There is a special class growing up no w, who are entirely de- voted to and altogether dependent on fishing. Those men who devote 1112 AWARD OF THE FISHERT COMMISSION. "V themselves entirely to it and study the habits of the fish, are by far the best and most successful fishermen. The business of fishing is now be- coming respectable, whereas formerly it was not considered so. The fish- ery alfords employment to an increasing population, which has not land of its own to farm. People gather from the inland parts to the fishing parts, in ord^ir to get employment in fishing. People come from other provinces here attracted by the fishing. It is particularly the mackerel fishing that is increasing. 7. The year I was out fishing in the Frank ; we made a poor year's fish- ing. We made two trips in the bay and caught only three hundred barrels of mackerel. The Frank was about sixty-three tons and carried seventeen hands. 8. The year I was in the Frank was the year the cutters were around, and there were a good many Americans kept away and some taken. We were all in and about the American fleet that year, and they would num- ber three hundred sail. They know the inshore fishing is the best and they will run risks rather than not have it. £ do not think it would be worth their while to come down here to fish in the gulf if they could not fish within three miles of the shore ; and it certainly would not be worth their while if they could not fish within the three-mile limit. I should certainly say that seven eighths of the catch of the American catch is caught within three miles of the shoie. 9. They lie among the boats. When they see the boats getting mack- erel they come up and lee-bow the boats, throwing bait and drawing off the fish, when the boats have to leave. They certainly do harm to the fish- ing by throwing the oftkl overboard. By it the fish are glutted and poi- toued. They also interfere with the bait-nets anay De Chaleur to Point Le Pan, and along the Cape Breton shore. She was over sixty tons burthen, and had a crew of from fifteen to eighteen hands. The first season we got shipwrecked and did not do much, the second year we went seining and got over two hundred bar- rals of mackerel and some thirty or forty barrels of herring. 2. I consider that within the last thirteen years the boats have in- creased seven fold, they carry an average crew of three men each, besides giving employment to a great number of shore-men ; taking one year with another, they average about fifty barrels of mai:kerel each. As a gener.d thing, we catch as many herring as we want round this coast, for mackerel-bait and for home use. The best mackerel fishing is done from the shore to two miles and a half out. 3. Along this coast the Americans very often fish mackerel within three miles from the shore, and I believe it is a great advantage for them to have the privilege of fishing within three miles of the shore. 4. I consider the right of transshipment a great advantage to the American fishermen ; by doing so they can transship their mackerel here, refit, and return to the fishing-grounds without losing much time, and thus save a fortnight each trip, which, in a good fishing-season, would be equal to another trip. AGNO J. GAUDET. SwDrn to at Nail Pond, in Prince County, Prince Edward Island, this [28th day of June, A. D. 1877, before me, JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J. P. for Prince County, No. 23. I, William S. Larkin, of Nail Pond, Tignish, in Prince County, Cilice Edward Island, fish-dealer and fisherman, make oath and say : 1. I have been engaged in fishing for thirteen years, principally in )uats, but one summer in a schooner, the Rechabite, and am well ao- luiiiiited with the fishing-grounds. 2. I made a trip of three days, in June, 1874, on board of the Ameri- ban schooner Cynosure, of Booth Bay, Me., in which time we fished 71 F 1122 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. t close to this shore and took two buodred barrels of mackerel. Bbe took six buudred and seventy barrels of mackerel in eigbt days that trip. She was about one hunilred tons burden and carried fltteen or sixteen bands. Her catcb was all caugbt witbin tbree miles of tbo sbore. 3. Tbere must be fully two bundred boats tisbing between Mimnigasb and Nail Pond, and I should say more. The last tbree years the num- ber of boats has doubled, and more. The boats themselves are of a better quality than they were tbree years ago. The capital invested iu boat tisbiog has also doubled or trebled during the same time. 4. The reason there has been such an increase is because people found the fishing to pay. 6. Each boat, on an average, carries a crew of about tbree men. A number of shoremen are also employed iu connection with the boats. 6. As a general thing the boats get their codfish from three miles out to a half mile from shore; the spring codfish are right in handy the shore; the mackerel range from half a mile to three miles off; the greater part of the mackerel are caught about t mile and a half froui the shore ; in the fall of the year they move off to about three miles; 1 should say two-thirds of the fish here are caught witbin three miles of the shore ; the ling are caught about two miles and a half to three miles from the sbore. 7. Some years, some of the boats catch over two hundred barrels of mackerel each; taking one year with another for the past teu years, I would put the average catch of mackerel at fifty b irrels per boat. I would put the average catch per boat, taking all sizes, of codfish and ling, at about fifty quintal. 8. When the Americans come here they fish in about from one to three miles from shore. I have seeu them so close that they have run aground. 9. When there is a fleet of Americans here they hurt the boat-fishing and draw off the fish. Their bait is better than ours, and they throw it and draw away the fish from our boats. W^bile they are here the boats do not do much, as a general thing. Thjs fishermen look upon the ar rival of the Americans as the break-up of the boat-fishing. 10. The right of transshipment is a great advantage to the Ameii cans, because they can unship their fish here and send them home while they themselves can go on with their fishing; they would thus save from tbree to four weeks a trip ; that would be equal to a trip saved during the summer. Auotber advautage is that they can send on their fish, even half loads, iu time to catch the good markets, which they could not do if obliged to go home with their cargoes, and as the mdck ere! is a very variable market this is a very great advantage. 11. The mackerel season lasts on the shore from the first of July until toward the end of September. The Americans get here about the be- ginning of July. The Americans seine for mackerel along here. WM. S. LARKIN. Sworn to at Nail Pond, Tignisb, Prince County, in Prince Edward | Island, this 28th day of Juue, A. D. 1877, liefore me. JOSEPH MacGILVRAY, J, P. for Prince County. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 24. 1123 [Dominion of Canada, Province of Prince Edward Inland, Prince County : I, MiniAEL Foley, of Alberton, in Prince Comity, in the said Island [and Dominion, meixjhant, make oath and say: That I am at present and have been for the past three years doing Ibusiiiess in Alberton aforesaid, and that an important part of my busi- (ness consists in prosecuting the fisheries on the north and west coasts [of this island. '2. That 1 furnish supplies to abont eighty fishing boats, which snp- [)lies consist of bait, hooljs and lines, provisions and necessary clothing for the men on board said boats ; an. The boats ilso furnish employment to the vessels in the carry'ii^^ trade during the lull freight season. There is also a lot of money put in circulation khroujfh the country, which creates a trade for the country about the )tages. 4. Tliat the boats, on an average, catch about one hundred barrels of nackerel each during the season, worth about one thousand dollars. U soon as the mackerel are shipped we can draw and get the cash for 5. That I should say that one reason the boats are increasing in niim- kr is that good fishermen can now be obtained. Another reason is 72 p 1138 AWARD OF THE FISnERY COMMISSION. VI tbat there is now a surplus population {^rowing up, who have no huxl, aud take to fishing for employment. The chief reason for the iuureaue is tinit the business is found to pay. G. Tliat the boats along this part of the ishind catcli largo quantitii's of codtlsh before the nnickerel season comes on, but the principal part of tiic boats leave olf cod-flshing when the mackerel come. If followed up here, the codfishing would be valuable. 7. That there are considerable quantitie herring caught about here in the spring, and if people went into herring-fishing they might get as many herring as they wanted. We get herring also down at the Magdalen islands. The herring are used tor bait during the nmckeitl season, and also for home use. Each boat, on an average, wants about twenty barrels of herring for bait, during the season. 8. That nearly all the mackerel and all the herring taken by the bouts are caught inshore ; that is, within three miles of the coast line. About half the codfish are caught within the same distance from the shore. 1). That I have fished in schooners belonging to this island for sevenil seasons. That I fished in a schooner called the Garland about twelve years ago, a schooner of about fifty tons burden and carrying ei^lit han^ls. We fished in her ofi' this island for the whole season, and got at least three hundred barrels of mackerel. Most of these fish win caught inshore. 10. That I fished for a season in the 8choo"er Hannah, of this island, j also of about fifty tons burden and carrying' ht hands. We fished otl | this island ; that was about eight years ago. iaught about three huii dred barrels of mackerel in her, the greatti ^ t of which were cau{,'lit close to the shore. 11. That 1 fished, about seven years ago, for a couple of seasons oiij board the Minnie li., carrying nine hands. In her we fished along the island shore aud up the Bay Chaleur, and caught about two hundred j and eighty barrels each year, but we did not fit out till nearly the liist ' of August. In all these vessels we traded along through the sprill{,^ and did not fit out for fishing till late. Every year we fished I noticed j that we used to fish closer to the shore, which I consider shows tbe| mackerel are working closer to the land. lli. That during the seasons 1 was fishing in schooners there weiei large fieets of American fishermen fishing in the gulf. They used mostlyl to fish within three miles of the shore, especially during the last twol years I was out. I should say that at least two-thirds of their catcii oil mackerel were caught inshore. I have seen some of their vessels take| their entire loads close inshore, never going off. 13. That, taking one year with another, for the last eight or ten years! there have been fleets of American schooners fishing in this gulf, oil about four hundred sail each year. For the last two years they havfl not been so many ; the reason for that is that they have had good fislij iug on their own shores in those two years, which they do not ofteDJ have. During the last two years I should not think there were morel than three hundred of them in the bay. 14. That the American schooners often interfere with the boats, bjj coming in, throwing bait, and drifting away, taking the fish with theuif They, in fact, break up the boat-fishing to some extent. Their comiugi is looked upon as an injury to the boats; fishermen would sooner not s«(| them coming. When the boats are lying at anchor getting fish, tliej vessels drift down aud lee-bow the boats, spoiling their fishing for tliai| time. 15. Tbat I was down at the Magdalen Islaods some years ago, herriufl AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1139 flshinjr, ami there were a buudred sail of American Hsliing- vessel a f;ettini; [herriiijf tbere. Tliey would take on an average eight hundred barrels lesich ; they ship them away to the West Indies and to other places. IThe herring there are all caught in the bays and harbors, and are caught Iwitli seines, which they often drag to shore. That fishery is valuable [to the Americans, as they will get large returns for small outlay, and liiiany of their cod fishermen take their bait at the Magdalen Islands. I IG. That I have been getting herring at Newfoundland an«l have seen [large numbers of American vessels Hsiiing there. They fish there all [winter. They freeze large quantities of the herring caught there for [bait for their George's fisliing-Heet ; in «act, Newfoundland supplies nearly ill the bait for their George's fishing, 17. That iu the spring nearly ill t'ae mackerel coming here, come by 'ape North and through the Gui of Caikso, and then they strike the Magfe\v Hrunswick, and on the shores of Bay of Clialeur, from Port Diiniel to Dalhousie, and east, from Port Daniel to Bonaventure Island, in Gaspe Bay, and on the south shore of Gaspe, from Cape Kozier to Matane, and oil tlie north shore from Groisie to Goodbout River. I have fished my- self nearly every year in these places, and I never missed my voyage. Each of these vessels has made good fares every season, aud some I of thecn have made two trips of mackerel. Each of these vessels has I made yearly a voyage of about 400 barrels. 3. The Americans catch their mackerel with seines and hand lines. 4. My opinion is that codfish gurry should not be allowed to be thrown [overboard on any fishing ground around the shores, because it injures the small fish and drives away the large fish. This is my experience. For instance, if we throw codfish gurry ou a fishing ground in the night, I we could cot find a fish there in the morinng. 5. Mackerel caught by the Americans during the period mentioned [above, have Jill been taken inshore, with the exception of a few barrels. [The mackerel which I caught myself were all taken inshore. 0. The inshore fishery is by far the most valuable for all kinds offish. [In fact there are only two places where fish are taken in any quantity outside; the Orphan's and Bradley Banks. But the Americans don't I resort tliere. . When American vessels come to fish among the boats, they entice [all the mackerel away; it is my experience ; I have enticed mackerel laway from the boats myself often. This is done by the Americans jwhenever they get the chance. 8. Most of the Americans are supplied with either purse or hauling Iseliies. The hauling seines have been in use for the last forty years, ]aiid the purse seines for mackerel, for about fifteen years. 9. The fishing with hauling seines is all practiced from the shores, |aiid the purse seine in deep and shoal water. 10. Within the last five or six years most of the mackerel are caught |iii the gulf with the seines. 11. The use of the hauling seine has been mostly practiced on our iliores from Port Hood to Cape Chat, on the south shore, am! Good- |hout to Seven Islands, on the north shore. I have practiced seining for liree years from Gasp^ Basin to Goodbout and Matane, and 1 have done well. In eleven days I stocked $7,000 in Gaspe Basin, a..(l I have seen it Goodbout, about twenty-three years ago, two American vessels loaded in one haul of the seine. The purse seines are mostly used now for mackerel. 12. I believe that the practice of seining is injurious to all kinds of ish, more especially to mackerel, because it destroys small and large ish. 13. The bait that the Americans use for taking cod and halibut, is all Mught inshore or bought from the iidiabitants at Anticosti and the lorth and south shores. Bait is taken Avith nets and seines. U. Codfish, haddock, halibut, and pollock, are caught by American ishermeu in inshore waters. And the same fish are also caught by the Canadian fishermen inshore. 15. The herring are all taken inshore, and is an impovtant fishery. our hundred barrels have been taken by the Americans at Fox Bay 1142 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. I I I this spring. They take herring for bait and for sale in their own and foreign markets. 16. On an average the Canadian mackerel are larger than the Ameri- can. 17. The principal breeding and feeding grounds of mackerel are at Magdalen Islands, P. E. Island, Bay Chaleur, and Gasp6 Bay. Mack- erel feed on lance, herring, shrimps, and other marine animals floating in or about the surface of the water inshore. 38. I consider it a great advantage to American fishermen frequent- ing Canadian waters to be allowed to land, dry their nets, and cure their fish. 19. The privilege granted to the American fishermen by the Treaty of Washington, to be allowed to transship their cargoes, is of the great- est advantage to them, in this respect, that it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds, and to double and triple their fares. 20. The American fishermen could not carry on the fishery of cod and halibut if they were not allowed to catch bait inshore or to buy it from the inhabitants. If t jey buy it instead of catching it, it is because they save time and find it ^aore profitable. 21. I consider it a great advantage to Americans to be allowed to re- sort to Canadian inshores for ice. Not later than last week an Ameri- can schooner fishing halibut here, lost her fare by not having ice. 22. The privilege of fishing iu American waters is of no advantage to us. I never knew of any vessel from here ever resorting there to fish. 23. Fishing by Americans in Canadian waters injures their fisheries. Let us suppose for an instant that Gaspe Bay was full of mackerel and 50 sail of vessels come iu and fish one day, and you could not find a fish there next day ; that is my experience. E. MARSHALL. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Auti- costi, county of Sagueuay, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 23d day of July, 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. m No. 37. Dominion of Canada, Province of Nova Scotia : In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the Treaty of Washington. T, James A. Nickerson, of Margaret's Bay, in county of Halifax, Pro » :n"e of Nova Scotia, master mariner, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged nearly all my life, either directly or indirectly, in the fishing business. For about eight years I was engaged in the mackerel fisheries and commanded the vessel. Two of the years were immediately before the lieciprocity Treaty aud the other six were dur- ing its continuance. 2. My vessel, the Argo, was about sixty tons burthen, and my aver- age catch per season was eight hundred barrels. 3. I fished along the northern and eastern coast of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island, and followed up to Bay of | Gasp^ and the Bay de Chaleur. 4. My best Catches were taken off the north coast of Cape Breton,! from Shittegan to Hauley Island, Port Hood, and I never caught any ot I AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1143 the fish to speak of beyond three miles from the shore. I am certain and positively swear that fully nine-tenths, and I believe more than that proportion of my entire catch was taken within three miles of the shore; the nearer to the shore I could get the better it would be for catching fish. One reason of that is that the mackerel keep close inshore to get the fishes they feed on, and these little fishes keep in the eddies of the tide quite close to the shore. 5. If I had been prevented from catching fish within these three miles I am satisfied I could not have got any fish at all. 6. Along Prince Edward Island the fishermen sometimes get good catches more than three miles from the shores. This is caused by the large fleets of vessels who only fish when the wind is off shore, driwiiig the schools of mackerel out into the gulf by throwing bait while fishing ami drifting off tram the land. It is nect?8sary, however, for the fishing vessels to go close inshore before they can raise the mackerel and to draw them off. If the fishing vessels were kept out of the three- miles belt or limit the same result would follow as off Cape Breton ; no mack- erel would be taken. 6. Later on in the season the fishing fleet, by constantly throwing bait and drawing the mackerel from the shore, manage to get the fish in deeper water, and then, eometimes, catches are made at long distances trotu the shore. 7. In Bay de Chaleur catches of mackerel are sometimes made or taken more than three miles from shore, but this is the result of their being drawn off" shore by the fleet fishing, the same as off the other coasts I have spoken of. 8. The American fishing fleet frequented the gulf in great numbers during the years I fished, but their numbers varied greatly, sometimes miinbering five hundred and sometimes one thousand. 9. These American fishermen got their catches in the same places we did. They took the fish close in to the shore ; that is, by far the larger pro[)ortion of them ; and the opinion of the American fishermen was universal that, if they were excluded from fishing within these three miles off the shore, they might as well at once abandon the fishery. 10. The fishing was principally carried on by hook and line, but since the Treaty of Washington Americans have used, to a considerable ex- tent, purse-seines to catch the mackerel. 11. I am satisfied that the fishing grounds are seriously injured by the American fishing fleet throwing over the offal from the mackerel when cleaning them; and I am acquainted with localities where the fish- injf was temporarily destroyed from this,cause. Boat fishermen never throw over the offal ; they carry it on shore with them. 11 I was one of the officers of the Sweepstake, one of the Canadian marine-police cruisers, one year — the year 1861) — and of the S. G. Mar- shall during the years 1870 and 1871. The S. G. Marshall was another of tiiese cruisers. Our duties weru to enforce the law preventing zVmer- icau fishing vessels from fishing along the inshores. The two first years our station for cruising lay l)etween Pictou and St. Paul's Islan«l, and the last year from Shediac to Gaspe, including the Bay de Chaleur. My experience was that the Americans constantly endeavored to get into tlie i)rohibited ground to fish. The first few weeks we commenced cruis- ing we were stationed at the Gut of Canso, and we boarded all the American vessels that passed through, and warned them not to fish ^vithin three miles of the shore on pain of being seized and forfeited. Notwithstanding that warning, they kept ctiitinually creeping in, and we eventually seized the A. H. Wauson, while fishing within three miles 1144 AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. of the north shore of Cape Breton. At that time there were at least fifty American fishing vessels fishing at the same place, and within three miles of the shore, but we could only seize one. The others left for home almost immediately, saying it was useless to prosecute the fishing unless they could do so within three miles of the shore. 13. During the first two years we were cruising we were constantly finding them fishing within three miles of the shore. They could not raise the fish outside and were obliged to come in. We kept constantly warning them, but they ias constantly aud persistently kept fishing in- side the limits and close to the shore. The last year (1871) when cruis- ing between Shediuc aud Gaspe, we did not see many of them violate the law by coming within the limits, but when I ran over to Prince Ed- ward Island I saw great numbers of them fishing within three miles of the shore, as many as thirty at one time. At that time they were allowed by the islitnd government to fish there, as I understood, but I had no authority to interfere with them. 14. 'J he experience gained by me during these years when I was en- gaged in these cruisers, and n>y own previous knowledge, gained from years of practical experience in the business, convinces me, beyond a doubt, and 1 have no hesitation in stating it under oath as my firm, de- liberate, conviction, that if the American fishermen were proliibited or could be strictly prevented from fishing within three miles of the shore, they would entirely abandon the British-American waters altogether, so far as mackerel are concerned. 15. The inshore fisheiies are of so much more greater value than the outshore or det'p-sea fisheries, that the latter would be utterly useless by themselves and without participation in the inshore fishery. 10. The Americans do use the purse-seines for catching mackerel ou our coasts, aud their use has the effect of driving the fish into deep water and away from the ordinary fishing grounds. I am not aware that they have been used extensively ; my opinion is that they have not been. 17. I am aware that the American flsherineu buy large quantities of bait all along the coasts of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. 1 cannot say whether they catch it to any extent themselves. Without this bait they could not carry ou the cod-fishery at all. When I speak of not being able to say whether they catch bait, I wish to confine that to the her- rings. I am aware that they fish for and catch squid in Canseau, Guys- boro, aud along the eastern coast of Cape Breton in considerable quan- tities. I have seen them catching these squid every time I have been along tiie coast in the squid season. These squid are among the very best bait for codfish, far better than herring. They are taken close into the shore, sometimes up against the rocks. They would prefer buying the squid to catching them if they could buy them, but they cannot, be- cause the people do not catch them to any extent. Squid are takeu with a. jig ; they are not taken in nets. IS. Since the Washington Treaty, the Americu cod-fishers have been able to get their supplies for the cod-fishery, besides their bait and ice, along our coasts, and the consequence is there has been a marked in- crease, I would say fifty percent., of these American cod fishers. Being able to obtain bait aud ice so near and so easily, they have their trawls extending from Cape Sable to Cape North, in Cape Breton, and a con- sequence is, iu my opinion, that the best fish are prevented coming in- shore, and are lost to our shore fishermen. Without being able to get the bait, they could not do this. 19. The herriug-fishery is entirely an inshore fishery. None are taken outside. It extends rouud the entire coasts of Nova Scotia, New Bruns- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1145 wide, Prince Edward Islaud, and Lower Canada, and are chiefly taken by Uoiiiiiiiou tisberuieu, and used as bait, or sold as such to the Ameri- ca us. 20. Tlie food of the mackerel is various, depending upon the season. A 8inall tish called a shrimp, and another called brit, and small herring, the season's spawn, are the food tl/ey generally feed on. These small lish are found in the tide-rips, in the small bays, and off from points, but close to shore, within half or quarter of a mile from shore or less. That is wbere the mackerel are first found, after rising from spawning. They feed there for a time, until they fatten, and then they begin to move farther off from shore, and, after getting fat, move southward ixiiiuu. The mackerel breed along the coasts and in Lhe bays of Nova Scotia aud New Brunswick and Quebec. They go into shoal water to spawn, unless disturbed. 21. The privilege of transshipping their fish is a very valuable one to American fishermen, because it saves so much of their time at the very season wiien it is most valuable. In this way they are enabled to uiake an extra trip at least, and some of the more fortunate two trips, and, consequently, make very much larger catches. Without this privi- lege I don't believe many of the Americans would prosecute the mackerel- ilsliery on our coast. * » * I form this belief from my intercourse with the American fishermen themselves. 22. The privilege of fishing in the American waters is of no use or benefit to Canadian fishermen. 2S. United States fishermen coming into our inshores professedly for fishing purposes, take advantage of it to trade with the inhabitants, and sell them large quantities of smuggled goods from the United 1 States. This is quite prevalent. 29. I have been for the past four weeks ill from the effects of a tumor hvhich I have had removed from my throat, aud am still in the doctor's hands aud unable with safety to move about much. JAS. A. NICKERSOX. Sworn to at Halifax, in the Province of Nova Scotia, this day [of July, A. D. 1877, before me. WM. ACKHURST, J. P. No. 38. |In the matter of the Fisheries Oonjmission at Halifax under the Treaty of Washington. _ I, John L. Ingraham, of North Sydney, in the county of Cape Bre ■ton, in the Province of Nova Scotia, fish merchant, make oath aud say us follows : 1. I have been engaged in the business of fish merchant during the |)ast twenty years, and am at present so engaged, and am well acquainted tith Canadian fishermen and American fishermen in this locality, also fith the buying and selling of fish, bait, ic<'. and fivshermen's supplies. . I have seen at one time two hundred . merican fishing vessels in ihis harbor. In the summer of eighteen hundred and seventy-six I jiave seen as many as thirty at one time. lu these vessels there are jfroiu ten to fifteen men each. 3. These vessels fish often within one-half mile of the coast, north iiul east of Cape Breton, and all around. 3. They take from one hundred to five huudred barrels of mackerel 1146 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. each ; some take from one hnndred to one thousand quintals of codfish. This amount they take each trip. They get them around the shore, on Grand Bank, and wherever they can. The mackerel men make two trips, and those catching codfish make an average of at least two trips, some making three trips. , 4. I have been well acquainted, during the past 20 years, with the amount of fish taken by vessels around this locality, and liave found that the amount varies, being sometimes good for two or three years, poor for two or three years, and again good for another two or three ; they have been rather poor for tlie last two or three years. This year the mackerel have been reported plenty east of Cape Breton, and will probably be plenty again for a number of years. 5. The fishing is mostly done with hooks and trawls, the Araeriviana trawling in deeper water than Canadian fishermen. 6. The American heavy trawling destroys the mother fish. They catch the larger fish, and often throw over any small ones taken, thus injuring the fisheries. 7. During and before the Keciprocity Treaty of eighteen hnndred and fifty -four the American fishermen fished close to the shore, following tlie fish close in and wherever they could take them. Since the Treaty of Washington, they come along the shore, fish close in, within three miles of the coast. When our armed vessels come, they leave; and when the armed vessels go away, they return. 8. The inshore fishing is, in my opinion, of more value than the fishing outside, as the fish make in toward;} the shore, and if the Americans could not come in and get bait, and ice to keep their bait, the outside fishing would be of no benefit to them whatever, the privilege of fishing and purchasing bait, purchasing ice and supplies being invaluable. 9. The American fishermen use seines in deep water and also on the shore, and Canadian fishermen complain that by these seines they take great quantities before they can get inshore, and break up the schools of fish. 10. The Americans get all their bait within three miles of the shore, in the bays, creeks, and harbors, by fishing for it with hook and line, and with nets. They also purchase large quantities, because, they say, it is more convenient to do so at times. 11. The American fishermen, to my knowledge, take codfish and had- dock inshore by trawling and hooking them, and Canadians in the same way. 12. Almost all herring fishing is done inshore, and the Americans catch them for bait, and they often sell herring thus caught. This I know well, having purchased herring from tbetn all along the coast. 13. The Americans catch very large quantities of mackerel, and I have often heard American masters say that our mackerel is much superior to that caught in American waters, being larger and fatter. 14. I have been informed by American fishermen that the mackerel feed Inshore and places where the water is shoal, and I have known American vessels catch a cargo of over 300 barrels of mackerel in a week within five miles of this harbor, and I know of no reason why it may not be done again within the next eight years. The right of trans- shipping at such a time would be of great value, as also the right to land and dry their nets. 15. The right of taking bait in our bays, creeks, and harbors is, in my opinion, invaluable, for without this privilege they would be unable to prosecute the fisheries. 16. American fishermen purchase bait at times, because, they say, AWARD OF THE FISHERT COMMISSION. 1147 it is more profitable for them to do so. I have sold them large quanti- ties of ice to pack their bait — from 10 to 12 tons per vessel each fishing trip— without which they could not keep their bait. Tliey take about two tons at one time, and frequently return for more ice and bait in order to complete the trip. 17. I sold yesterday two American fishermen ice to pack their bait. They iilso buy flour, beef, oil, and molasses when they run short of stock taken from home. 18. I have been engaged in the buying and selling of fish for not less tliaii twenty years, and am acquainted with many Canadian and American fi berinen, and I have never known or beard of any Canadian fishing vessel fishing in American waters, and do not know of any practical advantage that would arise from doing so. 1!>. If American fishermen were excluded fish would undoubtedly be more plentiful. There would be more Canadian vessels employed not havinj,' to compete with American fisherman, and I also believe that if American fishermen were totally excluded from our markets and from fishing in our waters these markets of our own would afford suffi- cient inducement to carry on fishing extensively and prosperously by our own jieople. 20. I believe that any diminution in the mackerel trade will not be of long continuance, and know of no reason why it may not be better than it has ever been. 21. American fishermen come around the southern and eastern coast of Cape Breton by dozens through the Canal and Bras d'Or Lake and wherever it suits them. 22. From information I have received from masters of Canadian and American vessels I have been led to believe that there have been, year after year, a thousand American vessels fishing in Canadian waters, the number of which I have no information may have been as great. JOHN L. INGKAHAM. Sworn at North Sydney, in the county of Cape Breton, in the Province of Nova Scotia, this 18th day of July, A D. 1877, before me, W. H. MORSE, J. P. for the County of Cape Breton. No. 39. I, John J. McPhee, of Big Pond, Township number forty -five Id Kings County, Prince Edward Island, fisherman and fish-stage owner, uiake oath and say : 1. That I have been engaged in fishing or carrying on the fishing busi- ness for twenty odd years, and I am carrying the business at a stage oa the north side of this part of this island at the present time. I have fished in both boats and schooners, but chiefly in schooners, both Amer- ican and island. I have fished all in this gulf, except some deep-sea cod-fishing on the George's Banks, and I am acquainted with the fish- iug-firounds of the gulf very well. 2. That there are about forty boats engaged in fishing between the East Point and my stage, a distance of about fifteen miles. In that dis- tance there are no harbors, and the boats have to be beached. The number of boats has increased a good deal since last year. The reaiiou for the increase in the boat-fishing is that the men from here, who used to fish on the American shore, found that it did not pay, and they came home to fish on the island shores. 1148 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3. That these boats take crews of from two to four men each, and av- erage about three lueu each. That is clear of the men employed on shore to carry on the business. 4. That the boats get as many herring in tl>e spring as they want for mackerel-bait during the summer, and if the people choose to go into the business, they could get a great many. Last year my boats and dories averaged fifty ([uintals of cod and hake. The boats also get on an average, on that side, about fifty barrels of mackerel in the season. These fish are all caught within three miles of the shore, that being the good fishing ground. 5. That I was out fishing in several island schooners, in the Jane, Margaret, in one Nova Seotian vessel, the T.vro, and some other island vessels. In the Jane we got about two hundred and twenty barrels of mackerel. Most of these were taken in on the shore, very few of them were taken in deep water. In the Margaret we were cod-fishing right off this shore; the fish taken in her were caught within three miles of the shore. In the Tyro, a small, little vessel, we took about two hun- dred and twenty barrels of mackerel, all of which were caught near the shore, round the coast. C. That I fished for two years in the bay in American vessels, one year in the Two-forty and one year in the G. G. Kidder. In the Two- forty we took nine hundred and ninety barrels of mackerel. She was a schooner of sixty seven tons burden, and carried 15 hands. Of these fish about one hundred and fifty barrels Avere caught in deep water, more than three miles from the shore ; the rest were taken close to shore, within three miles of this island — the New Brunswick, Nova Seo- tian, and Magdalen Islands shores. 7. That in the G. G. Kidder, a schooner of about the same size as the other, we took three hundred and sixty-six or seventy barrels of mack- erel ; most of these fish were taken close in round the shores. We took very few in deep water. 8. That I had been cod-fishing in deep water off" the American shore. There are over a thousand American vessels engaged in this fishery. They get the main part of the bait they use at Newfoundland, round the Nova Scotia shore, and at the Magdfileu Islands. The cod-fishery there is dependent on these herring fisheries, and would be a failure if these herring could not be taken. They also get supplies of ice on our shores. 9. That for the last ten years there has been an American fleet of fishing-schooners, on an average, of over five hundred sail in this gulf fishing. Some years there are more and some years less. Last year there were not a great manj' ; the number varies. There are a lot of Americans coming down here this year ; this season there are a number of seiners down here, and they do a lot of barm. 10. That the American fishermen clean the fish on the grounds, and throw the dirt and offal overboard. This does a lot of harm to the fishing. The fish eat up this dirt or gurry, and this sickens them, and I believe kills the fish. When this is thrown overboard the fish stop biting and cannot be caught. I have always seen them stop biting when we threw the oflFal overboard. This hurts the boat-fishing, as they have to stop on the ground ; the schooners can leave and go to other places. We fishermen look upon this as a very serious injury to us. 11. That the schooners also do a great deal of injury to the boat-fish- ing by lee- bowing the boats. They come up around the boats, throw a lot of bait and drift off, drawing the fish after them. They do this pur- posely. It was done in the American vessels in which I fished myself. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1149 12. That the right to land here, transship th«ir flsh, and reflt, is a very event boon to the Americans. The scliooners save, I shouhl say, about twenty days by being able to land their fish here instead of going home. They tiike a good while to go home, whereas tiiey can land in our ports T\itii very little loss of time. They can also fit out in our ports cheaper tliau tiiey can at home. 1,'5. That the Americans are now beginning to seine here, and that ought to be stopped ; it is a very great injury to the fishing. I believe it lias spoiled the fishing on the American shore. Seining hurts the flsliiiig, as it breaks up the schools, scares them oft the shore, and large (liiaiititiesof flsh are killed. They take all sorts of fish, and they throw iiway everything except the mackerel. The also take small mackerel, ami those are killed in the seines and thrown awav. JOHN J. McPUEB. Sworn to at Black Bush, in King's County, Prince Edward Island, this 2(»lh day ot July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES MacDONALD. Justice of the Peace for Kimfs County. No. 40. I, James MoDcjnald, of Chepstow, in township number forty-five, in King's County, Prince Edward Island, farmer and fisherman, make oath and say : 1. That I have been engaged, as boy and man, in fishing for forty years past, in both boats and schooners, the schooners being both American and island vessels. I fished four years in island schooners and three years in American. I have fished all round this island, down at the jNIagdalens, up west, in the Bay Chaleur, and herring-fishing in the winter at Newfoundland. L'. That, including boats and dories, there are engaged in the fishery from .Murray Uarbor to East Point, on the south side of this island, from throe hundred to three hundred and fifty boats. The number is increas- ing fast every year; they have doubled in number in the last three years, and are now increasing fast. 3. That the boats increase because there is a demand for fish, and flsliing pays better than any other work that I know. Fish are ready- money articles, and we can get cash for them any day, and we cannot get it for anything else. The fishing puts a lot of money in circulation in the country, which in itself is a great advantage. 4. That the boats, including dories, take, ou an average, two to three men each, the dories generally taking two. 5. That the boats get as many herring in the spring as they want for bait. The boats use from ten to twenty barrels each during the season for mackerel and codfish bait. The boats catch some two and three hundred quintals of cod-fish and hake during the season, and some less. The average would be about two hundred (juintals, wliich produce a large quantity of sounds and oil. The sounds of the hake are worth nearly twice as much as the fish themselves without the sounds. Some of the boats get, on this side, forty barrels of mackerel and more. The average catch would be thirty-five barrels to a boat. We go in princi- pally for cod-fishing here. C. That nearly all the herring caught are taken close inshore. About half the codfish are taken near the shore — that is, within three unles. There might be one quarter of the mackerel taken by boats here caught 1150 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. :l 11 1 i! more than three miles from shore; the rest are taken withio that dis- tance. 7. That I was out eight weeks one season in the S|vay, belonging to Charlottetown, carrying eighteen haudH; in tliat tir.ie we took over one hundred quintals of codfish and over two huudrei and fifty barrels of mackerel, but that was not half the season. 8. That I was out in another Charlottetown vessel, carrying twelve hands, for five weeks, and in that time we caught two hundred barrels of mackerel. 9. That I was out one season in the American schooner Mary S. W.an- son, of Booth Bay, and we caught ^ix hundred and fifty barrels of mack, erel ; she was about eighty tons buiden and carried seveutecu hands; we made two trips and part of another in her. 10. That I was out part of one season in the Burnside; we were out about two months, and caught five hundred barrels of mackerel. She carried ^I-vteen or seventeen hands. 11. That I was out in the Vox a long time ago; she was a sni.ill ves- sel ; I was not in her the whole season. She only took two hundred barrels while I was in her. lli. That we fished in these vessels all around the north and part of the south side of this island, catching most of the fish in the bight of this island. We got the fish all close inshore ; none of the fish were caught more than two or three miles oft", and most of them right in among the boats on the shore. Most of the American vessels fished iu the same places. Wherever the Americans saw the boats taking fish, they can)e right in there. 13. That the American fishermen do a great deal of harm to the boats by coming in and lee-bowing, and taking the fish away. They come in close to shore, throw bait and drift oft", taking the fish with them. Tiiey sometimes drift down on the boats tliemselves, and the latter have to get out of the way to avoid being swamped. I have often had to do so myself. The fishermen are sure, M'hen tlie Americans come round, that the boats are going to lose the fish. The vessels are the ruin of the boat- fishing. They heave so much bait that they glut and sink the mackerel. They also throw overboard the dirt and offal of the fish they clean, and the fish get sickened by it and won't bite; iu fact, that ofi'al poisons the fish. 14. When the cutters were about, they used to keep the Americans from fishing near the shore to a great extent. I .have seen the schooners, when the boats w^ere getting plenty of fish in sight, not daring to heave a line for fear of the cutters. Had there been half a dozen cutters, the Americans would not have been able to fish inshore at all. 15. That the right to transship their fish is a great advantage to the Americans, as they can thereby save more than a fortnight each trip, which, in the course of a summer, would amount to another trip. IG. That I was down at the Magdalen Islands herring-fishing one seasou, and there were then fifty or sixty sail of Americans fishing her- ring there. The herring are seined there, and a few are netted ; they are caught right inshore, in Pleasant Bay. 17. That one winter I was herring-fishing at Newfoundland; then there were about thirty-five sail of Americans seining herring in Fortune Bay. These herring they freeze for the George's fleet and for markets. 18. That there are large fleets of American fishing-schooners in this gulf every year. There are three, four, and five hundred sail at a time. There are a great many of them coming down now ; they are arriving fast. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1151 19. That the Americans are now seining down here, and thereby doing n great v break up the schools of macikerel where the boats are. The flshermoti look upon the coming oi' the Americans as the end of the good fisliiii;,' for the season. The boats do bettor before the Americans come than afterwards. 11. That the right to transship and refit on our shores is a very great advantage to the Americans. By having this right, they are able to save the time which it would take tiiem to go home. This would be a savo of at least a fortnigiit each trip, which would amount to a full trip saved for the season. They can also send away their mackerel in time to catch the market, which is a very changealjle one. That in itself is .i great advantage. V± That I have often been herring-fishing at the Magdalen Islands. at Labrador, and on the Newfoundland coast. I was at the Magdalen Islands this summer two years, and there were a number of Americans fishing down there. The herring there are caught right in tlie liarbi)r. The Americans catch large loads of herring at the MagdaUii Islands, some of which I believe they send down to the West Indies. The her ring there are caught altogether by seines. The American herring fisL- ing there is a big trade. | lt3. Tlio greater part of the codfish and hake are caught about two miles oft' the shore from this island. Three-quarters of the cod and hake are caught within three miles of the shore. The fishing within that dis- tance is much better than farther off. 14. The fish, I believe in the spring, come down tbrouf^h tlie Gut of Canso, and then go to the Magdalen Islands, an froin i re tlu y strike down towards the North Cape of this is' ' The American and any skilled fishermen know of this habit of ^ and know "here to get them. The fishermen know just whor ^et the fish, 1 they make down from the States in the spring to ii places 'o get tliem. 15. The year the cutters were about tin* Ar' .ricaus were afraid of I them, but still they used to dodge in and ft di I believe that six or [ eight small cutters well fitted out would keep tlio American flsli'" schooners clear of the coast. his JAMES + NOWLAN. mark. Sworn to at French River, New London, Queen's County, Prinr Edward Island, this 12th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, h; ugl been first read over and explained, the said James Nowlan signing byj his mark. Before me. JOHN SHARPB, Justice of the Peace. \ AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1153 No. 42. T, John O. McNeill, of Xortb Rustico, in Qiieen'jt County, in Prince Kdrt'anl iHlund, furiuur and lishurnian, nmke outU and May : 1. Tliai I liave been en{;af;ed in flHhin(jf for eighteen yenrH, and tliat my experience has been in boat-tisUiug, and I am acquainted with tlie tiAhUiii ott' this part of the i.'^huid. 2. TliHt there are about eiplity boats fishing out of North Hustico, witiioiit taking into consideration the other parts of Kustico. The iitiniber of boats lias more than doubled in tiie hist ten years, and is Btill on ttie increase. The boats take on an average crews of live men eacli, beside what men they employ on shore as stage-men. ;{. That the boats on an averag"t catch about one hundred barrels of iiiiickerel each for the season, and about twenty quintals of codtish and hake each. 4. That the fish are nearly all caught close to the shore, the best fish- ing ground being a* out one and one-half miles from the shore; in Oc- Itoltetthe boats sometimes go off more than three miles from land. Fully two-thirds of the mackerel are caught within three miles from the shore, and all are caught within what is known as the three-mile limit, that is, within a line drawn between two points taken three miles I ofi the North Gape and East Point of this island. 5. The reasons for the increase in the number of boats is that people |fiud that the fishing ])ays, and therefore they go in for it. (i. Some years there have been five hundred sail of American schoon- iers fishing oft this coast. I think the reason the schooners have not [been as numerous around this shore within the last few years as they were before is, that they were scared away by the cutters some years a^o, and they have been compelled to stop fishing. I believe, from what I know of the American vessels, that they catch on an average about I live hundred barrels of mackerel each. That the right of transshipment is>a1uable to the Americans, be- jcause they thereby save about three weeks each trip right in the iieart tot the fishing season, which, taking the two trips into consideration, [would amount to a trip saved in the season. They can refit here more Icbeaply, I believe, than they can in the United States. They are also ■thereby enabled to take advantage of the markets ; they can come on bhore, find out how the markets are in Boston and other ])laces, and iBliip away at once iu time to catch good markets. That is a great ad- |vaiitage for them. 8. The cod fishing begins here about the tenth of June, and the mack- lerel about the beginning of July, and the cod-fishing lasts till about the jti'iith of November, and the mackerel-fishing till about the twentieth of ')ctob'3r, although we have taken mackerel later than that date, t). There is pretty much a separate class here going iu for fishing. Che people now pay more attention to the fishing than formerly ; the Doats are better iu every way than they used to be. 10. The coming of the Americans is a great injury to the fishing. They come down and lee bow the boats, taking the fish away. They ^ouietimes drift down on the boats and break the masts out of the l>oat , doing great injury. The Americans put an end to our good fish- ing when they come around. I believe one reason for this is the amount y ofit'al which the Americans throw overboard. The blood and ott'al lurt the fish and sink them to tlie bottom. Their habit of throwing ^lie oflal overboard is very Injurious to the fishing. 11. The Americans for the past two years have not been so Dumerous 73 P 1154 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. m here as before, because, owing to the large quantities of fish canght two years ago, the price of mackerel is not now as high as formerly. Two years ago, with three boats, I shipped one thoasand barrels of mackerel. JOHN G. MCNEILL. Sworn to at North Eustico, in Queen's County, in Prince Edward Island, this lUth day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. WM. S. McNEIL, J. P. Queen't County. No. 43. I, George McKekzte, of T'rench Elver, in New London, in Qneen's County, Prince Edward Island, master mariner, make oath and say : 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for about forty years, in schooners nearly altogether; I have fished at the Labrador for codfish and herring, and in the guU' cod and mackerel fishing, and I am well acquainted with all the tishiiig grounds from Sandwich Bay, in Labra- dor, all up the gulf to Anticosti. I have fished two years in Anticosti. 2. That there is a very large number of boats fishing oti" this harbor and the coast in this locality, and their number is increasing very fast; in this harbor they have doubled in number during the last year, ami the boats are a hundred per cent, better now than they were; they are better rigged, better shaped, of better material, larger, and better iu every respect than they were. The reasons for the increase in the boat fishing now is that people, finding it pays, are going more and more into it, and joung men arc now going in tor fishing instead of leaving the island ; young men do not care about going to sea as much as for fish- ing, as they can get money easier in the latter way. There is also a considerable surplus population springing up now, which find employ- ment in fishing, which they could not get in any other way; men see there is an opening here for them in the fishing business, and they would sooner go into it than go away. 3. The boats take, on an average, crews of four men each, besides the men employed about the stages, who would be at the rate of about four men to six boats; this is besides the men who make the barrels, and others to whom employment is given preparing outfit and material for the boats; during the fishing season it would take twenty men, clear of the stages and the crews, to keep six boats going. Last year I paid one thousand and sixty dollars for the barrels used by me for my six boats, and which barrels were all made and supplied by men having nothing to do with the boats or stages. 4. That the average catch of mackerel for the boats, taking one with another, is not less than one hundred barrels. This I know from the number of barrels caught by the ditfereut boats here, as shown by the actual figures taken as the boats landed the fish. 5. That all these mackerel are caught right along the shore ; none farther out than three miles from shore, and the greater part within one mile of the line of the shore. 0. That the boat fishing here puts a great deal of money in circula- tion iu the country, as the mouient the fish are shipped the fishermen or shippers can draw for the money, and the banks cash their drafts. This I keeps up a good circulation of cash iu the country, and does a lot of good j iu that way. 7. Until the last two years there have been fleets of 500 sail of Ameri- can fish^^.nen fishing iu the gulf. The reason they have not been so I AWARD OP THE FISHERT COMMISSION. 1155 numerons the last two years is that they have had good fishing on their own sliore. a thing whicli very seldom happens. It is only very seldom jtbat they have good tishing on their own coasts. 8. That fully two-thirds of the fish caught by the Americans are caught Inear the shore, within three miles of it. 1 know this, because I have Ifished among them year after year, and I never saw twenty of them at la time lishing more than three miles oft', while from 150 to 200 sail of jtheni would be fishing close to the shore. They and the island schoon- ers always fish about the same grounds. The inshore fishing has always I been the best for mackerel at all seasons of the year. 9. That my average catch of mackerel while fishing in island schoon- jers was about 500 barrels of mackerel each year, but we were not so I well fitted out as the Americans, they having more men, better fit-outs, ■and more experienced fishermen than we had. The average catch of Itbe Americans was consequently much larger than ours. They would javerage a thousand barrels each until the last two years, when they Jhave been fishing on their own coast. During the last two j'ears they [would not average more than 400 barrels down here, because they did {not come in time, and the fish were close inshore, and there were not jso many fish here as before. 10. That the Americans catch codfish near the Labrador, close into the Irocks. There used to be about two hundred sail of American cod-fish- [ermen at the Labrador and along the gulf shores. 11. That the American schooners used to do great injury to the boat- [fishing. When the American fleet was down here, it used to knock up Jthe boat-fishing. They ustnl to hurt the boats, and in fact their schooners [did not care what they did to the boats. When they saw the boats [raising fish they would come right up and drift down upon the boats jwheii the boats had to get out of the way. Their schooners, when the Ihoats were getting fish, come up and lee-low the boats and take the fish laway from them. They used to break up the schools by running down [among them and throwing bait. When the Americans clean their fish, [tiie.v tlirow the oft'al overboard and that is a great injury to the fishing, [as it drives the mackerel from the ground, and I believe it kills them. 12. That the Americans fish Large quantities of herring at the Mag- jilalen Islands; they often have one hundred and fifty sail of vessels there llishiiiji herring there. I have seen the number as low as sixty sail, but |ver,v seldom. They average about one thousand barrels of herring to e^di vessel. These are all caught inside of Pleasant Bay, and they are i»ll caught l)y seines. These herring are partly •smoked and are sent to jctitturent parts of the United States, and to the West Indies, and Sweden, and in fact to wherever there is a market. The herring fish- ery at the Magdalen Islands is a very valuable one for the Americans, Rs they are put to little expense about it and get large returns. 13. The Americans always come down after the Fourth of July, I have seen a hundred sail of them go into Halifax in one day to fit out, for the Ruif-fisbing. They stop here till late in November, generally v aking ^wo or three trips in the .season. I have seen thirty sail of American Niooners come out of Malpeque Harbor, and to ray certain knowledge, jliey each wanted from one hundred to one hundred and fifty barrels of ping loaded, and they dropped down and fislied between New Loinlon Ihiul and Kustico Head, not two miles from shore, and liefore sun-down jtliey had all completed tlieir cargoes and sailed for home. 11. Our regular mackerel season begins here about the first of July. The mackerel strike in here alout that time. At the North Cape of this fslaud they strike earlier than they do here. The mackerel season lasts mmm 1X56 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. IP -(.►|i hi afi>".' till about tUe last of September, although they are often caught as late as December. The mackerel stop here till December, but the weather gets too blustery to go off for them. 15. That in the spring the mackerel are first caught at the Magdalen Islands, where they are caught iu nets by the Nova Scotians and Amer- icans. The mackerel strike tlie Magdalen Islands about the first of June, right after the herring leave. I think they always come to the Magdalens round Cape North. The mackerel don't stop there long, but strike for the North Cape of this island, and from there they make over for the New Brunswick coast, and about the month of August they work back southward again. This general habit ot the mackerel is well known to fishermen, and the American fishermen know the habit first rate. When the mackerel strike off for this island the American schooners never wait along the bight of this island but press up toward the North Cape, and Miscou, and Mira, and generally along the west coast of New Brunswick, and up as far as Seven Islands above Anticosti, as their experience has taugit them that that is the quarter where the fish are to be found fiiiSt. Later on in August and September they come back into the bight of this island, and that is the time they interfere with the boats. Nearly all the fish caught during these times are caught near the shores of the British possessions, although there are some American vessels which fished entirely in deep water away from the land, but these are comparatively few. Some of the Americans used to be afraid to fish near the shore through fear of the cutters. 16. That it would not be worth while for the American fishing schoon- ers to fit out for fishing in the gulf, if they were not allowed to fish near the shores. They might tas well stop at home. 17. Tiuit at the present time about four hundred sail of American cod- fishing vessels fit out on the British coasts from Cape Sable in the southern part of Nova Scotia, round to Cape North. They take in bait and ice for the trawl or set-line fishing on the Banks off the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland coasts. They could not carry on this cod fishery unless tbey could get their ice and bait on British territory. They could not bring the bait from home with them, as the distance is too great and they could not get fresh herring at home. They also get their ice cheaper and better on our shores than they can buy it in Boston. 18. That the right of transshipment is a very great privilege to the Americans. By it they are enabled to make a trip more iu the season than they could if they had to take their fish home in their own vessels; they save a fortnight each trip by having this right. They can also tit out here cheaper than they can at home, which in itself is a great advan- tage to them. They can also put their fish into the markets without delay, when they are able to transship them iu our ports, and thus take advantage of high prices in the fish-market, which is about the mo.st fluctuating marliet in the world. The vessels can land even partial cargoes, and ship them on to the United States and sell them " to arrive," which is a very great thing for the fishermen. The fish also gi^t worse the longer they are kept on board the vessels ; they fail — that is, they get light, and are apt to rust owing to the barrels leaking the pickle ; in fact they get to look worse, and are worse, and command a lower price the longer they are kept on board the vessel. They also get knocked about by the tossing of the vessels. 19. That there is a great deal of herring-fishing done by the Ameri- cans iu the winter at Boone Bay, Bay Fortune, and at other places on the coast of Newfoundland. These herring are caught for pickling and for bait, and quantities are frozen to send dowu to Boston and other 'tent of Ion, 5. I be 1 his 1 ifft J 7. '^ hat I .m ( ^^ 8. US » Ci ^^ rac ' le !). " rea i isi 10 1 rer K ^ >tt in i AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. n57 it as late > weather Hagdalen ad Amer- 0 first of ne to the long, bat lake over 1 ;liey work ell known tirst rate. schooners A\e North 8t of New i, aa their e fish are ome back e with the light near American land, but 1 be afraid ng schoon- 0 tish near ^ »rican cod- l)le in the »ke in bait jva Scotia od fishery ?hey could too great their ice ton. ;ge to the the season n vessels; ;an also tit eat ad van- ts without ti»us take the most \ en partial to arrive," g^t worse 8, they get le ; m fact price the iked about ;he Anieri- places on cklingand and other [places in the States for home consumption. There would be fifty sail I of American down there at a time, and they are coming and going the ■ whole time. GEORGE Mckenzie, PP Sworn to, at French River, in New London, in Prince Edward Island, tuis lliih day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN SHARPE, Justice of the Peace, No. 44. ^In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washiufiton. I, Peter Paint, Sr., of Port Hawkesbnry, in the county of Inverness, uid Province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been for the past forty-five years dealing in fish and ttshing- luppUes, and I am acquainted with the fisheries in the Gulf of Saint |Lrt\vrence, but principally with those on the Nova Scotia shores, border- ing on thiit gulf. I deal in all kinds of dry and pickled fish to the ex- |tent of 8-0,000 per annum. 2. I estimate that since I have been doing business as aforesaid, the imericaii tishing-tteet in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has ranged from 400 ^to 800 sail each year. I have understood that there have been some ^ears as high as 1,000 sail of mackerelers and cod fishermen. I have pknown of 150 cod fishing vessels and GOO sail of mackerel catchers iu a iBingU' season in the gi.!f. 3. The catch of mackerel per vessel is between four hundred and five hundred barrels each season, worth about $12 per barrel. The jpod fi.slierinen average about one thousand quintals per vessel each sea- "Son, worth 85 per quintal. 4. Tlie codfish are caught with hooks, and the mackerel principally rith hooks. 5. I believe that the Americans injure our fishing grounds by throw- ing ovecboiird ottal and garbage and that the fish are driven away by Ibis practice. •>; The Americans have always fished as near the shore, as they could, (hether it was lawful for them to do so or not. The cutters kept them ^tt" to some extent between 18GG and 1871. The inshore mackerel fishery is, in my opinion, more val'^able than lat outside. The herring fishery is carried on inshore altogether. I ^m of opinion that more than half the mackerel are caught inshore. 8. The American fishermen of late years are attempting to use seines catcliing the mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 1 consider this [ractice very injurious to the mackerel fishery, as it tends to break up ne schools and drive away the fish. 0. I am not aware that the fish frequenting Canadian waters have in- teased or decreased to any great extent since the Treaty of Washing- The mackerel were somewhat scarce in 1875 and 187G, but I have lown them to be just as scarce several times since I have been doing isuiess here, and they always came in plenty again in a year or two. mackerel are coming in in large numbers this year, and there is rery prospect of a good catch, 1 believe. 1 10. I believe that the Americans handle and dress their mackerel Btter than our fishermen do, and for that reason they sometimes ob- lin a higher price for them in the American market. 1158 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 11. It i8 certainly a very great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land and traussbip their cargoes, as it enables them to make more trips and consequently catch more fish than they otherwise could. By means of this privilege they save about a fortnight each trip. I think it adds fifty per cent, to their catch when the fish are plenty. 12. It is much cheaper for the American cod-fishermen to buy their bait on our shores than to spend the time in catching it themselves, They consequently purchase ahuost all their bait from our merchants and fishermen. It would be utterly impossible for the Americans to carry on the cod and other deep-sea fisheries i)rofitably without resort- ing to our shores and harbors for bait ; nor could they carry on these fisheries profitably without obtaining ice to preserve their fresh bait, and other supplies on our shores. 13. The privilege of fishing in American waters I consider to be of no practical advantage to Canadians, and 1 never heard of Canadians availing themselves of this privilege. PETER PAINT, Sr. The said Peter Paint was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Port Hawkesbury, in the county of Inverness, this 25th day of July, A. D, 1877, before me. MALCOM Mcdonald. Justice of the Peace. No. 45. Mm WW*' '""^ PI W' ■ »1 In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty | of Washington. I, GEORttE C. Lawrence, of Port Hastings, in the county of Inver- ness, merchant, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged here and at Port Hood for tlie past fourteen I year in a general fish trade, and have dealt in cod-fish, mackerel, aii(l| herring. I am carrying on a large fishing-business here now, and dur- ing the period named I have had good opportunities of watching the I fishing business of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and becoming familiar | ■with it. 2. During the Reciprocity Treaty there were each year in the gulf I about five hundred American vessels. These would average from sixty to seventy tons each, and their crews would number about fifteen men. They were engaged chiefly in taking?mackerel,and cod-tisu, and herring from the Magdalen Islands and Bay Chaleurs. The mackerel vessels in the gulf during ihi Reciprocity Treaty in the most favorable years | would average abouL ive hundred barrels of mackerel per season. 3. After the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty, the number of I American vessels decreased on this coast, and, so far as I am able to give an opinion, their profits diminished after that time. During tbe| l)ast two or three years since the Washington Treaty the American mack- erel fleet in the gulf has been somewhat smaller than in former years! under the Recii)roclty Treaty. Tlie catch of mackerel has been smaller, I do not regard this as due to any permanent falling ofl' in our mackerel fisheries, but merely accidental and temporary. I have reason to believe that the catch will be larger this year than for some years past, | and I know no reason why our mackerel ground should not be as pro- ductive during the next eight years as heretofore. 4. The privilege of transshipping cargoes in our ports is a great ad- vantage to American fishermen. I have known it to be done since tlie| AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1159 Wasliinpton Treaty. It enables the American vessels to make more trips, catcU more tisli, aud increases the paying capacity of the enter- prise. J, It is a great adv■ they enter, as soon as they can procure bait, which, with other sapplies, they obtain on our coasts, especially at the Strait of Canso. From the 25th of June until the last of October they enter our waters to prosecute the mackerel fishery chiefly in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. The num- ber of American vessels fishing in our waters for mackerel has ranged in (litterent years from one hundred and fifty to six hundred sail, the number of men in each vessel ranging from ten to eighteen. The prin- cipal places where the Americans fish for mackerel in the summer months are all over the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, otf Pomquet Island, Port Hood, Prince Edward Island, in the Northumberland Straits, off Point Miscou, as far up as the Magdalen Eiver, across to the Seven Islands, ofi' and around Magdalen Islands, and in the fall from East Point and the Magdalen Islands and Island Brion, thence to Cape Saint Lawrence and Port Hood, and around the eastern shore of Cape Breton to Sydney Harbor. The '.rawliug for codfish is done all around our shores from the first of May till the fall. They also carry on the herring fishery and cod and halibut fishery from Anticosti, as far north as Green- land and Labrador, on both shores; also at Bay of Islands, Bay Saint George, and Fortune Bay, the latter place being visited in tiie winter season. The number of vessels in the herring fishery at the Magdalen Islands alone, ranges from ten to seventy-five sail of American vessels. 3. The mackerel fleet take from four hundred to eight hundred barrels per vessel each season. The herring fleet would formerly take from six hundred to a thousand barrels in bulk each seiison, per vessel ; latterly larger vessels are used in this fishery and a larger quantity taken. 4. The American fishermen carry on their fishery in our waters by the means of seining, trawling, and hooks. 5. Wherever trawling is prosecuted it is very destructive to the boat fishery. The Americans also injure our boat fishery or shore fishery by throwing over great quantities of bait. Tlie fishes are also in some cases driven away by the quantity of garbage and ottal thrown over- board by American vessels. Great destruction is also done to our fish- eries by the Americans by the practice of seining. (>. In the prosecution of the mackerel fishery by far the greater por- tion is taken within three miles of the shore, and the mackerel fishing outside the three miles is of little or no value. The herrings are all taken within the harbors and bays of our coasts, and the trawling for codfish is also done within three miles of the shore. The privilege of coming within the three miles of the shore is of vital importance to the Americans, as all the best mackerel are taken close inshore to the very rocks. The outside fisheries would be of little importance or value to the Americans if they were kept outside the three-mile limit. It is for this reason that they have exposed themselves to so great risks in order to fish within the three miles, as they obtain so large a price for the mackerel caught inside in the fall of the year between Port Hood and Margaree, which used to bring from twenty to thirty dollars per barrel, 7. The Americans do great injury to our boat fishery by running iu and "lee-bowing" the boats and taking away the fish from them into deep water by throwing bait. Their system of trawling for codfish tends to destroy the mother fish which are lying on the bottom iu a kind of stupid state just before they spawn. S. The privilege of landing aiul drying their seines and nets and curing their fish is of great importance to the American fishermen. !). It is also a valuable privilege to the Americans to be allowed to land and transship, or store their cargoes, by which means they are en- abled to make three or four trips to the Gulf of St. Lawreuce if the fish \ AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1161 supplies, i'roin the irosecute 'he nuin- s ranged aail, the Che prin. summer t Island, ;raita, off le Seven ["oni East ipe Saint >o Breton ound our B herring as Green- lay Saint lie winter tla^^dalen n vessels. 5(1 barrels 5 from six ; latterly ken. I valers by f the boat ishery by in some )wn over- I our tisb- Bater por- tishin<; js are all wliug for vilege of ice to the the very value to It is for iu order e for the lood and er barrel, unniug in hem into codtisli torn iu a nets and 1 men. Uowed to ;| are en- f the fish Ure plenty, whereas they conld otherwise make only one or two trips by [taking the fish home in their own bottoms each time. I 10. The trawlers for codtish v ould not prosecute their calling without lobtaining bait and other supplies on our shores ; at least not at all in a iprolitable manner. I have known them to be compelled to abandon their :ovage in consequence of not being able to procure bait on our shores. Tli'e obtaining of ice and other supplies on our coasts is also a very great advantage to the American fishingvessels on our coasts. 11. Tlie privilege of fishing in American waters is, in my opinion, of 10 practical advantage whatever to Canadians, and I never heard of any Canadian using those waters for fishing purposes. 12. In my oi)inion it would be better for Canadians to exclude the JlAniericans from the fisheries within the three-mile limit, and keep them for our own people, even if the American Government put a duty of $2 iper barrel, or any other amount of duty, on our fish. And i say that the above statements, to the best of my knowledge land belief, are true in substance and in fact. j JAMES B. HADLEY. * The said James B. Hadley was sworn to tlie truth of the above aflfi- davit, at Port Mulgrave, in the county of Guysborough, this 21th day of .luly, A. D. 1877, before me. GEO. B. HADLEY, A Justice of the Peace. No. 47. Jii the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Michael Crispo, of Harbor An Bouche, in the county of Antigo- lish and Province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been acquainted with the fisheries on our coasts for the past thirty years, during ten years of which time I was personally engaged IS a practical fisherman, and during the remainder of said time I have lealt in various kinds of fish to the extent of about $20,000 or $25,000 yearly. Up to the year 1874, 1 estimate that there were, on an average, ibout four hundred sail of American vessels engaged in the mackerel- ishery on our coasts and iu our waters each year, and that the yearly Batch up to that date would average about six hundre" "" fearly hire nets. Tn'rA'^'n [sharemen, at $175 ^'"•^?. ?,^ boy '"^ ^^ «'"■■»'" -IllVmoo Ulowed for yearly expenses, fishing room, &c 50 UO for other labor besides crew, curing Hsh, say 500 quintals at aoc 1^9 00 lastet's share as sharcmuu 175 00 1.942 00 Net gain on voyage 558 00 Oil for salt as usual. Some of the expenses fitting out is done by crew. KOllEUT S. MUNN. No. 49. Tewfoundland, ;SY. Johti's, to wit : Jiimes S. Hay ward, of St, John's aforesaid, assistant collector of Her [ajesty's customs, niaketh oatli and saith : Tbat the statement hereto luexed,* .showing the quantity and value of the products therein refer- 8d to exported and imported by the colony of Newfoundland for the Bars therein stated, viz, eighteen hundred and fifty-one to eighteen mdred and seventy-six, in and from page I to page XX inclusive, and Iso that the statements hereto annexed, niarkfd A and B,* purporting be a recapitulation of the imports from the United States and exports the United States and other countries for the yetir 1851 to the year 57G inclusive, and a statement showing the total and average imports id exports of fish and products of fish for the four years preceding le Eeciprocity Treaty, tlie twelve years under the treaty, seven years fter its abrogation, and three years under the Washington Treaty Bspectively, have been carefully examined by this deponent, and that le said statemj'nts, to the best of this deponent's knowledge and belief, iiibit a true and correct account of the several matters therein set )rth. JAMES S. HAY WARD, Assistant Collector. ; Sworn before rae, at St. John's aforesaid this nineteenth day of July, ' D. 1877. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of A ^ds. No. 50. SWFOUNDLAND, St. John''s, to wit : iJames S. Hay ward, of St. John's aforesaid, assistant collector of the istonis, maketh oath and saith that the statement annexed, marked No. [,t has been carefully examined by this deponent and he verily believes ' Appendix I. t See Annex B. attached to British case. 1166 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Ife'^^ the snmo to be correct in every particular, the same having been com- I>i)ed from the records of the customs establishment and other authentic records in this island. JAMES S. HAYVVARD, Asst. Collector, Sworn before mo, at St. John's aforesaid, this fifth day of June, A. D, 1877. J. O. FRASER, Commmioner of Ajfidavits. No. 51. Newfoundland, 1st. John'H, to tcit: The honorable James Johnstone Rogerson, of St. John's aforesaid, receiver-jzeneral and collector of customs for the island of Newfound- laud, maketli oath and saith that the annexed statement, marked A,* has been carefully examined by this deponent, and he verily believes the same to be correct in every particular as therein set forth, the siiid statement having been compiled from the records of the customs depart- ment and other authentic records of the said island. JAMES J. ROGERSON, B. 0. and C. Collector. Sworn before me, at St. John's aforesaid, this eighth day of June, A. D. 1877. JAMES O. FRASER, Commissioner of AfJs. No. 52. Newfoundland, St. John^s, to tcit : I, Joseph P. Deneff, at present in St. John's aforesaid, ajid a native of the said island, do declare that I have been for the past six years, last preceding the date hereof, engaged in prosecuting the fisheries out of the ports of Salem and (Woucester, in the United States, on the coasts of Newfoundland, of the Dominion of Canada, and on the Bunks in the deep sea ; that I am of opinion that it will be of the greatest impor- tance to American fishermen to be enabled to get the bait necessary for the Bank fisheries in Newfoundland; that this benefit can hardly be overestimated; that there will be, during the current season, upwards of two hundred American vessels in Fortune Bay for bait, and that there will be upwards of three hundred vessels which are engaged iii the Grand Bank fisheries belonging to the United States, to which it will be of the greatest advantage to run into Newfoundland for bait of different kinds, and they would probably make about four trips during the season ; that caplin is among the best bait which can be used for this fishery', and vessels would probably be enabled to make two trips during the ca|)lin season ; that this declarant is of opinion, from his ex- perience, that the Bank fisheries are capable of immense expansion and dev^elopment, and that the privilege of getting bait on the Newfound- land coast is indispensable to accomplish this object; that a vessel of from seventy to ninety tons would take about one hundred barrels of caplin each trip. JOSEPH P. DENEFF, Master of the schr. John Smithy of Oloncester, Mass.., U. S. * See Annex D, attached to British case. M AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1167 been com- r autheutic RD, Uolleetor, uiie, A. D. »ER, [^.davits. aforesaid, Newfound- iarke! besides Gloucester, but not to so large an extent. The average catch per vessel on the Hanks will be two thousand five hundred quintals codfish, the value of which will bo about twelve thousand dollars to the owner. The resnlt of my last year's operations is as follows: Total catch, thirty-seven hundred quintals for the season — three bank ing 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 thou- sand dollars. The owner derives a consideral)le profit also from llie difference between the prices he allows the crews for tlieir share of 1\>k and what it is worth to him in the market, by whicb he would gain on the quantity above stated about eighteen hundred dollars. The owner, in uiy case above cited, settled with the crew at two dollars and seventy- five cents per quintal as weighed out of the vessel, the market value of which fish when cured was four dollars eighty cents per quintal — tlie loss in weight, which is very trifling, and labor in curing would not co.-it more than one dollar per quintal. Each United States fishing- vessel will make from three to five trips to the Newfoundland coast for Ixvit during the season. Each vessel takes from sixty to eighty barrels of the bait in season per bait trip. At the time when caplin first striko the shores of Newfoundland there is no bait equal to it in the quantity of fish taken by it, and this bait is peculiar to Newfoundlaui. Capllii keep longer fresh in ice than any other bait we know of. jiuriiig the last three years there has been a marked sc.irclty of squid j on the Great Banks, where formerly an ample supply of squid was pro- cured for baiting purposes, but latterly has been found wholly insulll- cient, and consequently the importance of having Newfoundland as a| basis for bait supply is materially enhanced. In illustration of the result of a season's Bank-fishery operations iul two vessels similarly outfitted and alike in all respects, both fitting out from Gloucester, one having the privileges conferred by the Washington Treaty, the other without these priviljges, I am of opiniin that the latter would only accomplish one voyage or trip during the season, | whilst the former would accomplish three voyages or trips. I am gen- erally well acquainted with the bait supply along the Newfoundlaui I coasts, and know that there has always been procured a sufliciency for tiie purposes of United States fishing vessels, and ice can always Lej obtained along the coast. I know of two United States vessels that fished for codfish inside tlie| Keys, Sr. Mary's, that is on the inshore ground. I fished there mvsclf. WM. H. MOLLOY. Sworn before me, at St. John's, N. ¥., this 24th of May, 1377. J. O. FKASER, Cotnmissioner of Affidavits, No. 54. George Rose, aged 54 years, maketh oath and saith, that he resides! at Little Bay, in Fortune Bay, fisherman. I have becouie acquainted! with the Newfoundland fisheries oy following the same for forty years. I have observed United States fishing vessels in this neighborhood;! about twenty this yhich they purchase because [tliey can purchase cheaper than they can catch. American fishermen I do refit, their vessels as required on their visits to these parts. I do think that the supply of fresh bait to the Americans, who fish in Slargo numbers on the Banks oflE our coast, lielps greatly to shorten the |catoli of our local fishermen, and that the short catch on our south- western shores this summer has been caused by the extra Jiumber of lAmericans thus engaged. My opinion is that the Americans do more lliarin to us in this way than the French. We can see the difference liiiarked by the facts of this year and last. I estimate that there are about 200,000 barrels of herrings annually suppUed the French at St. Pierre from .us bay ; the value of this bait would be 1,000,000 francs. In addition to this they take caplin and ^qiiids, the value of which I am unacquainted with. There are several ice-houses in this neighborhood. American fishing- vessels, I know, avail of these for the preservation of bait, but I cannot jsay to what extent. I am informed that a larger number of American fessels will next year visit these parts for bait and ice, for which, I Imderstand, arrangements have been made between American capt.iius tind residents on these shores. GEORGE ROSE. iiSworn to before me, at Jersey Harbor, Fortune Bay, this 4th]S[ovem- ber, 1876. J. O. ERASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 55. John Evanb, aged 43 years, fisherman, residing at English Harbor, ['oi'tmie Bay, N. F., nuiketh oath and saith that. — I know the fisheries of Newfoundland by following the same for thirty lears. 1 have seen United States fishing-vessels iu this neighborhood. large fleet of such vessels frequent th?se parts for bait. 1 should say ol less than one hundred sail. These \ essels run from about 00 to 100 bus; they came liere to purchase bait and did purchase bait. I have bill bait to United States iibbing vessels, and have bai<^ed altogether pe seven or eight vessels, the price being about tweu y-fivo dollars jer vessel for each vessel for from 30 to 70 barrels of birring. New- |ui!dl'ind fishermen catch fish within three miles of the shore. T c (ewfoundland fishery is an inshore fishery. The caplin, herring, and |nid fisheries are inshore fisheries, being taken iu the coves and harbore the coasts. 1 do not know of a Newfoundland fishing- vessel having 74 F 1170 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. !:S"' been on a flshiug-voyage on the United States coasts. I don't know whether United States fishermen have sold any small flsh or other flsb ery produce in this neighborhood. Ajout thirty American vessels frequent Fortune Bay in winter for her- rings ; they purchase these herrings from the residents, an en avail d; it I camm imes ever; EVANS, ovember 5. 5ER, iJfidaviU. BelloraK, Iviug proM'^ liug-vci'sdi ■''-' ^ Amei'it'i>- Iby our tisi!| jit herrings i see oueliali ted this b!. [lowing : ^^ stle, IMagu (HodgcsoB ig* [ister), Huti a [•oi.ho'i. w jvinceloffs ive solil bfl how mucB 'three mitei lof the shore; the Newfoundland fisheries are all inshore except the seal :flslu'rv. Caplin. herrings, and squids are talien in the coves close to lithe sliorf. No Newfoundland vessels that I have heard tell of or know "^anvthing al»out, go fishing on any of the coasts of the United States of A-iiierica inshore. American fishermen have this year sold what they Ball small codfish to our people, who did not consider such fish small. 1 iu\ not infornietl as to what quantity was sold and purchased, nor what jricps were paid. American fishing- vessels are accaslomed to refit in this neighborhood rhen necessary. There are between 2.")0 and .'iOO schooners catching )ait in this bay to supply French bankers at St. Pierre; the average luantity of bait supplied by each schooner would be about one hundred )arrels herrings ; they frequently have 400 and 500, and they make each from two to four trips. The tpiantity of caplin sup|)lied to the French jy the schooners referred to l)y me would be about two hundred hhds. lor each schooner. The price paid for herrings thus supplied the French raries from two to thirty francs per barrel, ten francs being a fair aver- Ige; for caplin, tlie average would be about ten francos per hlid. There jkre in this neighborhood great conveniences for preserving ice, which llbounds on the ponds close to the salt water; five such ice-houses are greeted in this bay which are used to preserve ice tV)r sale to American aislM'nnen, who largely avail of the same for the preservation of fresh ^ait i>urchused from our fishermen. The number of American fishermen feiitienting these quarters we expect will Ix^ largely increased. JOHN ROSE. Sworn before me, at Belloi-am, this sixth day of November, A. D. 187G. J. O. FRASEK, Cotnmissioner of Alfidavits. No. 57. riiiLiP FIuBERT, aged 40 .>'^'ars, subcollector H. M. customs, residing Harbor Breton, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : That I have come acquainted with the Newfoundland fisheries by a residence in c country for twenty-three years and an immediate connection with e fisheries of Newfoundland during all that time. I have observed United States fishing-vessels in this neighborhood. st December the following vessels entered at the customs to enable 111 to sell \yjvt cargo, they being engaged on a voyage for the pur- ase of fro;;ei! lierrings in Fortune Bay, viz : S. 11. Lane, li tons, S. Jacobs, master, Gloucester; General Grant, tons, Jaiuts Bowel, master, Gloucester ; Landseer, 99 tons, P. Mal- y, master, Gloucester ; JNIary M., 101 tons, M. B. Murray, master, lOucester ; Crown Point, 103 tons, W. H. Burne, master, Newbury- >rt. 1 believe there have been ful'y ot ''• udred and fifty United tt's fishing-vessels in this bay durin,( th (»at summer. II tlie fall of 1874 and beginning of L875, I find that twelves United tes vessels entered at this port, being engaged on a voyage for the [Tcliase of frozen herrings. he United States vessels referred to by me as in this bay the present iner cauie to purchase bait. Not one of these vessels entered at the items at Harbor Breton. I am of opinion that two-thirds of these sels have not entered at any customs office in Newfoundland, nor [d liglit-dues. Tii^^se vessels came into this bay to purchase bait. le vessel had a seine intending to haul bait, but found it less trouble " nrciiase. uited States fishing-vessels have fished about Pass Island, and for- IB' Mil m 1172 AWAED OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. merly made good catches there. Captain Jncobs, of schooner , is said to have been offered nine thousand dollars for his load taken about ^^ Pass Island. American flshingvessels fishing off and about Pass Island ^H Gkobge fished for halibut and codfish, but chicHy for halibut. My estimate of ^H St. .lacquci the value of their catch is at least equal to ten thousand dollars per an- H| That the st; num, and such fishery was conducted exclusively within three miles of ^H vessels loai our shores. Newfoundlsind fishermen catch their " voyage " within three ^H tuue Bay, 1 miles of our shores, generally about one or two miles from the shore, ^h statem rit ii The Newfoundland fisheries are peculiarly inshore fisheries. ^B vessels v'isi Caplin, herrings, and squid used for bait are always taken inshore, ^H neigliborhoi generally in the oves and harbors along our coasts. ^B I am awa I never heard tt^l of a Newfoundland fishing-vessel that prosecuted ^B to those iiai the fishery on the coasts of the United States of America. ^M ing the pai American fishermen have sold small codfish in this bay ; some vessels |H Eiait was pu sold one hundred quintals, the price ranging from seven to ten shillings ^M fishermen, per cwt., green. ^H these parts From thirty to forty American vessels frequent Fortune Bay in win IB fishing seas ter for the purchase of frozen herrings; they always purchase. The ^B means to en average quantity of frozen herrings taken by each vessel will be from five to eight hundred barrels. ^m g^^oru bef American fishermen do not now fish for halibut about Pass Island asHf veniber A. ] they formerly did, because I believe that that fishery has been exhausted ^^ by the Americans. I know of no United States fishing- vessels fishing within three miles of the shore except at and about Pass Island, as al ready stated. |g statement of Am American fishing- vessels do avail of the privilege to refit their ves F^ sels in this bay when they come from the Banks. I have not heard of American fishing- vessels transshipping cargo iu a^p i^amc of Newfoundland port. The supply of bait to United States fishermen has decreased the siiiv^^ ply of bait to our local fishermen. There is not the least doubt but ^BcoS "stoker! that the presence of so large a number of American vessels fishing on ^H|^'j|Y" the Banks off our coasts, well supplied with fresh bait, largely i n ter- BBoutario"."'! ..■.■;;;.■ feres with and reduces the catch of our local fishermen, and i am of ^B^^^'iJ*^ opinion that tbe scarcity of fish along our southwest coast this summer^BBtii.tuphoiV,'.."..! has been mainly caused by the United States fishing-vessels fishing ODBBH."M™}!",;,;rs;;;;" the outer Banks. The quantity of bait annually sent to St. Peters fromHH^- ,i^- ,|^''"^'"'"i • • •' • Fortune Bay I estimate as follows : |B ^^. k mc umi "u ; ." ; About thirty thousand barrels herrings and about ten thousand liogs-|Bf.^™"';^';'|^^-_; heads caplin. The quantity of squid supplied the French I caiiuotH|j h sawyor..!!! '''^"'*'' ^■iharlos ('. Wan en The value would be about sixteen thousand pounds, annually, for bait^«Jf''i'=' >' 'iiant ... supplied the French. ■cln.'a ".':';'.':.:;; There are five or six icehouses in this neighborhood where ice is^Bj*"',!,'"*!: y^- stored for sale to the Americans to preserve fresh bait. ^Bioro'cMi'le'"'*'^ "" American fishing-vessels each make two and three trips to the Rii"k9|^Bw™vE ,'1^1,,,);;," and take each trip from forty to sixty barrels fresh herrings per vessel^Bciiarie-l i' TUompsn for which they pay from fifty to one liundred cents per barrel. These^BBoM^f,"^" '•■ • American fishing-vessels take each from three to five tons ice per trii» for^K<^"] '''"ckiTidRo ! preservation of their bait, for which they pay three and one-half .4 i 10 IS I IS 1.5 I 20 j 25 ; 25 I 29 I 29 29 I 31 I 31 ! 31 31 31 June 1 4 4 4 5 8 8 9 10 10 16 16 16 21 24 26 26 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 W.T.Smith J. P. Whitiiiau Moio(!astlo Grace C. Hartley Tragnbizniula Edw. E. Webster Graoe L. Fears Elisba Cinwell AV. E. McDoiiell Proctor Bros Ik'lleropboii Ocean lielle Mary Carlylo J. P. Whitman Grace C. i laiiley Josepliiiio Edw. E. Wol)8tor . . . . Viliing N.H.Philips 'J. W. Hoberts Eben Parsons Martha C Elisba Crowell Cliarles P. Thorapson. Laura Nelson Moses Adams iYauk A. Williams... Lizzie B. Knight Herman Babsuu Bunker Hill W.E.MoDonell An^ns Webster Saunders ... Daniel Wel)8tcr J. P. Whitman N. H.Phiris Frank A. >v'illinni8. . . Lizzie B. Knight Henry L. Philips Triton Barracouta Isaac Patch A.ia K. Uymond John F. I'resson Steriing Peter I). Smith ^lagic Owners. Daniel Sayard . C. D. Pittincale >fc Co. J. Warren Wonson... U. Nate, part owner. . . W.MoDonellf. Harvey Knowlton .... Addison, Sett & Co... William M. Fleet C. D. Pittingalo &Co. Charles Nate William McDouell . J. W. Bradley , Babson &. Co . VV'. McDoneii '. AV. McDonell . Master. Char'es Keen .Tames McDonald . .. Loven Nans Edwin Hall William Mnlloy Charles Nate K. McDmiald AVilliam Wells AVilliamJMeDonell.. Edw. Trevoy . . . Goodwin Jno. Thompson AV. H. (Jreenleaf .... J. McDonald Edwin Hall AVilson ("harlcs Xato Ed. StapU'tiin AV. McDonoU P. Couolly Charles Dagle Charles Martin AVilliam AVells William Hall J. Anderson Hugh A. Lyons AV. E. Morrisoy Charles Lawsou J.MoDoncll W. McDonell Kelly Matthew McDonnell. A. AVilkinson J. McDonell W. McDoner Hugh A. Ly.ins AV. E. Morrisey George H. Curtis. - J. Newbury F. Carrol Ed. AValters Charles Ciew J. Boen Daniel McFayden E. M. McLaren g ri 82 94 H9 H7 68 99 t'S 67 98 77 H5 67 66 94 67 50 99 73 66 73 91 79 67 73 89 100 66 100 100 98 83 75 60 94 66 66 68 64 71 tiS 72 94 92 62 09 67 From whence. Gloucester. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Bevtirly, Mo. Gloucester. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Marble Head Gloucester. Do. Do. Do. Do. Rockport, Me. Gloucester. Do. Do. Marble Heiitl Gloucester. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. GEO. T. R. SNELLGROVE, Subcollector. Sworu before me at St. Jacques, Fortune Bay, N. F., this sixth daj of November, 1876. J. O. ERASER, Commissioner A^davits. three to tive fer and lose i of wiiich the,' iially employ uow at St. Ja she will carrj the general oj States A'essels very few yeai Sworn befc this 23d of Mi AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1175 >^. 59. Personally appeared before me, Philip Hubert, esq.. Stipendiary Magistr.ato at Harbor Breton, Fortune Bay, this twenty-third day of Miiy. one thonsand eight hnndred and seveuty-seven, Mr. Henry GiovANNiNNi, of llencontre, Fortune Bay, merchant, who upon oath voluntarily saith : I have been carrying on trade iu Newfoundland over twenty years. My business calls me to many harbors alotig the coast, principally from Cape La Huue to Cape Chapeau Rouge. I have occasion to transact some business with United States vessels very often. I can affirm that at least twenty-five United States vessels shipped herrings, mostly in a frozen state, from first of January to last of February of present year (some of them ma«le two trips during that time), from Fortune Bay for ports in United States ; they each carry from 400 to (500 barrels of her- ring when frozen, and from 800 to 1,U00 barrels when salted. Since last of April to present date at least thirty United States fishing-vessels bave arrived in Fortune Bay for bait (herring) and ice for their own use. Some have already made two trips to the Banks, and are making five trips ; each vessel takes from 30 to aO barrels bait each tri[), and from three to five tons of ice. 1 can ailirm that our (English) fishermen suf- fer and lose much for the want of bait in the summer season, the cause of which they attribute to the large uumbers of seines which are contin- ually employed hauling for those vessels. One United States vessel, now at St. Jacques, Fortune Bay, is shipping herring for United States; she will carry 0,500 barrels when loaded. 1 am able to state that it is tlie general opinion in Fortune Bay that if the usual numbers of United States vessels continue to draw on Fortune Bay for their bait, that iu a very few years there will be none, either for our fishermen or them. HENRY GIOVANNINNI. Sworn before me, at Harbor Bret m, Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, this 23d of May, 1877. PHILIP HUBERT, Stipendiary Magistrate. No. 60. James Philip Snook, aged 29 years, preventive officer, residing at Fortune, in the district of I3urin, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith that— 1 have observed a number of United States fishing vessels in this neighborhood and its proximities, probably from sixty to seventy, during the past summer. I can only name a few of these vessels. (See paper marked Fortune A.) The vessels named in paper marked Fortune A, vith P before their names, deuotes that these vessels paid light dues ; ti ose marked G denotes that these vessels paid light dues elsewhere ; those marked O deuotes that these vessels did not pay light dues, they refusing to do so ; the master of Gertie F. Foster — Campbell by name — especially, was very abusive and violent, he not only refusing to pay his light money, but also counseling the master ot the schooner Victor and t David M. Hilton not to pay their light dues. These vessels all came into this bay to purchase fresh bait, and they (lid procure such bait. My visit to some of these United States vessels I was on the occasion of their second trip from the Banks, tliey not hav- I ing come on this side of the bay on their first trip. United States fishing vessels have fished on the inshore fishing- 1176 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. m grouiuls, but I cannot give particulars further tlian that I have seen them so fishing off Danzig Cove, near South Point of Fortune Jiay. I estimate the bait annually sold at St. Pierre, by fishermen of this harbor, to be as follows: 5,000 barrels herrings, valued at 10,000 francs; 10,000 liogsheadscaplin, valued at 60,000 frauds. Besides this there is au average destruction of herrings — thrown overboard — annually, of about ten thousand barrels herrings, being found unsalable at St. JAMES P. SNOOK, Preventive Officer, Fortune, Neicfoundland. Sworu before me, at Fortune, Newfoundland, this 27th November, 1876. J. O. FEASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. Fortune A. Names of vesaek of the United States of America in Fortune Bay fur the purchase of fresh bait, boarded by me. Names. Masters. Tons. Where belonging. 0. W. F. Foye r.AV.Sraith 70 G. SyRDot .1 G, Proctor Urothors do Do. G. Lizzie «. Kniglit do Do. G. Frauk A, Williams do Do. 0. Joshua S. Sanbourne do Do. P. AVacliusott Zad Hawkins 79 Unknown. Gloucester. 0. Goorue W, Stetson Do. O. Gertie P Forstor Do. 0. Victor Nat 70 66 90 69 74 63 68 71 Do. O. D.ivid M. Hilton Do. P, Chester li. Lawranco JanioH McDonaUl Do. 0. (iail Hamilton M. StoptiODH Do. Do. O. Mary Carlisle "Will. Grimleth Do. G. Uurracouta John Newbury Do. G. Triton G.W. Curtis Do. JAMES P. SNOOK, Preventative Officer, Fortune, Xewfoundland. Sworn before me, at Fortune, Newfoundland, this 37th November, 1S76. No. Gl. J. O. FEASER, CommUiioner of Affidaviti. William George Bennett, fisherman, aged 26 years, residing at Fortune, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith that — I have become acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by being actively engaged in their prosecution since I was sixteen years of age. I have seen United States fishing-vessels passing this neighborhood, going up Fortune Bay and elsewhere. The number seen by me the past summer was over thirty, but I do not know their names. These vessels came into the bay to purchase fresh herrings for bait, which they pro- cured. Our crew baited one of these vessels this summer; last summer we baited three. Each vessel took twenty-five and thirty barrels her- rings, for which they paid about twenty dollars each. The Newfoundland fishery is an inshore fishery, being generally prosecuted close along shores. The caplin, herring, and squid fisheries used for bait are inshore fish- eries. I never knew of a Newfoundland vessel Laving engaged ou a fishing voyage on any of the coasts of the United States of America. There are from forty to fifty American vessels frequenting Fortune Bay in winter, for the purchase of fresh herring to freeze, and when frozen AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1177 to be freighted by these American vessels to the United States. Ameri- cfiii^* ]»iirchase these herrings from our people. I believe the supply of bait to United States vessels decreases the supply of bait to our local fishermen. I believe that if the practice now being pursued of " bar- riii<;" large quantities of herrings to be sold as bait to United States is suttered to be continued that the supply of bait to fishermen in this bay will speedily be destroyed. 1 do not doubt but that the large number of United States vessels fisliiiig on the Banks, with fresh bait, tends greatly to reduce the catch of our people along shore, iud if continued, as at present, will starve local llshermen. I believe that the short catch by our people the past summer along our southwest coasts is chiefly caused by Americans flsh- iug on the outer Banks as aforesaid. Signed by his mark, he having sore thumb. bis WM. GEORGE + BENNETT. mark. Sworn before me, at Fortune, this 27th day of November, 1876. J. O. FKASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No 03. Samuel George Hickman, aged 36 years, planter, residing at Grand [Bank, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith that — I am acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by being a fish- lerman myself the past twenty-five years. I have annually observed lUiiited States fishing-vessels in this bay, but especially last year, when [there were about three hundred of such vessels in the bay ; I name jaraong these, Lizzie V. Knight, William Morrissey, master ; Proctor Bros., Edward Trevoy, master, and a large number of others too numerous to ielay naming, my time being fully occupied. These vessels came into this bay to purchase fresh herrings for bait, vbich they purchased from our fishermen. I have sold United States pessels fresh bait; I have, with others under me, supplied over a hun- ired United States vessels with bait from first to last ; each vessel would ke about 40 to GO barrels, for which they would pay from $20 to $30. I have seen our shore surrounded by American fishermen fishing for halibut and codfish, but cannot say that all these vessels were inside ^ll^ee miles of a line from headland to headland. I have frequently seen Juited States vessels fishing between Pass Island and Brunette Island ; some instances these vessels have been fishing up the bay among the klifts. I cannot speak of the quantity or value of their catches, but I do ^iiow that they destroyed the halibut fishery about Pass Island, and wgelv damaged the cod fishery of Fortune Bay. One of their captains old me "it was no use for our fishermen to go fishing after United Ptates fishermen." isewfouiidland fishermen catch codfish generally within two miles of lie shore, there being exceptional places and instances where they go rem six to nine miles oflt" the coast. The caplin, herring, and squid — bed for bait — are inshore fisheries, being taken in coves and harbors ^ong the coasts, and for such purposes are never prosecuted outside iree miles. I uever knew of a United States vessel prosecuting a fishing voyage iniy of their coasts. I believe United States fishermen do sell codfish 1178 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. •Ill!fc iti this neighborhood to onr people, soinetirnos jit St. Pierre, and some- times in the harbors of the bay. From forty to fifty United States vessels regiUarly visit Fortune Way in winter to purchase herrings for freezing ; they have always purcluiseil their hiad of herrings except wlien prevented by ice in the bay ; their load runs from six hundred to seven hundred barrels each, for whi(!h they pay our fishermen nominally one dollar, but allowing for measure exacted, seventy-five cents i>er barrel will be a fair average of the price paid. These Americans have not cauffht any herrings as yet, because the people of the bay would thereby bo annoyed, and because Ameri- cans can purchase cheaper than cost of catching by themselves. 1 do not know of Americans fishing for turbot in this niMghborhood. I am certain that the supply of bait to United States fishermen has de- creased the supply of bait to our lo(!al fishermen. [ estimate there are eighty herring seines belonging to this bay engaged in hauling bait for the Americans, and that fully eighty seines belonging elsewhere are also engaged in the same service. Bait for Americans commences to be hauled about 1st to 10th of May, and ends in August. Atuerican vessels come in from the Banks once every fortnight or three weeks, and take fresh bait, averaging from forty to sixty barrels herrings. During the baiting season as aforesai ^W^ >" ^w ^ ^ ^^' % m 'w '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^ ,\ iff <^ o^ '%'' fc 1180 AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. From forty to fifty American vessels freqaent Fortune Bay in winter for herrings to freoze, and freight to Gltmcester, New York, and Boston; these herrings thuy always pnrchase from our people. Americans do not fish off Pass Island, they ha iring exhausted that fishery. American fishing vessels have been seen fishing off Gape 8t. Mary's ; I have not seen any fishing in this neigh trarhooil. The supply of bait to United States flshernen shortens the supply of bait to our local fishermen. I am of decided opinion that the large number of United States vessels fishing on the Banks off our coasts shortens the catch of our local fishermen, as these Americans are well supplied with fresh bait which attracts the fish to the ground where United States fishermen fish. It has been remarked that when the great boily of American vessels leave the Banks in the fall of the year then the fish becomes more abundant than before. I am of opinion that the scarcity of fish the past summer along our southwest coasts is owing to United States fishermen fishing on tlie Banks of our coasts. JAMES REEVES. Sworn before me at St. Lawrence this fifth day of December, 1876. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 65. Hugh Vayasseub, aged 60 years, preventive oflScer, residing at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith that — I have resided at St. Lawrence during the past thirty-six years, dur- ing all which time and for ten years previously at Gaultois and Harbor Breton. I was closely connected with the fisheries of this country. I hive seen a number of United States fishing-vessels in this neighbor- hood. I can only give particulars of the following, viz: Sworn before Maine. Master. 1876. EmeBt F. Norwood Gertie Lewis CMTieS. Dagle.. . 187.1. Traort. It is quite certain that the supply of bait to (Jnited States fishermen decreases the supply of bait to our local fish- ermen. I am well aware that the presence of the large number of United States fishermen fishing on the outer banks off our coasts well supplied with fresh bait greatly interferes with and reduces the catch of our local fisliermen. Codfish strike our shores in quest of bait; and if >^hey meet tresh bait on the banks they will not pass it, but will remain there as long as fresh bait is to be had. I do think that the scarcity of codfish along our south and southwest coasts the past sum- mer has been caused by Americans fishing on the outer Banks. Pre- vious to the last three years the average catch of codfish in this harbor was eighty qtls per man ; duriug the last two years it has not exceeded twenty qtls. per mun. The quantity of bait annually exported by craft belonging to St. Lawrence and Lawn will average three thousand hhd., for which the average price would be twenty-four thousand francs ; and herrings taken in Fortune Bay by these same craft will average three thousand barrels herrings, realizing eighteen thousand francs. There are no ice-houses at this harbor for the preservation of fish -bait. HUGU VAVASSEUK, Preventive Officer, Sworn before me, at St. Lawrence, this fifth day Dec, 1376. J. O. FRASER, Commisaiotier of Affidavits. No. Go. Thomas Winter, aged Gl years, subcollector H. M. customs, reshling at Burin, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : I am iicquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland, by observation, during a residence in this district for upward of twelve years. I have observed a large number of (Jnited States fishermen in this ueighborhood, about sixty in 1875 and twelve or thirteen the past sum- mer. Of those in this ueighborhood in 187G I can name the following, viz : Name. Gleanwr , tputarr Davi.l W. miton Mwaaaoit Mary Carlyle VikluB.... AiMiaou Center . . Mi4 Uorrn Castle Master. Lyons R.C. Grand I'inkbain (iormau Greenleaf E. Stapleton James Janiioson . MoCarty Tonnage. 63 70 59 73 66 73 74 89 Whore beloDKing. Kast Oloacester. Uloucuster. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. These vessels came here for ice and bait. Every United States vessel calling in this ueighborhood systemati- Ically arranged to avoid the customs authorities, and their captains and 1182 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. crews are generally most iiisultiog and offensive to the officers who visit theui, the captains outrageou;;ly so. Without sufficient force it is wholly impossible to enforce an observance of the customs laws by United States fishing-vessels frequenting these coasts. The light-dues paid here by United States vessels is generally paid by orders. In one instance they have sold fishery prcnluce for cash, which they said they required to purchase bait. T. WINTER, SubcoHector. Sworn before nie at Burin, N. F., this 8th day of December, 1876. J. O. FRASER, Comm mioner of Affidavits, No. 67. Philip Pine, aged 35 years, planter, residing at Burin Bay, New- foundland, raaketh oath and saith : I am acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by following the same and supplying therefor since I was seventeen jrc-r«?s-ef age. I have observed a great number of United States fishing-vessels in this neighborhood, there being as many as forty sail here at one time. These vessels came here for bait and for ice, which they procured by purchasing from our people, it being stated that in some instances their crews mixed with our people in hauling bait. These United States fish- ermen sometimes jig squids for themselves; I have seen them doing so at jigging-coves in this neighborhood. The past year I supplied ice to about forty United States vessels, the quantity being from two tons to five ; in all, I supplied over one hun- dred tons. The year previous, the number of United States vessels in this neighborhood was larger than the year past, and the quantity of ice taken was greater. I can only name the following captains aud vessels among those here last year : Master. White Fawn Nicklesou. YoBsel forgotteu Lowe. Yetisel forgotten Cauipbell. Flying Scud Fair Sailer Veasel not named Hennessey Vessel not named Hall. Yessel not named O'Urieu. C. F. Butler P. L. Whitten G.J. Tar In 1876 I suppled ice tu the following United States vessels, amoug others : Schooner Haywood Captain Grcenleaf. Schooner Glina Captain Lyons. Schooner Captain Noss. Schooner Captain Gorman. Schooner Captain Grant. Schooner Captain Thompson. Schooner Captain Pinkaoi. Schooner Captain Kelly. Schooner Captain Trevoy. Schooner Cnptain Garden. Schooner Captain Lennox. Schooner J. Jamison, or Captain J. Jamison- Schooner £. H. Nickloson AWAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1183 These particular are merely memorandutna from my uotubook, made wbcu the captaius of tkeae UnitMl States vuMselH ordered ice or were supplied therewith ; I kept uo particular register. Newfouudland flshermeu (;euerally catch codtish withiu two miles of the shore ; the Newfouudlaiid fishery is au inshore fishery. The capliu, herriug, and squids, used for bait, are takeu along shores only, and are never taken at a distance of three miles ofi', except iu isolated instances, when fishermen belonging to this neighborhood have taken squids on Burin Bank. I never heard of a Newfoundland vessel having engaged in prosecut- ing a fishing-voyage on any of the coasts of the United States of America. I believe United States fishermen have sold small fish in this neighbor- IkkmI, but I cannot state as to quantity. United States vessels do refit in this neighborhood. I have had a draft for cost of outfit to them by myself. The supply of bait to United States fishermen by our people tends to decrease the supply of bait to our own people; an instance occurred last season at Corbin Island Cove in the last of the caplin, when a joint crew of Americans and our people "thrashed" the cove for the Americans, leaving our own people without bait and idle in consequence, which resulted in great loss to them. 1 believe that the presence of the large number of United States fishermen fishing on the Banks .oft' our coasts, and well supplied as they are with fresh bait, greatly reduces the catch of our local fishermen, and am of opinion that the short catch of codfish the past summer along our south and west coasts has been caused by the "bleeding process" of the Americans on the Banks oft' our coasts. PHILIP PINE. Sworn before me at Burin Bay this eighth day of December, 1876. J. O. FRASER, Comnmaioner of Affidavits. No. 68. William Collins, aged forty-two years, planter, residing at Burin, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith that — I have become acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by being engaged in theii prosecution since I was fourteen years of age. I have observed a number of United States vessels in this neighbor- hood ; there were upwards of twenty this year ; last year there were apwards of 40 ; the difference between the two years, I believe, is owing to the fact that this year a larger number of these vessels went Into I harbors along the southern coast for bait. This year, at Cape St. Mary's, two or three American fishing- vessels I came in and took fresh caplin for bait, which they purchased. I have not seen them otherwise fishing. Newfoundland fishermen generally catch codfish within one and two I miles from the shore. The Newfoundland fishery is au inshore fishery. The caplin, herring, and squid used for bait are all inshore fisheries, taken in coves close to land. I never heard of a Newfoundland vessel or crew engaging in a fishing voyage on any of the coasts of the United I States of America. American fishermen do sometimes fish on the inshore fishing-ground I off Cape St. Mary's. I have seen as many as three of these vessels fish- I ing there. I do consider that the supply of bait to United States fishermen de- 1184 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. creases the sapply of bait to our local flshorinen. They eDgago oar people, who sweep the coves, and frequently leave nothing behind thuni. I believe that the presence of the large number of Lnited States von- sels Ashing on the Banks off our coasts, and supplied with fresh bait, greatly interferes with and reduces the catch of our local flshermeu ; and that the short catch of codfish the past summer along our south and west coast is owing chiefly to their operations. The quantity of bait sent; to St. Pierre from this harbor is small, but there are thirty cratt en .faged in supplying bait to the French — chiefly from Fortune Bay, fro n where some 15,000 barrels herrings are taken to St. Pierre by vessels of this harbor; the value of this bait would be about thirty thousand francs; a third of the above quantity annually is thrown over- board, b( ing unsalable at St. Pierre in seasons of abundance. There is one ice-house at this harbor where ice is kept principally, and almost exclusively, for sale to [Jnited States vessels for the preservation of fresh bait. A number of United States vessels did purchase ice at this harbor the past season, but I cannot give particulars. WILLIAM COLLINS. Sworn before me at Burin this sixth day of December, A. D., 1876. J. O. FRASEK, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 69. l;l !li Owen Pine, aged 67 years, planter, residing at Burin Bay or Inlet, Newfoundland, maket oath and saith that — I have become acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by fol- lowing the same in all its branches, since I was fourteen years of age. I have seen from ten to fifteen (Jnited States fishing-vessels at a tiuie in this neighborhood. They came for bait and ice, which they purchase in general. I have seen them catch bait for themselves iu our harbors. I believe the supply of bait to United States fishermen decreases the supply to our local fishermen. I am clearly of opinion that United States fishermen on the Banks off our coasts, supplied with fresh bait, greatly reduces the catch of cod- fish by our local fishermen, and believe that the short catch the past summer along our south and west coasts is mainly owing to their pres- ence on the outer Banks off our coasts. We know that they line the Banks facing these shores, with fresh bait, and that while coufish can get such bait on the Banks they will not pass toward our shores in quest of what they can get on the Banks. The increase of American fishermen on the Banks has been remarkable by a decrease of codtish along our shores. OWEN PINE. Sworn before me at Burin Bay, N. F., the 8th December, 187G. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 70. " Richard Paul, aged 40 years, fisherman, residing at Burin Bay, | Newfoundland, making oath and saith : I know the fisheries of Newfoundland by having prosecuted the same | for over 25 years. I have observed a number of United States flsbiug- vessels in this neighborhood ; they are all the time passing backward I AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1185 and forward ; over seventy Rail of tlie^e vessels passed tbis neighbor- bumi the past seasons. Not being particularly connected with these veiiselH, I took no note of their names. 1 know they came to purchase ice and bait and jig-squids, wlieu they could. I have seen them many times taking stjuids in the coves close to shore, within one-eighth mile of the shore. These vessels were supplied with ice and with bait when to be had. Excepting squid bait, they purchase other bait from our people, and in part, also, they purchase squid bait when they cannot catcli (Miough for themselves. Newfoundland fishermen generally catch codfish within two miles of the shores, beyond which distances catches are exceptional. The caplin, herring, and squid used for bait are all inshore fisheries, taken almost solely in the coves close to shore. I never board of a Newfoundland vessel engaged on a fishing voyage on any of the coasts (inshore or within three miles) of the United States of America. American fishermen have sold fish and oil in tbis neighborhood. I only know of their selling thirty-seven quintals at 7«. ])er quintal, and seventy gallons cod oil at half a dollar. I understand from their state- uients the past season, that hereafter they intend to sell to our i)eople all the codfish they catch under twenty-two inches in length. I aiu of opinion that the supply of bait to United States fishermen decreases the supply of bait to our local tisbermeu. lam of decided I upiniou that the presence of the large number of United States fishing- vessels, well supplied as they are with fresh bait, fishing on the Banks |olf our coasts, interferes with and tends greatly to reduce the catch of i our local fishermen. Americans on the Banks are known to fish part of the Great Bank, from whence the fish I our shore. When tc hear of fish plenty to always reckon on a good spurt, as fish work [island. Such has been the experience of our fishermen until United States vessels begau prosecuting the fishery on the Banks, the result of which has been to keep the fish from coming in towards our shores. We used formerly to get French books in the mouths of the fish occa- sionally; but now we frequently get American bucks instead and I'arely I A French hook — not one in ten we used to get. I am of decided opinion that the short catch the past summer along lour southwest coast has been caused principally by United States fish- imnen on the outer Banks as aforesaid. The catch of codfish by fisher- Inieu in this neighborhood, previous to the last three years, would average nifty quintals per man ; the average in 1S70 will not reach thirty quin- jtals per man. The falling o£f we can attribute to no other cause than JAmerican operations in fishing on the Banks. The supply of squids sold at Saint Pierre by fishermen from tbis neigb- Iborhood will be about five hundred thousand; the a verngo price per Itlionsand will be twenty francs. This supply to the French does little injury to the codfisbing compared to the supply of bait to the Americans, |\«bo use fresh bait, whereas the Frencih salt bait. The French gener- ally work more within a circle ; the United States vessels move about Niowiiig the fish. They have vessels acting as scouts from our shores 10 the Banks, with information as to where ice and fresh bait can be had. ItlCHAKD PAUL. Sworn before me at Burin Bay, the fifteenth day of December, 1876. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. 75 F generally on the eastern works westerly towards the eastward of us, we westerly this side of the 1186 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 71. Francis Berteau, aged 53 years, nierchaut, residing at Burin, New. | fouudlaud, maketh oath and saitU that — 1 have become acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by carry ing on the trade of the country for thirty years. I have observed from forty ta sixty United States fishing vessels in this ueifrhborhood each year during the past three years. Having liad no immediate connection with tliein I cannot name any of these vessels, 1 have not soUl any bait to them, having nothing to do with the baitj trade. United States fishing vessels have fished for codfish oflf Cape St. Mary's w^ithiu tliree miles of the shore, where, on one occasion, one of I our fishing crafts was fouled near the Bull and Calf by a United States | fishing vessel. Newfoundland fishermen catch codfish generally within two miles of I the shoi-es. The caplin, herrings, and squid fisheries used for bait are all inshore, being taken in the coves along the coasts and harbors, aud [ is never taken moi-e than three miles off. I never heard of a Newfoundland vessel engaging on a fishing voyage] on any of the coasta of the United States of America. American fishermen have sold small codfish in this neighborhood, but| 1 can't speak as to quantity. I once bought from United States fishermen three or four barrels cod | roes ; this was two years ago. Occasionally United States fisliing ves sels rc!it in this neighborhood. I have sold them provisions and wood. I do not know of their having transshipped cargo iu a Newi'oundlaud| port. The supply of bait to United States fishermen greatly decreases the I supply of bait to our own fishermen. Last summer there were abootl twenty UnitenerR would call in at Tropany from the UankH for fresb bait, and that tlieir truflic would be hurtful to our bait Hupply. Among the eaptaiuR of the United States vesfwlH at Trepnny, I remoin ber only a few — Captain Itoniter, Captain Kane, were two, but witlumt time to think I cannot re mainly attributable to their operations. Their captains last year told I me that our bait supply was of the greatest service to them ; that tlieiti vessels using fresh bait from our shores get a load in n romparativelv short time, whereas vessels alongside of them, using clams for bait, hardly get a fish. It must be, therefore, that the fresh bait supplitnl bvl us, and used by United States fishermen on the Banks, tends to rcf tain the fish on the Banks, preventing its passing in for our shores, audi thus operating against our fishermen, as does the supply of bait, whicli| has, in some instances that I have seen, left local fishermen witbouil bait to follow up their fishery. The catch of codfish by fishermen in the neighborhood of Tropanj last year was under two-thirds of former catches, and the catch by il»| Trepany fishermen was greater than any other part of the soutbeitl shore. United States fishing-vessels sometimes como in among on'l boats to fish. The quickest trip I have known any of them make >rit.s>l trip taken ou Cape Ballard Bank, when, in two oflfers of about tbr«l weeks each, this vessel completed her trip, with which she left for ttKl United States. ITer captain told me it was the quickest trip of codfistj he had ever made. There is an ice-house at Placentia where ice is stored for sale t«| United States fishermen. I have heard that there is also an icebomel at Salmonier, St. Mary's Bay, where ice is stored for like puritoMtl American vessels sometimes tow icebergs along with them to preserrel their fresh bait. HENEY PENNELL ▲WARD OF TIJE F181IEBY COMMISSION. 1189 Sirorn befurc me at 8t. John\ NewroiiiidlaiKl, thin 4t1i May, 1877. .1. O. FUASKU, CommiHHwner of AffiiavitH. Xo. 74. rATitirK Lraky, •^[^!C^^ 73 ycarff, planter atul fisherinaii, rcHuliiig at KcuewM, NtiWt'ouuilUtud, t jaketli uatb aiicoinc acquainted with the flsheries of Newfoundland by fol- lowing the ftame since I woh fonrt«en yearn of a^e, and have had charge oi a pultlic bait'8kit>, of a Hchooner t(» the Banks, and for many years wHH miiMt«*r of a westorn boat, and in every town am well acquainted with nil the (Ishcries of this country exc(>|)t whaling. I liHvc obHerved several Unite4' 4 lllfiiii'll '■ iiiii the mother or spawD-flsh which would be canght only in very sinull qaantities by the book and liae. 5. The greater part of the mackerel canght by American fishermen on our coasts are, in my opinion, caught inshore. As far as my own obser ration goes,wbere there is one mackerel caught outside of three miles front j shore, there are fifty mackerel caught within that distance. Almost all the mackerel caught in vessels in which I was employed were caagbt within three miles of the shore. The herriug fishery is altogether an inshore fishery. 6. The American fishermen catch a considerable amount of bait. I especially squid for the cod fishery, in our harbors and bays, but tbey | also buy a very large quantity from our fishermen. The American cod- fishermen cannot carry on the fishery successfully without procuriugj bait on our shores, or on the shores of Newfoundland. 7. The privilege of transshipping cargoes on our shores is of vast ad- vantage to American fishermen, that is the mackerel fishermen. Bv I means of this they save from a fortnight to three weeks on each trip they make to the fishing grounds ; and that generally in the best part of the fishing season. 1 have known an American mackereler to get a good | trip in the time that another vessel was going home and returning. 8. During my experience of fifteen years I found that the mackerel I are variable, and that they are sometimes scarce for a time, and thea come in again as plenty as ever. I do not think that their scarcity in 1875 and 1876 is permanent, but I believe that unless the fishery is destroyed by the use of pur.se seine.'^, the mackerel will again be a$ plenty as ever. I have understood that this year the mackerel are very [ plenty in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and I my.self have seen the mack erel along the coast from Halifax to Cause in large numbers in the mouth | of June last. 9. I am of opinion that the privilege of fishing in American waters i$| of no value whatever to Canadians. 10. According to the best of my belief, at least two hundred and fifty I American cod-fishing vessels touch at the shores of Guysborougli County each year for bait and supplies. They purchase large quantities | of ice at Canso, which is, of course, a valuable privilege to them. THOMAS C. ROBERTS. The said Thomas C. Roberts was sworn to the truth of this aflidavit,| at Halifax, in the county of Halifax, on the 18th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. WILLIAM WILSON, A Justice of the Peace. No. 81. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, uuder the Treaty | of Washington. I, James Simon Richard, of Getson's Cove, in the county of Luuen burg, master mariner, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for twenty-five years, down to j August, A. D. 1876. For fifteen years I have fished as master. I fished around the coast of Cape Breton, on the eastern side of New Bruns-I wick, around Prince Edward Island, the Magdalenes, and on the Caoa | dian coast of Labrador, along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, aD(' am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Lunenburg County. ' have taken all the kinds of fish found on the above-mentioned coasts. AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1197 2. Wbeu in the North Bay, aboat nine years ago, I have seen from |ei$,'hty to ninety American vessels at one time together taking mackerel. iTIie uiHckerel were taken mostly all inshore, within three miles of the jfihore, nor would it pay to go to the North Bay to take mackerel unless jve couM take them well in three miles of the shore. 3. Tbe American mackerel-vessels carried from fourteen to eii;hteen Inieu each. Their vessels now carry more men because they are larger. iTliese vessels took from three to four hundred barrels on each trip. They {iiiude from two to three trips. They ran into the Strait of Canso and ■landed their cargoes, which were often sent away in steamers and fish- ling-vessels. On the third trip they usually tilled up full with from tive Ito six liundred barrels and went home. 4. Tbe Americans took in the bay also large quantities of codfish, and |l would say that there were as many Americans in tlie North Be Breton, and the Magdalenes. These vessels took the most of their mackerel inshore, | within three miles of the shore. I do not think it would pay Americans to go to the North Bay to fish mackerel, unless they could catch tbem I within three miles of the shore. 3. The Americans get bait and ice in large quantities at Northwest! Bay on the Aspotogon Peninsula, in Lunenburg County. They get the ice in which to pack their bait upon the mountains. This ice they get free. Nearly the whole fleet of Lunenburg Bankers get their fresh bait at the said Northwest Bay. So many Americans getting bait and ice at this place interferes with our vessels. They make the bait scarce I and dearer. Without this bait, and ice in which to pack it, the Amer [ leans could not carry on successfully the deep-sea fishery. 4. The Canadian vessels in which 1 fished in the North Bay tookl codfish with hand-lines. The Americans all trawled, at least all 1 8aT,| and I saw many in the said bay. 5. When on the Labrador coast, in 1871-'2 '3, 1 saw American vessels! engaged in seining codfish on the shore. These vessels were on tbe Ca-I nadian coast of Labrador, and took two thousand quintals of codfish bi| each schooner. These schooners carried from twenty to twentytwoj men each. 6. When in the American schooner we always fished inshore wbenl we could. We moved away when a cutter appeared, and returned is [ shore when she disappeared. CHABLES SMITH. Sworn to at Lunenburg, in the County of Lunenburg, this 13tb daj| of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH W. LOCKHABT, J. P. In the matter of tl AWARD OF THE FISUEBf COMMISSION. No. 83. 1203 iu the matter of the Figberies Commission, at Halifax, uuder the Treaty of WasbiDgton. I, Benjamin Wentzler, of Lower La Have, in the county of Ln- nenbiir^i tisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been en^^agcd in the fisheries for twenty-seven years up to !eight<^»(i hundred and snventy-flvc, inc^lusive, and fished every year in tbe North Bay, around Cape Breton, Prince Edward's Island, eastern side of New Brunswick, and around thu Magdalenes. I have taken all the ds'i fouad iu the waters on the iibsve-mentionod coast. I am also I well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Lunenburg County. I bave seen often more than a hundred American vessels fishing on the I iibove-iiamed coasts in one Meet together, and I bave seen these vessels make off from the shore when a steamer appeared to protect the fishery ; when the smoke of the steamer could not be seen they came in again to the shore. Such large numbers of them made it dangerous for Nova Scotiaii fishermen, and I have lost many a night's sleep by them in order to protect our vessel. I have seen in Por. Hood Harbor about three bnudred sail of American vessels at one time, and it is seldom, if ever, that a third of them are in any harbor at one time ; and I have been run into by an American schooner in Port Hood Harbor. I'rom 1871 to 1875, iuuUisive, I have seen the Americans in large numbers around Prince Edward Island, eastern side of New Brunswick, and around iOape Breton. I have seen many American vessels on the above-men- Itioned coasts engaged in taking codfish. They took fish inshore by I trawling — offshore and wherever they could catch them. Some parts of ithe season the codfish is better inshore than off, and iu my experience I [have caught in our vessels more codfish inshore than off' shore. The Americans took in their schooners from three to four hundred Ibarrels of mackerel to each vessel, and they made three such trips. Tho lAmericans fish on Sunday which our vessels do not do. The American linaciierel-men carry from fourteen to twenty men. The American cod- Iflshermen have about fifteen or sixteen men on board, and take from six {hnDdred to a thousand quintals. 3. The Americans take codfish by trawling, and did so as long as I lean remember. About five years ago our vessels commenced trawling, lin order to compete with the Americans. This trawling I consider very liojurions to the fishery. 4. The Americans get bait all along the coast and in this harbor. [Without this bait and ice they could not carry on the deep-sea fishery. 5. It would, in my opinion, be of great value to us fishermen if the Americans were excluded, and I know of no benefit to us in allowing {the Americans to come into onr inshore waters. BENJAMIN WENTZLER. Sworn to at Lower La Have, in the county of Lunenburg, this 8th ilay of August, A. D. 1877. JAMES H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 86. fn the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, aader the Treaty of Washington. I, George Conbad, of Soath Tillage, in the coanty of Lunenburg, uaster mariner, make oath and say as follows : 1204 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1. I liAve been enfrnped in the flsherieR for forty yenrs, and have flslied mackerel, lierriiif;, codflnh, hnlibnt, haddock, pollock, and hiike along the gouthern coaat of Nova Scotia, eaHtern Hide of Cape Breton, in the Bay of Chalenr, around Piince Edward iHland, and the Miigda lene iHlands for twelve years. I have flxhed as master of a vcHsel. 2. About twelve years ago, I have seen in Port Hood, in the island of Ca|ie Breton, over three hundred sail at one time — about fifty or sixty were Nova Scotian, the remainder Americans. About eight jran ago I have seen upwards of one hundred at one time on the coast of Prince Edward Island, tishing mackerel. These vessels fished insliore for mackerel, and were American vessels. I, along with other Nova Scotian captains, have made calculations when fishing in the Bay of Clia- leur, and we concluded that there were upwards of four hundred Aiiieri can vessels at the time fishing mackerel in the bay. Mackerel must be fished inshore, as they are an inshore flsh. The American vessels carrr I'rom twelve to eighteen men each. Around Bay of Chalenr and the Banks there would not be less than throe or four hundred vessels en gaged in taking codfish. Codfish vessels carry from twelve to eighteon men. Some American vessels are fitted out for halibut alone, but takr large codfish, throwing away the small codfish. The Americans trawl for haltbut and codfish. 3. The American vessels take two to four hundred barrels of mackerel each, and some of them make three trips. American codfishmen take from one thousand to eigliteen hundred quintals of codfish each, and make three trips. 4. While in the Bay of Chaleur this summer, I have seen the Aiiieri cans with purse seines, and told me that they used them; and these | purse seines, in my opinion, spoil the fishery. I have never seen aiiv < Canadian vessels with purse seines. 1 am acquainted with thirty or forty vessels which run out of Lune uburg every year, and none of ihm \ carry purse seines. 5. The throwing overboard of gurry w hich is practiced on the grounds | is very injurious to the fishing-grounds. (i. Unless the Americans got bait and ice they could not cairy on tLe | fishery of cod and halibut. GEORGE CONRAD. Sworn to at Lunenburg, in the county of Laneuburg, this 4tii day of | August, before mo. JOSEPH W. LOCKHART, J. P. No. 87. I m In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty | of Washington. I, Geoffrey Cook, of Rose Bay, in the county of Lunenburg fisher- 1 man, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been sixteen years constantly engaged iu the fishery. I harel for two years fished as skipper. I have fished around Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, on the eastern side of New Brunswick, on tiiel Labrador coast, and along the southern coast of Nova Scotia. I have I caught mackerel for bait, and have been mostly engaged in taking cod[ flsh, and am at present well acquainted with the inshore fishery in Luiien { burg County. 2. While in the Bay of Chalenr, the summer before last, I saw uiaDjI American vessels there engaged in fishing, and have also seen many ofl AWARD OF THE FI8HEBY COMMISSION. 1205 tlieiu there Ashing since 1871. I have ooiinted the snmmer before last fltty Aini^riuan vusaelM witliiii three foiirths of a mile from each other. The nutxt of tlie American veMttulH whicli I saw llNhed inHhore around the aliuve inentionHl coasts. I saw lliom taliu both codtisli and niadcercl itmlioiv, witliin three miles of the short'. Mackerel are tak^u montly all jiiHhort', and I would not lit out a vessel to take mackerel unless she tiitiiiMl inshore. .'{. Including the oodflshermen on the Banks and those in the bay, tlierv lire as many of them as of mackcreimen. I mean the Hanks around ourcoHsts. 80 many Americans take away the fish from us ; they leebow U!(. I have often seen them run into Nova Scotiau vessels, and so many of tliein nmke it dangerous for our fishermen. 4. Tlie American mackerel men take about four hundred barrels of mackerel to each vessel, and generally make three trips. The mack- erel men carry Irom seventeen to twenty-one of a crew, and take tiie Miost of their mackerel inshore, within three miles of the shore. The c()(lli^«ll vessels carry from twelve to fourteen men, and take about a thousand quintals, and make from two to three trips. They take this cotlHsh inshore when they can get it, and wherever they can. 1 have seen us many as eighty American vessels at one time taking mickerel within two and three miles of the shore at once. This I have seen durind the piiHt four years. ' .1. Tlio throwing overboard of offal is injurious to the fishery, as it (rluis the fish and dri^c^ Ilium avay, and the sound-bone, which is thrown overboard, is injurious to the fish. ti. The Americans in my experience alwiiys fished inshore when they could, wliatever the treaty was. They made off when a cutter appeared, aud returned when she went away. 7. The inshore fishery, in my opinion, is of the greatest value. Ou I the Labrador coast we always catch the codfish insliore, often with seines I ou tlie shore ; and I have seen, during the past sixteen years, large num- bers of Americans seining codfisli on the Labrador coast, and 1 have seen tliem do this every year for the past sixteen, and also last year. 8. I have seen the Americans eatcliiug bait within three miles of the shore, around Prince Edward Island. This bait was i.sed for taking coilflsb. They catch and bay bait all along the coasts and wherever they can get it. They make the bait scarce for our bankers by gobbling I it up before herring aud mackerel are plenty. 9. Fish have not increased since 1871, particularly mackerel. This II consider is owing to overfishing, and the bad methods employed by I the Americans in taking fish. 10. The herring fishery is all inshore, and the Americans take them I in large quantities on the Labrador coast, mostly by seining from the I shore. 11. Without bait, and ice in which to preserve it, the Americans could Inot carry on the deep-sea fishery, as fresh bait is necessary. This bait Ithe Americans get all around our coasts, and buy it often, because it [saves time and expense. 12> I have never known nor heard of any of our fishermen going to jfish ill American waters, and I consider this right of no value. U/13. The Americans hinder our fishermen by taking away the fish, as latreaily stated, and I consider that it would be a great benefit to us if the lAmericans were excluded from our inshore fisheries, and I know of no |henefit that we derive from American fishermen. JEFFREY COOK. 1206 AWARD OF THE FISUERT COMMISSION. $>'■ liilil"'!!' ''%:. ' i SworQ to at Rose Bay, in the coanty of Lunenbarg, this 8th day of j August, A. D. 1877, beibre me. JAMES H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 88. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the Treaty of Washington. I, Daniel Getson, of Getson's Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in fisheries for sixteen years. I have flslied I along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around Cape Breton, on the eastern coast of New Brunswick, around Prince Edward's Island, the Magdalenes, and on the Canadian coast of Labrador, and I have also been personally engaged in Bank fishing and am well acquainted with I the inshore fishing in Lunenburg County. I have taken mackerel, her ring, and codfish, and all the kinds of fish found on the above-uien- tioned coasts. 2. I have seen at one time in the North Bay five hundred American j mackerelmen at least. I have made calculations along with Nova Scotian and American skippers, and one fall we concluded there were 700 sail in the said bay. This calculation was made about five years ago. During the last five years I have seen the Americans in the North [ Bay in very large numbers. 3. Mostly all the mackerel are taken inshore, and it would not pay ns | to go there unless we could take them witliin three miles of the shore, nor would I go, as I intend to do in a week's time, unless I could catcli them within three miles of the shore. The Americans often lee-bow us, and I have been run into by American vessel, and have suffered trom j five to six hundred dollars loss. 4. The Americans get bait from Cape Sable to Labrador, all rounil I the Canadian coast, and without this bait it would be impossible for | them to catch fish upon the Banks. 5. The Americans take codfish principally by trawling, and very sell dom use hand-lining. Trawling I consider bad for the fishery, as it de' stroys the mother fish. 0. I have seen the Americans use purse-seines inshore and off shore, and this purse-seining I consider very injurious to the fishery, as they I take the small fish, and many fish are destroyed. I have never seen a | Canadian vessel use a purse seine. DANIEL GETSON. Sworn to at Getson's Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, this 8th day j of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 89. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the Treaty | of Washington. 1, Dan Bissbb, of Rose Bay, in the county of Lunenbcr^, fisherman,] make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in fishing for twenty five years. I have fished I in the Bay of Chaleur, around Cape Breton, eastern side of New Bruus- Sworn to i In the mattei AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1207 wick, around Prince Edward Island, the Magdalenes, and on the Labra- dor coast, and am well acquainted with the inshore fishery in Lunenburg County. 2. 1 have fished mackerel and codfish. In fishing mackerel we took them mostly inshore, and it would not have paid us to have gone unless we could take them inshore. 3. I have fished for twenty-five years in succession on the Labrador coast, and got codfish close inshore. We got all ourcodfish close inshore within three miles. I have during the si>id time seen a number of American vessels taking codfish inshore on the Labrador coast, and this I liave seen every year for the past twenty-five years. I have also, during the said time, seen many Americans catching herring inshore ou tlio Labrador coast. So man^*^ Americans diminish the catch for Cana- dian vessels. 4. The Americans get bait, and ice in which to preserve it, all along our coast; and, in my experience, codfish cannot be taken without fresh bait. 5. In ray opinion, it would bo a great benefit to Canadian fishermen if Americans were excluded from our inshore fisheries. DAN EISSER. Sworn to at Eose Bay, in the county of Lunenburg, this 8th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 90. Id the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the Treaty of Washington. I, James W. Spearwater, of New Dublin, in the county of Lunen- burg, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the ^sheries for the past two years, and have fished on the eastern and northeastern side of Cape Breton, on tUe Western Banks, and on Bank Quaero, on the southern side of Cape Breton. I fished codfi"h. 2. I left here this year on the tenth of April, and last year about the same time The vessel in which I went last year carried sixteen hands, and was fitted out to take fourteen hundred quintals. The vessel in which I sailed this year was fitted out to take eighteen hundred quin- tals. We took six hundred quintals, and were out about four months. 3. I have often seen many American vessels there engaged in taking codUsh. The American vessels on the Banks take the greater part < f their fish by trawling. Trawling is carried on to the bottom, and mother lisli are taken. 4. This year the vessel in which I was, and which is owned here, pro- cured her bait at Eastern Passage, in Halifax County ; at Cape George, in the county of Halifax ; at Cape George in the county of Antigonish ; at St. Ann's and Aspy Bay in Cape Breton. While at these places I saw American vessels getting bait and ice the same as our own vessels; ; herring and mackerel we bought ; squid we mostly jigged. Without I this bait and ice it would be impossible for the Americans or for us to j carry on the Bank fishing. The Americans also got ice at these places to preserve their bait. The Americans get bait when it is scarce, and their gettiug bait interferes with our baiting. JAMES W. SPEARWATER. 1208 AWARD OF TU£ FISHEBT COMMISSION. f'T*l,„,^, l3;-a; Sworn to at New Dublin, in the county of Lunenburg, this 9tli day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. BENJ. RYNARD, J. 1\ No. 91. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the Treaty of Washington. I, William N. Zwicker, of Lunenburg Town, in the County of Lu. nenburg, merchant, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the buying and selling of fish for about twenty five years, and have had a number of vessels engaged in the taking of fish for the said time. Those vessels were engaged in taking mackerel, codfish, and herring around Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, east side of New Brunswick, and the Magdalenes, and am ac- quainted with the inshore fishery in the county of Lunenburg. 2. The fitting out of vessels for the mackerel fishing has been almost discontinued in the county of Lunenburg. Mackerel is taken to some extent along the shore of this county in nets, and are taken inshore. There is a larger trade done in herring in Lunenburg during the past six years than any time previous. On the Banks during the past four years the catch of codfish has been good. 3. The Americans carry on the cod fishery principally by trawling, and in my opinion this is a very injurious method of taking fish, and will eventually destroy the fishing grounds. When our men first went out fishing they caught fish with hook and line ; now they practice trawling on the Banks in order to compete successfully with the Ameri- cans. The throwing over of ofi'al on the grounds I also consider injurious to the fishery. 4. The Americans have fished inshore treaty or no treaty, and when the fishery was protected our mackerel men made better fares. Since the Treaty of Washington the Americans have fished inshore so exten- sively that they have driven our mackerel men out of the business. 5. In my opinion the inshore fishery are two-thirds the value of the entire fishery. 6. Among the masters of my vessels it was a common complaint that the Americans lee-bowed them and drew away the fish off shore by throwing overboard bait. 7. In my opinion the plan of taking mackerel with purse-seines is improper and injurious to the fishery. 8. The Americans purchase bait all around our coast in the county of Lunenburg, and wherever they can get this privilege of getting bait inshore, is a great injury to the Canadian fishery, as the price of bait is thus made much greater for Canadian vessels, and also more difficult to get. The Americans get this bait and ice in which to pack it, before the mackerel and herring set in, in large quantities. By buying bait the Americans save time and expense. 9. The herring fishery on this coast is all inshore, and our vessels .also catch herring inshore on the coasts of Labrador and Newfoundland, The Americans purchase the inshore herring and mackerel for bait. 10. I have purchased American mackerel and found them inferior in quality to Canadian mackerel. 11. Unless the Americans were able to purchase bait or catch it, and ice in which to pack it, it would be impossible for them to carry ou the In the matter 0 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1209 deep-sea fishery. Without ice the Americans could uot preserve their bait. 12. No vessels have ever gone out of Lunenburg County to fish iu Americiiu waters, because our own grounds are better and nearer. 13. So many American fishing- vessels hinder Canadians by carrying oft" th»? fish by lee-bowing them, enticing away the fish, and taking fish by iiiii)roper means. U. I have often heard from those engaged in the fisheries around our coast, that they obtained goods from tiie Americans in exchange for lisli, thereby injuring the honest dealer, and defrauding the revenue. 15. Our fisheries are of the greatest value to us, and I linow of no equiv- alent which the Americans can give us; aud if they were excluded it would be of great value to us. W. N. ZWICKER. Svroru to {*t Lunenburg, in the county of Lunenburg, this Cth day of ' August, A. D. 1877, before me. HENRY S. JOST, J. P. No. 92. I III the matter of the Fisheries Commission, at Ilalifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Isaac Lohnes, of Middle La Have, in the county of Lunenburg, |fisbermaii, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for twenty-eight years past [every year down to the present time. I have fished all along the south- [erii coast of Nova Scotia, around Prince Edward Island, on iho eastern [coast of New Brunswick, around the Magdaleues, and on the Canadian coast of Labrador, and am well acquainted with the inshore fishery in ~Ljunetiburg County. I have taken all the kinds of fish found upon the labove mentioned coasts. 2. I left the North Bay a week ago where I was engaged in cod-fishing mul saw from day today about ten American vessels engaged in taking mackerel with purse seines. About five years ago I along with Cana- [ilian and American skippers have made calculations as to the number Dt' American mfickerel men in the North Bay aud we concluded there J»vere seven hundred sail. 3. Mackerel in my experience are taken mostly all inshore, and it ifould not pay to fit out a vessel to take mackerel unless they can be lakeii inshore within three miles. Tlie American mackerel men carry pm seventeen to twenty-four men. They take from two to three huu- Jreil barrels to each vessel, on each trip, aud generally make three trips ^acii year. 4. The Amervjan vessels carry from twelve to fifteen men and take jibout a thousand quintals to each vessel. They make three such trips (iiebuling a trip to the Banks. At i>resent I would say that there are Upwards of fifty codfish vessels in the North Bay, which are American. j. Mackerel in my experience has varied, being vsome years good and |tliers ))oor. In 1872 the catch of mackerel was good and they were fleutifuliu the North Bay when I left. From 1871 to 1876 theood-fish- ag bas been as good as I ever saw it any time ]>re\ ions. During the fast two years it has not been quite so good. Herring h.;s always been [Ifiity except this summer when it has not been so good. S75, and 1876 would not be more than twenty quintals, which is la large estimate. Previous to 1874 the averajje catcii per hand has Ibeeii troiii forty to fifty quintals. I c;innot understand what att'ects the Iflshery or causes this reduction except the operations of United States Itisheriiien on our shores and ou the outer Banks facing our sliores. 1 lam now ohl and liave not much interest in the fisheries, except for the jrising generation, but I feel certain that these American fishermen will liuiii our fishery, and our bait supply. I have had suflicient experience jdnriiig my life following the fisheries to convince me that their mode of loperations from first to last, on our shores and on the Banks, is the Ivery worst for our country and the surest means of destroying our fish- leries. THOMAS CAREW. Sworn before me at Shores Cjve, Cape Broyle, this 13tu April, 1877. J. O. FKASEK, Commissioner of Affidavits. Ko. 95. Charles James Barnes, aged 33 years, occupation, fishcurer, re- )si(lii)g at St. John's, Nowfouudland, makes oath and saith : Deponent has had practical acquaintance with the fisheries of New- jfoundlaiid for upwards of fifteen years. Deponent saw a number of United States fishing-vessels in this har- Dor last year ; these vessels came here for bait and ice, and to replenish |thcir ships' stores and refit their vessels for fishing ou the Banks. Deponent sold bait and ice and stores to a number of United States Ishiiig-vessels last year. Deponent bought small codfish and codoil from United States flsher- nen last year in payment of bait, ice, and cost of refitting their vessels ; |ii some instances deponent purchased small codfish for which he paid I cash. The total quantity of small codfish purchased by deponent last ^e.irfrom United States fishermen was upwards of three hundred quin- ils, tor which he paid jirices ranging from eight shillings to eleven liiillings per quintal of 112 lbs. green fish. Deponent also purchased a considerable quantity of codoil from United States fishermen, particulars of which he has not at hand. He further Itates be is prepared to purchase any reasonable quantity of small fish Viil oil from United States fishermen. The United States fishing- vessels It this port last year came in for fresh bait and ice, which they purchased pom our people. In one instance, one of these vessels sailed with a full ipply of bait in sixteen hours after arrival, and generally they baited from three to six days, the price paid for bait averaging about one |ollar per barrel. There are to day two United States fishing schooners this harbor for bait and to repair damages. Their names are the Ipeedwell, Henry A. Cobb, master, and the Peter D. Smith, Brown, laster In conversation with Captain H. A. Cobb aforesaid, and his Me, Jonathan Sparrow, of Provincetown, Mass., they acknowledged I me that it was of very great advantage to United States fishermen bat they were privileged to frequent Newfoundland barbors for fresh 'lit and ice. The persons named aforesaid stated that the only bait btaiuable on the Banks is squids and bagdowu, the latter late in the kasoQ iu limited quantities and being inferior bait. Squids are only 1214 AWABD OF THE FISHEBT COMMISSION. n- obtainable in certain localities along the Banks, and very ancertain; not obtainable more than once in three years in sufficient supply for { baiting purposes. The difference between the time occupied in baitiu» in Newfoundland ports, and as United States vessels were accustomed I to bait formerly, was stated by Sparrow aforesaid, who last year went in his vessel from the Banks to Cape Canso, where he spent three davs and a half, and was the same time in reaching that place. Not fiudiuj; bait there, he proceeded to St. Pierre, which took him one and a half days. He remained there five days, but not getting bait he proceeded j to Conception Bay, N. F., where he got his bait in two and a half ds going there, he thus being IS days in procuring his fare of bait ; and he I further said that if he had come direct to Newfoundland for bait, he would not have occupied one-third the time in obtaining his bait ; that he had prosecuted the Bank fishery for fifteen years, and knew that the| general average of the time taken by vessels to procure their bait else where than on the Newfoundland shore has been twenty days. CHARLES JAMES BARNES. Sworn before me, at St. John's, Newfoundland, this 5th day of Juue,i A. D. 1877. J. O. FRASER, Com mmioner of Affida viU. No. 96. Sworn before Nuitiii^' , j PniLiP Grouchy, aged 62 years, planter, residing at Pouch Cove,| Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : I have become acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland siDcel I was 14 years of age, and know them in all their branches. I have I seen many United States fishing schooners on these shores; one oulyo!| these schooners visited this harbor; the master's name was Mulloy, I did not hear the name of his vessel. He came here for fresh bait i got fifty barrels caplin. which he got by hiring my seine and two men, I completing the crew from among his own men. For the use of the seine and my man this Captain Mulloy paid four dollars, and one dollar to tkl second shoreman working the seine. There was no ice-house here last I year, but there were plenty icebergs here about when Captain Mulloyl visited this harbor last year, and he said he expected to get what he I wanted from that source. I have heard that ice-houses are being pDtj up at Torbay for selling ice to United States fishermen. Newfoundland fishermen catch fish within three miles of the shore,! The Newfoundland cod-fishery is an inshore fishery. The capliu, herf ring, and squid for bait are all caught inshore, taken in the coves aiiil| creeks along shore. I never heard of a Newfoundland vessel engaging on a fishing voyage | on any of the coasts of the United States of America. United States fishermen regularly sell small codfish and cod-oil iDJ onr harbors ; they did so in Torbay and St. John's. I am very certain that the supply of fresh bait to United States fishl ing vessels will decrease the supply to local fishermen. Last year a verjj heavy supply of herring bait in Conception Bay to United States tisher T men must have caused the scarcity we all suffered from, for we depeni upon Conception Bay for bait after the caplin, and we found herriiig!| and squids more scarce than formerly. We fishermen judge that f scarcity of bait is owing to the operations of United States fishermeii| in our bays and harbors. Sworn before AWARD OF THE FISHEHT COMMISSION. 1215 I think it evident that the large number of United States fishing ves- sels tishing on the Banks, well supplied with fresh bait, tends to retain isli on tho Banks and prevent their passing in toward our shores. United States fishing vessels baiting oa our ebores, having no delay, 70 out upon the Banks in twelve or fifteen hours from time of leaving our harbors. This facility en.ibles them to keep the ground on the Banks constantly baited with fresh bait. The average catch of codfish per liand for tishurraen in this neighborhood, last year and year previous, has been fifteen quintals; previous to these years the average catch per band each year was forty quintals. We constantly get American hooks in fish taken along this shore, proving that United States fishermen are at work opposite to us. We biive large experience that whatever piece of ground is used by our pwn people with bultows, that there the fish is kept from passing toward ^he shore, and as long as we keep fresh bait on such bultows codfish lie kept in the neighborhood of these bultows. PHILIP GROUCHY. Sworn before me, at Pouch Cove, this 17th April, 1877. J. O. FEASER. Commissioner of Affidavits. Albert Grouchy, aged 35 years, planter, residing at Pouch Cove, ^'ewtouudland, maketh oath aud saith : I have followed the fishery in this country since I was fourteen years |)f age. I was present when Philip Grouchy made the above statement, rbich I know to be true in every particular. ALBERT GROUCHY. Sworn before me, at Pouch Cove, this 17th April, 1877. J. O. ERASER, Commiisioner of Affidavits. 1216 i.j'.;!' f^S: AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 07. List of Jishing-veaseh calling for fresh bait and ice. TSo. VeMel'H name. Tonnage. ^raster's name. Where Uelun;;iMg. 1 J. 9. PrewM>n 70 68 04 7i Hi 70 78 05 74 74 60 at 04 103 54 63 68 70 4i 80 lU 64 83 84 73 100 97 71 77 75 84 08 00 Ofi 74 58 83 64 89 91 98 68 8-1 yr> 80 96 67 70 88 83 80 77 89 72 60 9B 70 53 66 6!» 59 70 70 64 71 89 70 Not known ....... ........ 6looc mitT. II Brink Do. 3 Harvey V. MacKay Da 4 Clvtlo Joseph Nolan UnwuH John Vlberts Da S Carrio P. Morton Do. «t Abi-rileen Do. 7 Mist Do. R Sbiloh Philip H.John John DaKo J. 1). N«ter. 39 W. E. Alacdonald 40 Ellen Parsnus Do. 41 Hnttie L. Norman W.H.Robinson Bevetlv^ Mass. 4^ Ripley lio. A-i Jacidi Bnron 44 Hattie Weston (yraig - Do. 45 New England.... Hynea Do. 46 Matiio K. Foster M. C. Foster Do. 47 Lizzie B. Knight Thos. Loham Do. 48 Bctsv Sullen ^ifarblehcad, Mass. 44 Lurretia Jane .■iO Marion Silas CoMen Do. 51 W. R. Page G. W. Helard Do. S? Natbl. Webater Do. s:i Cygnet Halifax. 54 S. L.Lane P. McKenzie Gloucester. 5r. White Foam Bucksport. 56 Ella Mary 57 Willie A.Jewell Alex. MacDonaM ........ Provinretown. Mass. 58 AVa ve Ktllev ... ...«•... Plvniouth. Maas. 5<» Helen Caiul>ell Qootlwiii ...•«...• «■••••• (!0 Leading Breeze Pr«ivincetown. 61 Lynx .. Yarmontb, N. S 6> Hattie S. Clarke 6:i Ep»8 Tarr Liido do No6 .............. Do. 64 Orlend A. C. Hilnrd Beverlv, Maas. 65 I). Sbiirmnn Gloncniter. 06 Gns'^ev BUisdale Orlantlu t\ Hamburj; Do. 07 Wide Awake Yknnonth, N. S I, William Tulk, preventive officer at Portugal Cove, Newfonndianil hereby (leclare that I boarded each of the vessels aliove euumerated:! that these vessels belonged to the United States of America, except fivel said to belong to Nova Scotia, and came into ports and harbors in tlif| vicinity of Portugal Cove aforisaid, Portugal Cove included, for fn ' bait ', and that in addition to these vessels there were about fifty VuM Sworn before James Picot Iniiil, niaketli ot land when my a pve years. I kr I saw a great last yeiir, off ant Vere eight here riiese eight hit i That evening an hiid some one hi fiey all left for 1 mreaaed to a fii Jritli, and we all Banks in about riiey purchase fi lories and go upi J Newfoundland iioies; liereabou |n{fs for bait are 11 ii|) to twenty-fl I never heard c ^y oil any of th J^iiited States flsl tear, and provide Tirce their crews ll.s for " harts." fern up and took [1 think thesupi Ml shortened t b them with hen pings this sprit More with such t latrick's day and Y do believe ths Nts, well suppli, ^tish by local fis N coast last ye prage of the ca( P'o would not ex( P eighty to one 77 F AWARD OF THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. 1217 Istates fishing vessels off and in Broad Cove, Torbay, and Portugal Cove latori'saiil, the particiilarM of name and tonnage of which I did not take |h note of, but I know these vessels also belonged to the United States, land caiiK' for fresh bait, which they, with the vessels first referred to, |])ro(Min'(l, catching in part and buying in part from local fishermen. The llirice paid for the first squids was ten cents, afterward it was raised to Ititueu cents, and then to twenty cents per hundred squids. WILLIAM TULK. Sworn before me, at St. John's, this 30th July, A. 1). 1877. J. O. FRASER, Commisaiuner of AffidaviU. No. 98. James Picot, aged 78 years, residing at Portugal Cove, Newfound- laml, maketh oath and saith : I have followed the fishery of Newfound- Paiid when my mother was obliged to dress me ; that is, for over sixty- five years. I know all about the fisheries. I saw a great many United States fishing vessels in this neighborhood last year, oft' and on, between first August and end of October. There jore eight here at one time, but also a large number coming and going, riiese eight hit it very nicely; they came about noon, with wind N. E. that evening and next morning they got their bait, all over fifty barrels liiid some one hundred barrels, and in the evening about two o'clock [liey all left for the Banks with a fair breeze from the westward, which Dcreaaed to a fine sailing breeze or as much as they could fly away ntli, and we all said thev were very fortunate, as they would be on the Banks in about forty -eight hours from the time of starting therefrom. riiey purchase from our people principally, but they do put out their Ivories and go upon the jigging ground themselves. Newfoundland fishermen generally catch fish within a mile of our Ibores; hereabouts we fish within a half a mile. The caplin and her- pgi for bait are taken in shoal water close to shore ; squids are takeu ^1 up to twenty-five fathoms of water. I never heard of a Newfoundland fishing vessel prosecuting any fish- ryon any of the shores or coasts of the United States of America. Jnited States fishing vessels have sold cod-oil in this neighborhood last |ear, and provided themselves with water. When bait happened to be iirce their crews used to come on shore and go scampering over the Klls for " harts." They made repeated raids for harts, which freshened Dein up and took the stiff out of their joints. 1 think the supply of bait to Unite' Tlioro is nil icohouHe hero tor keeping ico for sale to United Htate«| Tlie /{(iiiernl lieliuf anionf; flHherniPii \» tlint the trufllo or these t'liitwl States llshermen in our wuturs will ruin our tlshery. Ilia IAS. + PICOT. murk. Sworn before mo, at Portugal Cove, this ninotoonth April, 1877. J. O. FKASHK, Comm iaaioner 0/ j{(lida riu. Makk Picot, aged 37 years, flsherumn, residing at Portuj^al CoveJ New i'oundlan| scarce, were longer. Some of these vessels had pilots from the sboR,! Squires, of this cove, being pilot on board one of them. These Ainfril can schooners took from ei^^ht hundred to nine hundred barrels squidl The people here very generally gave up cod-fishing to catch squids t'o;l these United States vessels, and this greatly to the injury of our peoplfcj who would have been better ofif, however scarce fish might have bet:ii.| bad they stuck to the cod fishery. Newfoundland fishermon catch codfish generally within a mile of tbl shore. The caplin, herring, aud squid, caught for bait, is taken close t(| our shores. 1 never heard of a Newfouudland vessel prosecuting any flshing-voj| age on the coast or shores of the United States of America. United States fishermen sold codfish and oil in this cove lastyearl they sold, to my knowledge, one lot of eighteen hundredweight coim AWARD OB' THE FIHHEUY COMMISSION. 1219 at scvon Hliilliiiffs per liiindreilwi'iKlit, niul for the Hvo cnHkH oil hoUI by them tlic.v were puid two Hliilliii^H and HixptMictt por gallon. Ttio liiV^i^ Hupply of buit to UiiUimI StutoH llslieniiuii UecroaHCM tlio 8U|>|)l.v til our local tlshHriiiuii. Tho herriiig waM ihwdv known to bu ho ttcitrri' )tH tliiH Rpriii|jf. Tliu cod (isluTy alon^ mIumu jh inJuriouHly atliMttud by the lai';;o Hupply of tVeHb bait on thu HankH to United StattiH tisiicnncn, which ]UTvent«d codlish passing; toward thoHhore; and I believf Mic Hhort uatcli alontf our Houthwust sliorus last yuar was on account of their tlsliin^ operations in bait and on the HankH. Tilt) catcli last year was not more than one halt' what it wan before 1874; to say a fourth would be nearer the correct tiling. We believe tlie.v wont leave a llsh for us to catch. Ouu of the captains told nie that tliinyoar we would not see the li^lit through the tackle, they would be MO iitiaicruus, and we fully expect them. DANIEL TUCKER. S'vnni before mo, at Broad Cove, Cramp Bay, Newfoundland, this 19th Aim I, I.S77. J. (). FKASKU, Cwnmimoner of AjDidavits. JosKPi! Tucker, aped 47 years, flslicrman, residing at Broad Cove, [ Cramp Uay, Newfoundland, makes oath and saith : I was present when Daniel Tucker made the above statement, and [know that it is true in every particular, having had practical experi- ence ill the fisheries since I was ten years of age. JOSEPH TUCKER. Sworn before me, at Broad Cove, Conception Bay, Newfoundland, this luiiieteeatli day of April, 1877. .1. O. FKASER, Commissioner of Affidavits No. 100. Philip Lewis, aged 44 years, fisherman, residing at Holyrood, Con* [ceptioii Bay, Newfoundland, niaketh oatb and saith : I iiave prosecuted the fisheries of Newfoundland for 23 years and up- jwards. 1 saw a great many United States vessels in this neighborhood. JLast spring therewerea large number here — throughout the season there vere upwards of twenty of these vessels here ; among these I can only name a lew of the captains in charge — Captains Morrissey, Keehan, Kane or King, Greenwood, Gray, Collinwood. A St. John's man in charge of an American fishing schooner, who as among those who caught squids on Sunday. Deneif, whose vessel as at Harbor Main ; liyan, the latter was among those jigging squids n Sunday. There was so many, and most of them strange names to e 1 cannot recollect many of them. Tbese vessels came here to procure fresh bait. They did procure their lait here, purchasing the principal partand jigging a part for themselves. their vessels anchored within a quarter of a mile from the shore. Each essel took about twenty-live barrels and upwards from this place; some lore. Their full supply of bait would be fifty barrels, but most of them ad a part of what they required, which they procured in other harbors. bey paid from sixpence to two shillings per hundred squids. There as no ice here for sale to them — they supplied themselves with ice else- liere— aud when their stock was out they salted their squids. The total 1220 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. quantity of sqaids taken by them from this place last year woald be over 500 barrels. Newfoundland fishermen catch codfish generally within two and three miles of the shore. The herrings, caplin, and squids, caught for bait, are each taken close to shore. I never heard of a Newfoundland vessel having prosecuted any fishery on fTiy of the coasts or shores of the United States of America. I have heard that United States fishing crews have sohl small fish and cod-oil in this neighborhood, and that they did sell such produce hert« and at Harbor Maine. I purchased oil myself from them in payment of squids. The price of oil as paid by me was two shillings and fourpeuce per gallon. The large supply of fresh bait used by United States fishermen on the Banks I fully believe tends to keep codfish from striking towards our shores, and thus nfi'ects the catch of local fishermen injuriously. The punt fishery in this neighborhood has been much reduced the last two years. AuiericaM captains told me that they did not know anything about Conception Bay for baiting purposes until last year, but that they lound it the most convenient place to procure bait of any other thej [ knew, and that they intended in future. largely to avail of it for the piir pose of procuring bait. Conception Bay is freer from dangers in iip^i proaching it than most bays, and has comparatively little fog, of which | American captains spoke approvingly. PHILIP LEWIS. Sworn before me, at Holyrood, Newfoundland, this 24th April, 1877. J. O. FRASEE, Commissioner of AffidaviU. John Veitch, aged 39 years, telegraph operator, residing at Holy- rood, Nfid., maketh oath and saith : 1 was present when Philip Lewis made the above statement, and ex- cepting the part referring to the number of vessels at this harbor h%\\ year, I know the statement to be true in every particular. I sawfivM or six United States fishing-vessels here, but heard of a large numberl that I did not see. United States vessels regularly refit in this neighbor [ hood. I sold one of these vessels flour that they were short of. JOHN VEITCH. Sworn before me, at Holyrood, Nfld., this 24th April, 1877. J. O. FEASER, Commissioner of AffidaviU. No. 101. iv Edward O'Brien, aged 49 years, constable, residing at CatsCon] Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : I know the fisheries of Newfoundland from following the same siii«| I was a boy, until ten years ago. I have observed a number of United States fishing-vessels in neighborhood last year, and the year previous there were five or m in] Salmon Cove. I saw a large number of these vessels at Holyrood, Belle Isle, Northei Gut, and in the offing in this bay. The vessels referred to caPie hert for fresh bait, which they purchased and caught as best they cou'iij The supply of bait to United States schooners decreases the supply* our local fishermen. I am of decided opinion that the presence of tkj r AWARD OF THE FISHEBr COMMISSION. 1221 lar^e number of TJuited States vessels on the Banks, well supplied with fresh bait, tends to keep fish from passing toward our shores and largely decreases the catch of codfish b3' local fishermen, and that the short flsh- erv last year was mainly attributable to their operations. The vessels that called here last year for bait were supplied with ice before coming here ; they procured their ice on other parts of the shore. There is no icehouse in this harbor. American vessels refit in this neighborhood, and have sold small fish and oil in Harbor Main, Holy- rood, and elsewhere in this bay. All fishermen of this country believe tbat the trafBc, as carried on by United States fishermen in our harbors, for fresh bait, and on the Banks off our coasts, is hurtful to our fisher- ies, and has already resulted in great damage to our bait fishery. ED. O'BKIEN. Sworn before me at Cats Cove, Conception Bay, Newfoundland, this 25th April, 1877. J. O. FRASBR, Commissioner of Affidavits, No. 102. Edward Wade, aged 66 years, planter and fisherman, residing at Cats Cove, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : 1 was present when Edward O'Brien made the statement before J. O. Fraser, on this day, markpd A, which I know to be true in all particu- i lars except as relates to the age of said Edward O'Brien. bis EDWARD + WADE. mark. Sworn before me at Cats Cove, Conception Bay, Newfoundland, this I25tb April, 1877. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. Edward Meaney, 48 years, planter and fisherman, residing at [Salmon Cove, Conception Bay, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : 1 was present when Edward O'Brien made the statement marked A, [on this day, before J. O. Fraser, commissioner of affidavits, and, except las relates to the age of Edward O'Brien, 1 believe said statement to be Itrue in all particulars. EDWARD MEANEY. Sworn before me at Cats Cove, Concei)tion Bay, Newfoundland, this |25th April, 1877. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits, No. 103. George Butler, aged 55 years, farmer, residing at Northern Gut, uODception Bay, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : 1 have followed the cod fishery in Newfoundland for about fifteen ^ears; but during late years I have followed farming. I saw a number of United States fishing-schooners in this neighbor- hood the last two years ; the number seen by me was from eight to ten. vhese vesels came here for fresh bait. I saw them jigging squids, and 1222 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. know that they also purchased squids from local fishermen. Oue of these United States fishing vessels had a caplin-seine hang up drnng, for which he asked me j&17, it being a large seine. Several of the ves- sels referred to above fitted out at my place with wood and water. I sold them wood, for which they paid in money. I consider the traffic of these United States fishermen in bait injares this fishery, and must decrease the supply for local purposes. Fisbcr- men cannot have too much bait, and more care is being observed every year to protect this fishery, to secure fishermen in a necessary supply, but the prospects under the treaty, giving Americans the privilege to fish in our waters, are not improved. GEORGE BUTLEK. Sworn before me at Northern Gut, Conception Bay, this 30th April, 1877. J. O. ERASER, Commissioner of Aifidavits. No. 104. k| pi Stephen Parsons, aged 57 years, planter and fisherman, residing at Bay Roberts, Oonceptiou Bay, Newfoundland, maketh oath and suitb: I have follo'eed the fisheries of Newfoundland for forty-five years, and have a practical knowledge of the same in all their branches. I saw fire United States fishing-vessels in this. neighborhood last year. There were three of these vessels anchored on the squid-jigging ground one day last fall. They were oft' and on throughout the season in this and neighboring harbors. Men ami masters of these vessels told me they came for fresh bait, and had been in Bay Bulls and otber southern har- bors, following the bait wherever it was to be found. It was squid bait they were alter here; but they also came upon our shores for capliu and herrings for bait. One of the vessels that called here had made two trips to the United States, one with halibut and another with codfish, and this vessel was on her third trip when she called here. The captain of this vessel told me that he did better than formerly, and was uiucii aided by the facility of procuring bait on our shores to the great saving of tinu*, as they were seldom twenty-four hours in making the Bauiis and beginning fishing after leaving our shores. Newfoundland fisher- men generally catch codfish within one or two miles of our shores. The Newfoundland fishery (cod) is an inshore fishery. The bait fishery, caplin, herring, and squid is an inshore fishery, and is never taken two miles from the shore, except in lare instances, when squids are caugbt by craft-fishing on Capo Ballard Bank and such places. I never kuev or heard of a Newfoundland fishing-vessel prosecuting any voyage oo any of the shores or coasts of the United States of America. The sup- ply of bait to United States fishing-vessels has injuriously affected the supply to local fishermen. It has done so in a year when bait was con- sidered ptentiful; in a year of scarcity it would be ruinous. I am cer- tainly of opinion that the operations of United States fishermen on tlie Banks off our coasts, well supplied with fresh bait, interferes with and tends greatly to reduce the catch of local fishermen, and that their whole trafilc in connection with the fisheries and bait supply on our shores must result in permanent injury to our fisheries and in great loss to our people. United States vessels do refit iu this neighborhood when re- 1 quired. his STEPHEN + PARS025S. mftrk AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1223 Sworn before me at Bay Roberts, Conception Bay, Newfoondland, this 2t>th April, 1877. J. O. FRASBR, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 105. John Barret, aged 60 years, planter, resident at Spaniard's Bay, I >'ewfoandlaQd, laaketb oath and saitb: I know the fisheries of this country by having followed the same for I forty-five years. I saw three United States fishing-schooners in this harbor last year, [and there were a large number in other parts of the bay. These vessels came here for fresh herrings and squids for bait. This [bait they procured partly by catching for themselves and partly by pur- chasing from our people. The quantity taken by each vessel was forty barrels for each trip. These vessels came here from the Banks for bait, and left a^aiu for the Banks when they had procured their bait. The [price paid for bait by United States fishermen was from one shilling to [fifteen pence per hundred for squids. Newfoundland fishermen generally catch codfish within two miles of [the shore. The Newfoundland fishery is an inshore fishery. The cap- ilin, herring, and squid, caught for bait, are all inshore fisheries, taken [generally within stone's throw of the shore. 1 never heard of a Newfoundland vessel engaging in any fishing voy- [age on any of the shores or coasts of the United States of America. jUnited Statos jshermen do sell small codfish, oil, and fishery produce liii this neighborhood, as I believe they do in most places along our jshores where they call. I purchased fifteen cwt. codfish and thirty gal- jlous cod-oil from them last ye.ar. For the codfish I gave ten shillings [per cwt., and for the oil two shillings and sixpence per gallon. The supply of bait to United States fishermen tends to decrease the Isupply to local fishermen, and I believe such has already been the result |of their but trafiic in this bay. I am ot decided opinion that the presence of the large number of United States fishing-vessels on the Banks well supplied with fresh bait [Interferes with and tends greatly to reduce the catch of local fishermen, ind flrinly believe that the short catch last year was attributable to the BperatioMS of United States fishermen as aforesaid. The fishery in this bay and along these shores last year and year previous was not more jtban half the average of former years. There is an ice-house at Harbor Grace and Mosquito where ice is Itored. Americans here last year got their ice at Mosquito. JOHN BARRETT. Sworn before me at Spaniard's Bay, this 27th Aptil, 1877. J. O. ERASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. Archibald Hutchinos, aged 50 years, fisherman, residing at Span urd's Biiy, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : I followed the fisheries of this country for forty years. I was present fhen John Barrett made the above statement, and, excepting as relates I the age of said John Barrett and bis transactions in fish and oil with 1224 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. IJDited States flsbermeu, I believe the said statement to be true iu all | particulars. his ARCHIBALD + HUTCHINGS. mark. Sworn before me at Spaniard's Bay, Newfoundland, this 27th April, , 1877. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 106. i Alfred Hopkins, aged 52 years, planter, residing at Heart's Con- tent, Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : I have become acquainted with the Newfoaudlaud fisheries by prose- cuting the same iu their various branches for upwards of thirty-live years. I have seen United States fishing schooners iu this neighbor hood ; there were four or five in this harbor last year at one time, aud as | many as twelve iu this harbor throughout the summer. These vessels came here for fresh bait, which they purchased in part, | and caught in part themselves. Squids was the bait they were in quest of. These vessels came in from the Banks off our coast for bait, >vbich j they procured as aforesaid. Newfoundland fishermen generally catch codfish within two miles of | the shore ; the Newfoundland cod fishery is an inshore fishery. The capliu, herring, and squid fisheries for bait are all iushore fisheries, aod are prosecuted close to the shore. I never beard of a Newfoundland vessel having prosecuted any fishery on any of the coasts or shores of the United States of America. The supply of bait to United States fishermen, although only com menced, has decreased the supply for local fishermen, and when the former become better acquainted with our harbors and the facilities for | procuring the bait they require, it cannot be doubted but that great iu jury will result to the interests of local fishermen in decreasing their I supply of bait. The bait-fisheries above others should be protected by | all possible means. The operations of United States fishermen iu sup plying themselves with bait on our shores and iu our harbors tends to | injure this fishery much more than as prosecuted by Newfoundland tislier- men, who only require a comparatively small supply, aud this is takeu I each day in limited quantities, or, when taken for a catch off shore, is still iu moderate qujvntity compared with the supply required by United States fishermen, aud the procuring of the lesser quantity is not attended | by the noise and bustle attending the larger supply takeu by United i States fishing-craft. I do not think the caplin, the herring, or the squid | fisheries would or could hold out many years if subjected to the opera tions of any considerable number of United States fishermen, juilgiug from what I have seen of them and their traflic for bait last year. There is no doubt on my mind as to certain effects resulting from I the fishing operations of United States fishermen on the Banks oS| our coasts well supplied with fresh bait, and that one effect of their fish ing operations as aforesaid has been and must continue t j be the attrae tion of codfish to the Banks and to the bait there supplied, preventing flsb passing in toward our shores, as would otherwise be the case. The shore I fishery along our coasts is injuriously affected by United States tish f ermen on the Banks, and in my opinion the short catch last year alonn our south and west coasts was greatly owing to the presence of the large I AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1225 nnniber of United States fishermen on the Banks o^ our coasts well sai)])lied with fresh bait. The average catch of codfish per man in this neighborhood the last two years has not been more than one half what tbe average has been in previous years. Tiiereis an ice-house in this liarbor where one hundred and fifty tons of ice is secured for sale to United States fishermen this year, a large number of their vessels being expected at this harbor this year for bait aud ice. his ALFRED + HOPKINS. mark. Sworn before me at Heart's Content, Newfoundland, this 28th April, 1877. J. O FRASBR, Commisaioner of A^davits, Charles Rendell, aged 44 years, fisherman, residing at Heart's Con- tent, in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : I was present when Alfred Hopkins made the statement before J. O. Eraser, commissioner of affidavits, on this day, and which statement is jmariied B. 1 believe the said statement to be true in every particular, I aud judge it to be true and reasonable from an experience of thirty years, [(luring which time I prosecuted the fisheries of this country almost con- tinuously. CHARLES RENDELL. Sworn before me, at Heart's Content, Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, this 1 28th April, 1877. J. O. ERASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. No. 107. Thomas L. Newhook, planter, residing at New Harbor, Newfound- land, niiiketh oath and saith : I am forty-four years of age. My knowledge of the fisheries of this jcountry is derived from practical connection with the same for thirty jyears. I saw four United States fishing- vessels in this harbor last year; I there were a number of them also in other near harbors that I did not [see, but believe they were — as reported — in other harbors looking for Ifresh bait. I don't recollect the names of these vessels, but know they 1 bailed from Gloucester, U. S. A, These vessels came here for fresh bait, pliicli tlioy purchased from our people, except what they jigged them- Iselves. Each vessel took from thirty-five to forty barrels squids for a [trip to the Banks, and the price paid for said bait was from one shilling [to eighteen pence per 100. Newfoundland fishermen catch codfish generally within a mile of the [shore. The Newfoundland cod fishery is an inshore fishery. The bait [fishery — caplin, squids, and herrings — is an inshore fishery. I never [teard of a Newfoundland vessel fishing on any of the coasts or shores oHlie United States of America. The supply of fresh bait to United States fishermen cannot fail to jreduce the supply for local purposes. I The large quantity of fresh bait used on the Banks off our coasts by lUuited States fishermen certainly tends to attract codfish and prevent 1226 AWABD OF THE FISHERT COMMISSION. their passing in towards our shores. Last year's catch of codfish aloDj; these shores was not nearly an average catch. THOMAS L. NEWHOOK. Sworn before me at New Harbor, Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, this 27th April, 1877. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits. Moses Parsons, aged 42 years, school teacher at New Harbor, Trinity | Bay, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : I followed the Newfoundland fisheries for ten years. I was present when Thomas Newhook made the above statement, which I believe to be true iu every particular. MOSES PARSONS. Pworn before me at New Harbor, Trinity Bav, 27th April, 1877. J. O. FRASER, Commissioner of Affidavits, No. 108. Sworn before ill! I EuWAE ]M»^SE, aged 52 years, planter and fisherman, residing at Dildo, in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, maketh oath and saith : I saw nine or ten United States fishing-schooners in this harbor last year; they came in from the Banks for fresh bait and ice. Captain Newhook was master of one of these schooners ; they all hailed from Gloucester, United States of America ; their tonnage ran from sixty to seventy-five tons. I boarded two of them to see how they were fitted out. One of these schooners was at Renteen, in this bay, for caplin; the others seen by me came for squids, which they jigged in part, and in part purchased from local fishermen. The price given for squids, for what they purchased, was from one shilling to two shillings per hun and throw their pogie bait overboard, aD^ draw the fish away from us. 5. Last summer I have seen as many as ten at least at one tin amongst us, arouud where we fished, and they took large quaiitities(| mackerel. These mackerel we consider taken away from us. 6. The Americans have such large quantities of bait that they i our catch. 7. These American mackerel men take from five to six hundred bJi| rei:; apiece, and in the fall season I have known them often to maketi such trips. These American vessels have on board from twelve to looi tee J men each. 8. The American cod-fishermen go into the bays and harbors andj bait and ice, and when a storm comes, they run into our bays audhj| bors. Without bait, and ice in which to keep it, they could catch i fish. 9. The American cod-fishermen take from ten to fifteen hundw quintals of codfish each trip. In taking codfish the Americans travl j the bottom and injure the fishing by taking the mother fish iu there are great numbers of spawn. 10. The Americans throw overboard the offal and sound bone, wbil fiithematter of t AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1237 1 is of great hurt to the fishing grouuil ; this our inshore fishermen never I make a practice of. 11. In Cow Bay, last season, the amount of codfish taken, to the best I of my knowledge, would amount to a thousand quintals. I have knowa a great many more some seasons. Some seasons it is better, some worse. {Xbe amount of herring taken last spring in this bay was about six hun- dred barrels. The amount of mackerel taken last summer was from It'iree to four hundred barrels. These numbers vary, being some years Imach better. 12. Herring are taken all inshore, and also mackerel. 13. Ott" this bay I have known a boat's crew of three men to catch jtrom fifty to sixty halibut in one day, about fifteen years ago. These [halibut measured from three to seven feet each. At the present time jtbis fishery has almost failed, and this I attribute solely to American Itrawlers, and I believe if the Americans were stopped from trawling we |woukl have the halibut as plenty again. 14. If the Americans were shut off our coast from our fisheries, I be- lieve they would in the course of time be as good as ever. JOUX PEACH. Sfforn to at Cow Bay, in the county of Cape Breton, this 24th day of Julv, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH McPHEPtSON, J. P. for and in the County of Cape Breton. 118. li ^u tlie matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the Treaty of Washington. I, James Eraser, of South Bar, in the county of Cape Breton, in the [•rovince of Nova Scotia, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. 1 have been master mariner for twenty-eight years, and am well Icquainted with the coasts of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, east- Vnside of New Brunswick, Lower St. Lawrence, and Newfoundland, jndam well acquainted with all the bays and harbors on those coasts, Ind was acquainted during that period with the fishing on those coasts, hd saw large numbers of American fishing-vessels engaged in fishing More and offshore, and laying at anchor in our bays and harbors. Wing the last twelve years I have been engaged in the inshore fish- ries, and as a trader, and have frequently supplied American fishing- Vssels with ice and bait. 2. 1 bc;ve seen in one summer upwards of two thousand American [shing. vessels on the coasts of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, the istern coast of New Brunswick, and the coast of Newfoundland, en- |>ged in taking the various kinds of fish found in the waters around pose coasts. This number varied, being some years greater and some This I have seen year after year down till 1865, when I discon- hued the coasting trade. [3. During the past twelve years I have supplied frequently Ameri- Iq fishing- vessels with ice and bait. H During the past six years I think on an average fifty sail have been ipplied with ice and bait in Sydney Harbor, and I do not think the Vl-fishing could be carried on without ice and fresh bait profitably. [5. The Inshore fishery is of more value in my oninion than the out- 1238 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. iJ'Jiiii h\iH \f ,"rtl 1; sbore fishery, and tbe Americans injure the inshore fishery by drawingl off tbe fish outshore. I 6. Tbe Americans, as I am informed, use purse seines, and I bave seenl those seines on board their vessels. 7. During the past ten years I have seen one hundred and sixty Amer I lean vessels fish in Sydney Harbor for mackerel in one day, and large! fleets of American fishing-vessels visit our harbor daily for the purpostj of catching mackerel during the mackerel season year after year. 8. The mackerel come inshore to feed and are taken by our fishermen | close inshore, and also by the Americans. 9. Large numbers of our population go on board American RsbiDgl vessels and are engaged in carrying on the American fishing trade, whicbl ought to be encouraged at home. JAMES FRASEE. Sworn to at South Bar, in the county of Cape Breton, this 21st dajol July, A. D. 1877, before me. PATRICK MULLTNS, Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Cape Breton. No. 119. In tbe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the TreatJ of Washington. I, John Ferguson, of Cow Bay, in the county of Cape Breton, in tb{| Province of Nova Scotia, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in fishing during the past thirty-five jeai^l most of that time out of Cow Bay. For two summers I fished out oil Chatham, in the State of Massachusetts, in American vessels engagdl in mackerel fishing in American waters. 2. The mackerel taken in American waters were far inferior to tlios«| taken in our waters. In fact we would not have fished in AmericaEi waters at all if the Americans had not been afraid of coming into isli waters to fish. This was in the year 1853. 3. In this bay I have fished for twenty summers, and have takal mackerel, herring, codfish, haddock, and halibut. 4. The mackerel are taken inshore, and the best grounds for fisbiDjI mackerel are inside the heads in this bay. In my experience, I neTdl saw mackerel taken off shore out beyond three miles. The Americanil come here summer after summer in large numbers ; and last summfll they came among us, commenced taking mackerel, throwing over baitj and drew the mackerel away from our boats. 5. I have seen in Cow Bay, about twelve years ago, over one hundreJI American vessels taking mackerel. They fished in close to the sboitl and up to our wharves, and it would not be of any use for the Amen] cans to come here to fish unless they were allowed to come in closet the shore. 6. In my experience mackerel have varied, being sometimes for a nail ber of years good and for another number of years poor. This is moi«| or less the case with all our fish. 7. I have fished around Scatarie Island, Main-a-Dieu, and out of Mini Bay, about sixteen years ago, and I there at that time saw many Ameii| can fishing vessels engaged in fishing codfish and halibut. I fii' ' around the last-mentioned places for about five years, and none of tlnl American vessels which I saw there went through the Strait of Csm In the matter ( AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1239 land I bave seen from forty to fifty American vessels pass tbrougU the |i' Kittle'- between Scatarie and MainaDieu in one dr.y. 8. On board these American vessels there are from about twelve to Ifourteeu men, and I have been on board one on which there was eighteen Ibands. 9. The American mackerelmen come around this coast and fish from [about the first of August till late in the fall, and take from about six Ihandred to a thousand barrels to each vessel. The Amercan cod fisher- [men average about one thousand quintals to each vessel and make about [two trips each summer. They commence fishing at Scatarie and fish all [around here, all along the shore in and out up to Cape North, and last [gummer I have seen as many as from eight to ten American vessels fish- pDg at one time in sight. 10. The American plan of trawling I consider hurtful to ioe fishing [ground, and the Americans take away a great many fish from our fisher- aen. 11. Tbe inshore fishery includes every kind of fish except codfish, and many of these are taken inshore, and I consider the inshore fishery }f far the greatest value. JOHN FERGUSON. Sworn to at Cow Bay, in the county of Cape Breton, this 25th day of liily, A. D. 1877, before me. JOSEPH Mcpherson, J. r.for and in the County of Cape Breton. No. 120. p tbe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax under the Treaty of Washington. I, John Murphy, of Lingan, in the county of Cape Breton, fisher- man, make oath and say as follows : 1. I bave been engaged twenty years in the taking of fish, part of the iuie inshore and part of the time outshore, and have caught mackerel, ^erring, codfish, and halibut. Tbe mackerel we always took inshore within three miles. During lie past five or six years I have caught mackerel inshore around Lin- jan Harbor, and last year I have seen from ten to fifteen sail of Ameri- bn vessels engaged in taking mackerel. These I have seen at one Ve together, and many around which I did not see. These American ^essels were inshore within two miles of the shore in Lingan Harbor. • many mackerelmen diminish the catch of fish for our fishermen, and re injurious to the mackerel, for they keep them flying about on the |>p of the water, and thus have no time to spawn. During the past re or six years 1 have seen as many American mackerelmen fishing ere. 3. These American mackerelmen take from five to six hundred bar- els apiece, and in the fall season, from September along till and in Oc* ober, I have known may of them to make two such cargoes. 4. The American mackerelmen who fish arouL here come around the |>uthern and eastern coasts of Cape Breton, and all the codfish and abbut fishermen come around the same way. 5. On board the American mackerelmen there are about from twelve ' fourteen men on each vessel, and on board the codfish and halibut Bssels there are the same number. 1240 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Htl. Nlini Iwiii, 'It*: ''ll 6. The American codfishermen come into onr bays and harbors and I get bait and ice vithont which they could not fish ; then go out and trawl to the bottom. This deep trawling is very bad, as they catch the I mother fish which are full of spawn. In deep trawling only the large flsh bite. 7. Herring are taken all inshore ; also mackerel, and great quantities of codfish and halibut. 8. The Americans heave their "gurry" overboard. This I have fre- quently seen them do, and I consider this bad for the fishing-grouDds, I 9. Around the southern and eastern coasts of Cape Breton there are as many American vessels engaged in taking codfish and halibut as in | the taking of mackerel, and they take from eight to ten hundred quiu tals of codfish each. 10. The halibut they pack in ice which they can get in Sydney and Louisburg, and ice which they to some extent bring with them. i 11. Squids and caplin have set in very plentifully this year, and the fish always follow them j and mackerel are expected to be very plenty this fall. 12. I was at St. Ann's, in the county of Victoria, a week ago, and saw I many mackerel schools and herring schools, and the people all said it [ was a very plentiful year for mackerel. JOHN + MUKPHY. mark. Sworn to at Lingan, in the county of Cape Bretou, this 24th dayoi July, A. D. 1877, before me. WALTER YOUNG, J. T. No. 121. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at of Washington. Halifax under the Treatj I, Angus jVIatheson, of South Sydney, in the county of Cape BretflD,| Province of Nova Scotia, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. About twelve years ago I fished for two seasons in company i in American fishing- vessels. These vessels came from Gloucester, i were engaged in mackerel-Ashing. I fished around the eastern coast ofl Cape Breton, and eastern part of Prince Edward Island, and the Mag [ dalen Islands. Since then I have been engaged more or less in the in shore fisheries this summer, from the twenty-sixth of April till the mid | die of July. I hove off Low Point light-house, in the county of Cape| Breton, in boats, fished codfish, haddock, halibut, and herring. 2. During the past twelve years I have seen many American fishing I vessels fishing mackerel near shore. They fished inshore sometiniesj close to the shore, because the mackerel come inshore, and I have fls' hundreds of barrels of mackerel, and have never yet taken them morel than three-quarters of a mile from the shore ; and I have caught thenl in Sydney Harbor until the bottom of the boat touched the ground.! The Americans always come inshore for the mackerel, and when tbeyl did not fish them inshore they baited them off to beyond the three miles,| and most any kind of fish can be baited off in this way. 3. I have seen within the past twelve years over two hundred fishingl near Low Point. Each season, from Scatario all round the shore npt^j Cape North, there are hundreds of these American fishing-vessels, i they fish here from year to year, and at the present time. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1241 4, I have never known codfish and halibat vessels to go through the Gut of Canso, and I have known of many American mackerel-fishing vessels go around the southern and eastern coasts of Cape Breton and fisb along those coasts. 5. These Americans catch immense quantities of mackerel — from one bandred to a thousand barrels — and I can safely say, average from five hundred to six hundred barrels each vessel on each trip. These vessels take from two to three cargoes each year. G, The mackerel during the past six years have been an average catch ; and this year, and during the present summer, bait has struck in mure plentiful than I have ever known, and fish always follow the bait. The mackerel are at present striking inshore plentifully, and I believe will be as good as ever they have been. 7. The Americans, to my knowledge, trawl much deeper than our fishermen. They catch the mother lish by thus trawling so deep, and destroy great quantities of spawn. They" throw overboard the offal ifrom the fish, which is very injurious to the fishing ground, especially tbe heads and maw bones. I have myself, this summer, caught codfish vith the heads of fish in their maws; these heads must have been thrown from vessels offshore, because we take our fish inshore to dress, and the Ifarmers come and take all the offal away to their farms, which they say is the very best manure they can find. These heads and sound-bones khich are thrown over kill the fish. 8. During the twelve years of my experience the Americans always shed within shore, and wherever they could get fish, and the inshore shery is of much ^he greatest value. The Americans diminish the uantities of fish, especially when they employ improper means for tak- ing them. By improper means I refer to deep trawling. The quan ti- les of offal thrown overboard sicken and destroy the fish, and thus Djure the inshore catch. During this summer, I, for a short time, and for the first time tried two jigs ; I only caught two codfish with them, nd am sure that I destroyed more than one hundred, and whoever em- loys this method of taking fish must destroy vast numbers. 0. The ben-ing is taken inshore by Nova Scotia fishermen, and the mericans buy them fresh for bait when they can get them. They also uy ice all around the coast wherever they can get it, in which to pack ibeir bait. This privilege is of great importance to them, for without ait, and ice in which to keep it, they could catch no fish. 10, It is my opinion that unless Americans are excluded that the fish- g will be much lessened. These fisheries I consider to be of untold lealth, both to the Americans and to our own people, and would be of ery much more value to our Nova Scotia people if the Americans ere excluded. ANGUS iMATHESON. Swore to at South Sydney, in the county of Cape Breton, this 23rd day >f July, A. D. 1877, before me. A. HARRY BOURINOT, Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Cape Breton. No. 122. I the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty uptuH of Washington. i 1) William H. Sweet, of Fall River, in the State of Massachusetts 1242 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. W ■■* United States of America, but now of Fort Hood, in the county of luver- ness, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the Ashing vessels fitted out by the Ameri^ cans for the past five years, and have been engaged during that time in fishing in all parts of the gulf, on the coast of Nova Scotia, Cape Breton and P. E. Island and on the shores of the Magdalen Island. 2. A large number of American vessels have been engaged in fishing in these waters for some years past, taking chiefly mackerel and codfish. The average cargo of an American vessel is about 450 barrels of macic erel during one trip, though I have known some vessels to take a inucii larger number. The average cargo of codfish is from 600 to 1,000 quin- tals per trip. On an average these vessels make two or three trips per season. 3. The American fishermen are in the habit of throwing offal over board while they are fishing on the coast, and this practice has been in jurions to the fishing grounds, and glutted the fish in the neighborhood, and it is found necessary to move away after a while from the places where the offal has been thrown. 4. American fishing vessels are sometimes accustomed to use the parse seines in fishing for mackerel, and the effect of this I consider very in- jurious to the fishing grounds. I have known our fishermen to take as many as a thousand barrels of mackerel in one haul, and they cannot | cure all these, and consequently have to let a good portion of them go adrift, and many of the fish are killed. This practice must do seriom | damag'?. 5. Mackerel chiefly feed and breed inshore. They have to go in- shore for food, because the smaller fish on which they feed live wholly or chiefly in shoal water. 6. Very large quantities of mackerel are taken by our fishermen in- shore on Canadian fishing grounds, but I cannot say what proportion oi | the whole catch. In September and October a large part of the mack erel fishing is done inshore. 7. The present system of trawling practiced by the American fislier men in cod«fishing is most dangerous to Canadian fishing grounds. It I destroys the mother-fish, and being followed up the whole season it takes fish during the spawning season. £eing anxious to get cargoes of large fish the Americans throw the small fish overboard. I believe if | this trawling system is pursued much longer, it will very greatly dam age the Canadian fishing grounds, if not ruin them. 8. It is a very great advantage to American fishermen to be able to I procure bait and ice in Canadian ports along the coast, and to catch it near the shore. It is considered by the Americans more advantageous to buy the bait for the cod-fishery than to catch it themselves. If the American fishing vessels could not procure bait on the Canadian shores, they would almost have to abandon the cod-fishery. Bait will only last about three weeks in ice, and if the Americans could not get the ice here I we could only preserve our bait by salting it, which injures it. It would I be impossible for us to carry on the cod-fishery profitably if we bad to | return to American waters and ports to procure all our bait. WM. H. SWEET. Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 20th day of| July, A. D. 1877, before me. D. CAMPBELL, J. P. Id the matter of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 123. 1243 In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, ii:ider the Treaty of Washingtou. I, James Archibald, of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts, iDited States of America, at prasent of Port Hood, in the county of iDveruess, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the fishing business for twenty years past, and during seven years past I have been fishing in American vessels, ill American and Canadian waters. I have been engaged in various kinds of fishing on the coasts of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, in the gulf, and about the Magdalen Islands, and P. E. Island. I came into this port in an American fishing vessel, and have been engaged in fish- ing here during the present season. 2. Since I have been fishing in these parts, I have known of a large number of American fishing vessels frequenting these coasts, chiefly ■ engaged in taking codfish and mackerel. Each vessel carries about 1 450 barrels of mackerel at a cargo, and makes two or three trips during the season. The average cargo of codfish is from 600 to 1,000 quintals i each vessel. The vessels average about 60 or 70 tons, and I have known I some vessels to take larger cargoes. 3. I know that our fishermen are in the habit of throwing offal over- I board after catching the fish, and I think this must be injurious to the fishing-ground, and the vessels have to move away from the places I where they throw over the offal every little while. 4. 1 have known American fishing vessels to use the purse-seines in Ifishing mackerel quite often, and I know it must do great injury to the I fishing-grounds. They make such large hauls in these seines that they cannotcure all the fish unless they have other vessels near, and so they ibave to send many fish adrift, and some are killed in the operation. I This practice will do great harm to the grounds. Very large quantities of mackerel are taken by our fishermen now linshore, but I would not like to say what proportion of the whole mack- lerel catch. Late in the autumn a great deal of the fishing is done in- Ishore. According to the best of my knowledge and experience mackerel jbreed and feed for the most part inshore. They feed on smaller fish phich are found almost entirely in shoal water. 6. The system of trawling for codfish is practiced now quite largely by lAmericau fishermen in these parts, and I believe it will be very injurious [to the fishing-grounds. It destroys the mother fish, and as the fish are Itaken all through the season they must be caught while spawning. imerican fishermen for the sake of getting large cod throw the small I overboard, which tends to damage the grounds very 8e^iouslJ^ 'i. It is considered by American fishermen a very great advantage to sable to procure bait and ice *n the Canadian ports adjacent to the [rounds, either by buying it or catching it near the shore. It is more profitable to our fishermen to buy it than to catch it, as a rule. If the Americans could not procure bait on the Canadian shores I do not see low they could carry on the cod-fishery. Bait only lasts about three peeks in ice, and if we could not get ice here we could only preserve pbait by salting, which is always considered an injury to bait. We mi not carry on codfishing with any profit on these shores if we had ^ return to American waters and ports to get bait all the season. his JAMES -f ARCHIBALD. mark. 1244 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ••»!!#» >f'* I !t H^'f lipf «!'' Il<'' ii> hI ''«*li ■111 Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 20th day of July, A. D. 1877 (being first read and explained). D. CAMPBELL, J. P. No. 124. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treat; of Washington. I, BiCHABD Thomas, of Booth Bay, in the State of Maine, United States of America, at present of Port Hood, in the county of luver- ness, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged on board of American fishing- vessels for tbe past twenty-four years, and have been engaged in fishing on all parts of the coasts of Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, and the Magdalen Islands ; and am familiar with the whole fishing business in these parts. I entered this port only a few days ago in an American fishing- vessel, and have been fishing in these waters during the piesent season. 2. I have read over the affidavit of James Archibald, of Boston. made herein on this date, the 20th of J uly, A. D. 1877, and I say that the statements contained in said affidavit in reference to the fishing business on this coast are, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, correct and true in every particular. KICHARD THOMAS. Sworn at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 20th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. D. CAMPBELL, J. P. No. 125. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, John R. Hamilton, of New Carlisle, county of Bonaventnre,Prov | ince of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. Have been engaged in the fisheries for tho last seventeen years, having had establishments on the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lav rence, at Seven Islands, on the Bull Island, River Moisie, St. Jubn's | River, and Long Point near Mingan. 2. I consider that the fishery by the Americans in Canadian waters has been very extensive between 1854 and 1866; I have seen as many as 100 schooners in Paspebiac Harbor, and as many at Seven Islands. At least 200 schooners have visited our shores for mackerel during part of the Reciprocity Treaty that I have mentioned, yearly. The average tonnage of these vessels is 80 tons, each vessel having from 12 to lii men for a crew. 3. The principal places where I have seen them fish for mackerel \rere | Bay Chaleurs and Seven Islands on the north shore. 4. During the Reciprocity Treaty the American schooners generally I made good voyages and sometimes two, averaging 400 barrels eacli | voyage. 5. I have seen American schooners frequently fishing for cod and ball but, at Seven Islands, inshore. 6. The cod-fishery fluctuates, but the fishery now is equal to, if no AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1245 superior to, that of fifteen years ago. The herring about tbe same. Maclcerel are not as plenty here as they were twenty years ago, but it might be accidental. 7. Tlie Americans take mackerel with hand-liues, purse and hauling- gelneH. 8. Tbe Americans mostly fish inshore at Seven Islands, and half of the time at Bay Chaleurs. 9. I have seen American vessels leave Seven Islands loaded with mackerel caught inshore. I have also seen them hauling the seines ashore, I should say with over a hundred barrels of mackerel. 10. The inshore fishery is of greater value than the outside. All the herring, caplin, launce, two-thirds of the codfish, and most of the hali- but are taken inshore. 11. I have seen the Americans throw bait and entice the mackerel to their vessels, and tbe boats belonging to our coast could not take many. 12. A good part of the mackerel are taken by the Americans with seines. Most of those that I have seen seining were fishing inshore. 13. Tbe bait the Americans take on these shores for the cod and hali- but fisheries is taken inshore. 1 have seen them several times taking bait with nets and seines. 14. I think the codfishing has not changed since 1871. 13. Tbe Americans take all the herring inshore ; they take them for bait. 16. Mackerel feed along the shores of the Bay Ghaleur, Seven Islands, Moisie and Mingan, and in fact all the places that I have visited. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the North Shore and Bay Chaleur they feed inshore on small fish, &c. 17. I consider it a great advantage to the Americans to be able to land, dry their nets, and cure their fish. 18. 1 consider it a great advantage to Americans to be able to trans- ship their cargoes because it enables them to continue fishing, instead of going to tbe United States or elsewhere with their cargoes. 19. It is an advantage to the American fishermen to be able to pro- cure bait in our waters, either to buy or catch it. If they buy it, it is because they find it more i)rofitable than to catch it themselves in order to save time. 20. It would be impossible for the Americans to carry on tbe cod and halibut fishery without being able to procure bait in our inshore, that is to say profitably. 21. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters. 22. Tbe privilege of transshipping cargoes is worth a load ; and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for cod and halibut is equal to I their lisbery. 23. I believe that the privilege or fishing by the Americans in our i waters injures the fishery very materially. JOHN R. HAMILTON. Sworn, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at New Carlisle, county of Bonaventnre, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. ' N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. 1246 AWAKD OF THE FISHERY C0MM1S8I0N. tk No. 126. In tUe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington: I, Bapi'ISTe Couture, of Grand River, county of Gasp4, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in all the fisheries on this coast for forty years. 2. The fishing by the American fishermen was very extensive on thij shore between Newport and Cape Despair, a distance of 27 miles, from 1854 to 1866. On this shore during the Reciprocity Treaty, from 18.J4 to 1866, fully sixty schooners have been engaged in the mackerel fishery yearly, each of these vessels being about 7U tons, having a crew of fifteeii men. 3. On an average these schooners have made good voyages of 400 barrels each. 4. The cod- fishery seems to be on the increase, and considerably. Herring are about the same, and mackerel seem to be in as greii. abundance on our shores here as in former years. Our Canadian fisher- men take them as plentifully now as in the best years. 5. The Americans take mackerel with hand lines and seines. 6. During the Reciprocity Treaty, between 1854 and 1866, the Ameri- can fishermen that have resorted to these shores for mackerel have caught the most of them inshore, and sometimes very close to the shore, I have seen them fish with hand lines only, and they have got their load in a few days. Every year I have been alongside of them and have seen them fishing. 7. Our inshore fisheries are of much greater value than the outside. Herring, caplin, launce are caught inshore, and two- thirds of the mack- erel also. 8. It is the common practice of the Americans to come in among the boats and, by throwing bait, entice the mackerel away with them. They have done the same to me many times. And if a school of mackerel were to come into any of our coves, and the Americans to come in after them, they would catch them all before we could get one. 9. I have seen the Americans several times come into our inshoresand catch caplin with seines, and herring with nets, for bait. 10. Since 1871 all the fisheries — that is to say, mackerel, herring, and codfish—have increased, and there is as much hmt as evisr; and I m sure this increase is due to the withdrawing ' Am< m flshormeu from our waters. 11. Mackerel feed inshore; theii ..s lance and other small fish which live inshore. 12. It is a great advantage to the . nerican'^ to be allowed to trans- ship their cargoes in our insbores ; it eiiablp them to keep on the fish- ing-grounds and to double their fares. 13. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to caf<''i bait | in our inshores, or to buy it. If they buy it, it is because the^ .uditj more profitable. 14. The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fishery | profitably if they could not procure bait in our inshores. 15. It is of no advantage to Canadians to be able to fish in American | waters, and I never knew of any vessel from here going there do so. 16. The privilege of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by the AmcricanJl I is worth a load, and halibut is w 17. The privili I injures our Cana are so much bett j ing-grounds cam I there to prove tl Sworn to the b River, county of [25th (lay of July, In the matter oft I, Edward G. 1 jince of Quebec, fai 1. Have been ei |Have fished with 1 'I Between 185^ kery extensive. 1 have been about 15 about 70 tons, hav phing iu Bay Chal BD(1 inshore for a s I 3. The American none well during tl lo 350 barrels each I was engaged toU Ibree trips yearly. ' i. In the Bay CI Herring about the t ii the Bay Chaleur 1% off my place, 1 ^- The American; mthe seines iu iliat they had taker C. In Bay Chaleu irpthirdsofthetin .'• The inshore fis Ide. U AH the herrint Hhshalso. Two-t [ '• The use of the "cause it takes eve N want it, and tl J- The American J 11. Since 1871 the IPt for mackerel, bi IU The American AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1247 is worth a load, and the privilege of getting bait in onr inshore^ for cod and halibut is worth these fisheries. 17, The privilege enjoyed by the Americans to fish in our waters injures our Canadian fishermen a great deal. Their vessels and gear are 80 much better we cannot compete with them at all, and our flHh- inggrounds cannot stand the heavy drafts. Our past experience is I there to prove the fact. BAniSTE COUTURE. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Grand River, county of Gaspt^, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 25th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOlE, Justice of Peace, Province of Qnebec. No. 127. I In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at FTalifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Edward G. Uall, of New Carlisle, county of Bonaventure, Prov- lince of Quebec, farmer and fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been engaged in the fisheries oft' and on for about 30 years. lEare iished with the Americans. :'. Between 1854 and 1806 the mackerel- fishing by the Americans was Ivery extensive. The average number of vessels visiting these shores have been about 150 yearly. The average tonnage of these vessels being iboat 70 tons, having from 12 to 15 men for a crew. I have seen vessels GsbiDg in Bay Chaleur for mackerel, and I have fished myself with them, ^nd inshore for a season, between 1854 and 18GG. 3. The American vessels that have visited our shores have always doue well during the period mentioned. Each voyage amounting yearly |o350 barrels each. And the captain of the American vessel in which [was engaged told me that several of these schooners make two or [tliree trips yearly. 4. In the Bay Chaleur the cod-fishery is better now than formerly. lerring about the same. Mackerel as plenty as ever on the south shore bf the Bay Chaleur. 1 have seen large schools not later than last Sa^• pay ott' my place, and very close to the shore. 5. The Americans catch mackerel with hand-lines and seines. I have leen the seines in their boats, and I saw about 40 barrels of mackerel |bat they had taken with the seines in one hour. G. In Bay Chaleur American fishermen fish inshore with hand-lines iro thirds of the time, and all the hauling of the seines are inshore. I. The inshore fishery on this shore is of greater value than tht out- |(lo. S. All the herring, caplin, and lance are taken inshore, and all the odtish also. Two-thirds of the mackerel are also taken inshore. 1 9. The use of the seines by the Americans is injurious to the fishery, cause it takes every kind of fish, a part of which is lost, because they on't want it, and they throw them away. i 10. The Americans take bait in our inshores. 1 11. Since 1871 the fishery has not changed in the Bay Chaleur, ex- m for mackerel, but there is a great increase this year. |1^> The Americans catch herring in our inshores for bait only. 1248 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. h 13. I have seen in the Bay Gbaleur mackerel not longer than 3 or i inches, and I take it from that that they breed here. 14. Mackerel feed on lance and shrimps. 15. I consider it of great advantage to Americans to be able to land, dry their nets, and cure their fish. 16. It is a great advantage to Americans to be able to transship car- goes, because it enables them to keep the fishing grounds, and to make extra trips. 17. I consider it a great advantage to the Americans to be able to procure bait in our inshores. 18. I consider that the Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fishery profitably without being able to procure bait in our | inshores. 19. I consider it a great advantage to Americans to be able to procure j ice in our inshores to preserve their bait. 20. It is of no advantage to Canadian fishermen to be able to fisb Id American waters, and I don't know of any vessel from here ever going there to fish. 21. The privilege granted to Americans to transship cargoes is worth a load, and the privilege of procuring bait in our inshores for tlshio; | cod and halibut is equal to these fisheries. 22. I consider that fishing by Americans in our waters injures us greatly, because they take our fish and impoverish our coast. EDWAKD G. HALL. rTfJ/ Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at ^% Carlisle, county of Bonaveutu''e, Province of Quebec, Dominion ot Canada, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of Peace Province of Quebec. Ko. 128. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty j of Washington. I, William Edward Gardner, of Louisburg, in the county of Cape I Breton and Province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as [ follows : 1. For the twelve years last past, I have been engaged in the buj ing and selling of fish and for two years previous engiged in fishing in | the inshore boat fishing, and am well acquainted with the inshore fisb ing in and around Louisburg Harbor and with many Canadian ami Auier ican fisL"irmen. 2. I have seen in this harbor within the last six years from twelve to | sixteen American fishing vessels at one time, and think that about seven ty-five have come in here yearly during the past six years. The Amer ican vessels which come here do not pass through the Strait of CauHO j These American vessels are mostly engaged in trawl fishing, and k'i wherever t' ey can get fish. 3. On board these American vessels there are from ten to fifteen men. They take on an average from ten to twelve hundred quintals of cod I fish to each vessel, and make yearly from two to three trips. Thes*! codfish are of the best kind, for many of them throw overboard tjwj small fish. American skippers have themselves informed me of thiij Thus large quantities of small fish are wasted, for the fish are d( when taken "fi: the trawl, or at least before culled. |ln the matter of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1249 4. Aroiiud uikI in Lauisbursf Harbor during the past six years there bas ou an average been from eight hundred to a thousand barrels of mackerel taken each year. In Louisburg Harbor there are about one Imndred boats engaged in the inshore fishery, and these boats take from one hundred to one hundred and fifty quintals of codflsh each, yearly. During the past six years there has been taken yearly on an I average about three thousand barrels of herring. About ten years ago larger quantities of mackerel were taken. o! The Americans take fish by trawling, and trawl so deep that they take the large fish, which are the mother fish, and thus large quantities I of spawn are destroyed. The Americans take mackerel with hook and line, they jig them, and they have told us last summer that they had I purse seines on board. 7. The inshore fisheries are of very great value to our people, and it lis of great importance that they should be protected and fostered, and [all the inhabitants here depend upon the fishing. 8. American fishing-vessels purchase bait here in large quantities, I mostly herring and mackerel, because it saves time, and without bait the Americans can catch no fish. From twenty to thirty American vessels j purchase bait in this harbor yearly. These American vessels all pur- icliase ice in which to pack their bait, from tkree to ten tons each, and ] when ice and bait run out they return for more. This ice is indispen- {sable for their bait, for they tell me they cannot profitably catch fish I without fresh bait. 9. 1 am not aware of any Canadian vessel fishing in American waters, iiiorbave J ever heard of any. The privilege of fishing in American [waters I consider of no value, while the Americans take vast quantities [offish out of our waters. 10. The amount of ice and bait taken by American fishing- vessels is [worth in cash from seventy-five to one hundred and twenty dollars. [Their supplies are brought from home with them, and they only pur- I chase from us when they run short, and the amount purchased, except [ice and bait, is very small. 11. In my opinion, if American fishermen were excluded from Cana- Idian waters and our markets left to ourselves, it would be much better jfor our fishermen. J. E. GARDNER. Sworu to at Louisburg, this 27th day of July, A. D. 1877, in the county [of Cape Breton, before me. PATRICK O'TOOLE, J. P. for the County of Cape Breton. No. 129. jIii the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Philip Lemontais, of Arichat, in the county of Richmond and province of Nova Scotia, agent for the firm of Robin & Company, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 have had a good knowledge of our fisheries on the coasts of Can- ada during the past twenty -five years, for twenty years of which I have eii agtnt of the firm of Robin & Company, who do an extensive fish- ing business in various parts of the world, the principal house being 79 F 1250 AWARD OP THE FISnERY COMMISSION. a :«:#«;* situated in Jersey, one of the Channel Islands, with branches at variouB points, and among others at Arichat, Glieticamp, Fassepebiac, Perce, Caraquet, Grand Eiver, and other places in Canada. 2. I am quite confident that tlie number of American fishing- vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ranges from six hundred to eight hundred vessels yearly. I am perfectly confident that is below the mark, and I have good means of knowing it, as I have been agent of ]tobin & Com- pany at Cheticamp, on the northwestern shore of Gape Breton, for the greater part of twenty years. The harbor of Cheticamp is much fre- quented by American fishing- vessels, and I have seen at one time aloDg the shore between six hundred and eight hundred fishing-vessels, most of which were American. These vessels were fishing for mackerel along the shore of Cape Breton. 3. I consider that five hundred barrels of mackerel per vessel each season is about the averege catch of the American mackerelers iQ the Gulf of St. Lawrence. These mackerel are worth, on an average, ten dollars per barrel. 4. The mackerel fishery \ i variable, being occasionally poor for a year or two, and afterwards becoming excellent again. The mackerel fishery was very good from 1871 to 1874, but poor in 1875 and 1876. I have known these fish to be scarce for a year or two, as they were in 18"o and 1876, and afterwards come in plenty again ; and I believe, and my experience teaches me, that the mackerel will be again abundant on our coasts. 5. The Americans catch the mackerel with hook and line, and withia the last two or three years they are using purse seines, which, iu my opinion, are very injurious to the mackerel fishery. The codfish are caught by the Americans with trawls, which are also very destructive to the fishery. G. Since the year 1871 the Americans have fished almost altogether within thiee miles of the shore for mackerel. I believe that the outside fisheries are not to be compared in value to the inshore fisheries on our coasts. The Amerioaus must catch at least one-half the mackerel tbey get within three miles of the shore. 7. There is no doubt whatever that our inshore boat-fishery is greatly injured by the Americans fishing iu our waters, as tlie latter couie in and throw bait and draw away the mackerel from the boat-fishermeu, 8, Since 1871 the Americans have been injuring our fisheries very much more than formerly, as they have been allowed to come iiisliore among our own flshernien. 9. The herring fishery on our coast is altogether an inshore fislierv. 10. The food of mackerel is found chiefly inshore, and it is probably close to the shore where they spawn and breed. 11. It is a very great advantage to American fishermen to be allowed to transship their cargoes on our shores. This privilege saves them about two or three weeks on each trip they make to the Gulf of St. Lawrence for mackerel, and this in the best part of the fishing season. 12. The privilege of procuring bait in Canadian waters is, of course, a very great advantage to American cod-fishermen. The greater part of their bait is purchased from our fishermen, and it is cheaper for tlieui to obtain it in that way than to spend the time in catching it themselves. I don't believe that the Americans can profitably carry on the cod fish- ery of the deep sea without resorting to the shores of Canada or New foundland for bait. It is also a great advantage to the American cod- fishermen to be allowed to procure ice on our shores to keep their bait fresh w hile on their way to the fishing grounds. In the matter of AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1251 13. The privilege of fishing in American waters is, in my opinion, ut- terly valueless to Canadians ; and I have never, in my experience of a quarter of a century, heard of any Canadian vessel fishing in the waters of the United States. 14. I consider that the privilege of transshipping cargoes is worth to American fishermen about 50 per cent, of their catch. The privilege of baitiD()r. cove, and crt'fk, and wherever 1258 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. they can find them. They buy herring and mackerel. They do ro be cause it saves time and the expense of fitting oat their vessels with net, The Americans being allowed to get bait, interfere with our vessels, as they come at a time when herring and mackerel are scarce. Last year an American vessel loaded with halibut inside of the Kettle, between Scaterie and the main-land, and trawl around there for halibut. 10. Since seventy-three the mackerel fell off until this year, when thej are very plenty again. On the banks the codfish during the past sii years have fallen off" to some extent. This the fishermen attribute to too much trawling. 11. The herring fishery is all inshore in Canadian waters, and tlie Americans catch them for bait, as already stated. 12. I have often heard the Americans say that our fall mackerel is | much superior to theirs. 13. The mackerel make inshore to feed. They trim the shore, are | taken inshore, and I consider them an inshore fish. 14. I have often seen the Americans transship their cargoes at tlie Strait of Canso, and in a good season they would save from two to three thousand dollars to each vessel by so doing. By this privilege tbej save time, expense, and catch more fish. They are enabled to refit and remain constantly on the ground. 15. The Americans get bait and ice in this county in large quantities, and without this bait and ice in which to keep it fresh it would be im possible for the Americans to carry on the deep-sea fishery. When the Americans come on to our coast they make every effort to get bait, and ice in which to keep it fresh, because they say that without this bait and ice they could catch no fish. 16. I have never known nor heard of any Canadian vessel fishing in American waters, and I consider this right to be of no value to Canadian fishermen. 17. Such large numbers of Americans carry off great quantities of fisli and make them scarce for our fishermen. They injure our grounds bj throwing overboard large quantities of offal, and by trawling. They interfere with our supply of ice and bait. 18. It would be a great benefit, in my opinion, if the Americans were excluded from our fishing grounds, particularly our inshore fisheries, JOHN MORTEN. Sworu to at Port Medway, in the county of Queen's, this 14:th day of | August, A. D. 1877, before me. E. C. SEELY, J. P. No. 135. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, John Smeltzer, of Lunenburg Town, in the county of Luiien burg, master mariner, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for about thirty-five years; i for twenty-seven years I have fished as master in a vessel of my own j with eleven hands. I have fished along the coast of Nova Scotia, ea em side of Cape Breton, around Prince Edward Island, and in the Bay I of Chaleurs, on the east coast of New Brunswick, and have been Bant [ fishing, and am at present well acquainted with the inshore fishery in Lunenburg County. I have fished mackerel, herring, codfish, balibQt,| hake, haddock, and pollock. AWARD or THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1259 2. About eleven years ago, when in tbe Bay of Cimleurs, I saw in Malpeqiio Harbor, Prince Edward Island, about seventy sail at one time, all American fishing vessels. Last fall I saw around Port Hood about seventy sail of American vessels at one time. American macker- clmeii average about fifteen men. I have seen as many as thirty men ill one American mackerelman. American codfishmen carry from twelve to twenty men. Mostly all the mackerel is taken inshore, and I would not give a pin for all taken outside of three miles. 3. The Americans averaged about from five to six hundred barrels of mackerel in the season to each vessel. American cod-flshermen take from one to three thousand quintals to each vessel. American mack- I ereimen make about three trips, cod-flshermen the same. 4. Mackerel, in my experience, have often varied. About fifteen years I ago they were very scarce ; since that time they have often been plenty. Some years they strike in very plenty, other years they are scarce, and I tbis is my experience for forty years. Herring fishery remains about Itlie same. Codfish can always be had if bait is plenty. Americans take mackerel inshore mostly with hook and line ; and [ibave seen Americans within three miles of the shore at Cascumpec, Prince Edward Island, use purse seines, about eleven years ago. The Americans carry on cod and halibut fishing mostly by trawling, some I with book and line. 6. Tbe Americans throw overboard the offal of the fish when codfish- ling:, ami particuljirly the sound bone, which is very injurious to the fish ami tisbinggrouud, and 1 have myself caught large codfish with the 1 sound bone in them, and they were reduced to mere skeletons. 7. Tbe Americans, in my experience, always fished inshore when they [could for mackerel. I have seen them fish in so close to the shore that tbcir vessels grounded. When a cutter hove in sight they got away as quickly as they could, and came inshore again whenever the cutter was out of sight. Out of Lunenburg County, about fifteen years ago, there were from thirty to forty vessels engaged in mackerel-fishing, and when j tbis fishery was protected by cutters our vessels made good fares. Since 'I.e Americans have been admitted to the inshore fishery our vessels |bave done very poorly. 8. Tbe inshore fisheries are of much greater value thiin the outside Iflsberies. The inshore fisheries are worth four times that of the outside Ifisberies. 9. About fifteen years ago I have seen American vessels fishing for Iniackerel in the back harbor of Lunenburg, and I have baited an Ameri- ■cau vessel in this harbor about five years ago. Other parties have often |laited American vessels in the harbor. The Americans mostly purchase tbe bait tbey get, in order to save time. 10. In tbe North Bay I have seen Americans catch codfish inshore, [and large quantities of codfish are taken inshore by Canadian flsher- iieii, and also halibut. 11. Since 1871 fish have fallen oflF somewhat. This, I think, is owing jto tbe large number of Americans w'ho visit our shores to take fish. 12. The herring fishery is all inshore, and the Americans buy them from our fishermen in order to save time, as also do the vessels which Ve fit out ourselves in order to save time. 13. Tbe run of mackerel is sometimes of better quality than at others. Hieu our run of mackerel is good it cannot be beaten, and three falls M I was in Boston market with our mackerel, and it was much superior to any mackerel which I there saw. 1260 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 4 . *■ 14. Mackerel follow the shrimp iusbore, and spawn inshore in tlie bayji and harbors around our coasts. 15. About Oanso I have often seen Americans land and dry their I nets. This privilege I consider of great value to them, as it (Miablesl them to carry on the inshore net fishery. 16. I have seen Americans transship their cargo at Canso, and bywl doing they save a great deal of time, and catch more Hsh. Tliey save from two to three weelis in the best of the season. 17. If the Ameiicans could not procure bait inshore from ('anadiaDl fishermen, and ice in which to i)ack it, they could not cairy on, in mj opinion, the Bank fishing witli success, and they buy bait, as alieiuh stated, in order to save time. They could not preserve their bait witli [ out ice, and they get ice along the coast near where tliey get bait. 18. I do not know nor have I ever heard of any Canadian vessels 114 ing in American waters, and I consider this privilege of no value, 19. In fitting out vessels, which I have often done, the American! | make bait and ice scarce because of the larger quantities of herring a mackerel they take away before these fish become plenty, and tliosl hinder our fishing- vessels. They make the fisli scarce for our inshore | fishermen. 20. In my opinion our fisheries would be more than double their | present value to us if the Americans were excluderotocted by cutters for Vtimp. The Americans fished inshore when the cutters were out of p, and made off when a cutter appeared. This was ah\ ays my experi- fe. i liave seen two American vessels made prizes of by a cutter. p. The inshore fisheries in Canadian waters, within three miles of the pe, are of more value than the offshore fishery. 1 would say more p. 0"!' Canadian fishermen catch codfish in large quantities around !coast within three miles, also halibut. [ have seen many American Ns take codfish on the Labrador coast within three miles of the shore [■^tiiiin;;'. I'tirtwolve to fifteen years I have taken mackerel in the North Bay, ii- iiiy experience they varied in quantity and quality, being some Sf>;iH)d and others poor. Mackerel schools have struck into this flioitlii.s yoiu- ])retty plertifidly. llieboi ring fishery in Canadian waters is all inshore, and they are :v\\. m^^:-?>:■;^^"•■ ■ > ^^'^p^:'^SPl:'^ ■ fc ^'Vf^w^ *'* ili.~'N"yvm''S ■' ■' ■ ^''■?\\' V- v* :,^^ .m?^ 1264 A^VAI{D OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. »!.,< takeu all inshore. The Americans buy these herring for bait all along the cortSt ; by buying they save time and expense. 9. I have never known or heard of any Canadian vessels going into American waters to take fish, nor do 1 know of any benefit to Cana dians from this right. 10. I have seen Americans running into harbors in Cape Breton aiid Prince Edward Island to cure fish. When a gale of wind comes on they do this. 11. I have often seen the Americans transshipping their cargoes at the Strait of Canso j by so doing they save time and expense and take more fish. 12. It is a great advantage to the Americans to get bait and ice aloiij the Canadian coast, and this they do from Cape Sable to Labrador ami wherever they can. Without this bait, and ice in which to pres( ; v( n, they could catch no fish. 13. When in the North Bay I have often been h^e-bovM-d by Ameri can vessels, and I have seen them running into 2vova Scotian vessek 14. If the Americans were shut out from our inshore fisheries it wou!' be of great benefit to Canadian fishermen, and I know ot no b. ueli: that we derive from American fishermen. JAMES rUBLICOVER. Sworn to at New Dublin, in the county of Lunenburg, this 9th day of j August, A. D. 1877, before me. BENJ. EYNARD, J. ' lu the matter of the No. 139. Fisheries Commission at Treaty ol Washington. Halifax, under tk :Iii the matter of ~^^i >■-...„ .,-!SW*,. I,DoNA.LD McDouGALL,of Main a-Dieu,in the county of Cape Breton, | merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the buying and selling of fish for twenty five years, and am well acquainted with tue fisheries as carried on here, and am well acquiuted with the fishermen from Big Lorraine to 3Iiri| Bay, and have done business with American fishermen. 2. The fish taken in this vicinity during the past twenty-five jears lias I been codfish, mackerel, herring, halibut, and salmon. Formerly balibnt was very plentiful, so much so that our inshore fishermen could ahviiTS catch a fare, but since the Americans came here trawling for them tliev Lave almost disappeared. The best halibut grounds are within tliree miles of the shore, and on these grounds the Americans trawled. Oiir I fishermen never trawled for halibut. 3. In this vicinity there are taken annually from five to six han(lreii| barrels of mackerel, and are not quite so plentiful as they have beeuten or fifteen years ago. There are taken in this vicinity about a thousanili barrels of herring. On average there is taken about from seven to ei}!lit| thousand quintals of codfish. The most of the people in this vlciuity| depend upon the fishing, which they carry on in small boats inshore. 1. The Americans have always been on this coast, year after .year,| fishing mackerel. The Americans come inshore and fish mackerel,! diminish the catch for our inshore fishermen. The Americans purcbasj herring for bait very generally, and then go out on the banks to felij codfish. The Americans around here have fished inshore for coM and halibut. i. AWARD OF THK FISHERY COMMISSION. 1265 5. The Americans trawl on Scaterio Bank for cod^^h. They trawl to the bottom and catch the mother fish, which are full of spawn. They dress their fish on the tishiug grounds, throwing^ overboard the oilal, ffliich is very injurious to the tish, the sound bone killing many large lisli. (1. The practices of the Americans tend to injure the inshore fishery very nuich. 7. ^Mackerel run inshore to feed and spawn, and our fishermen take them inshore. Americans have taken mackerel all round our coast, and have at cue time transshipped mackerel in this port. This privilege saves fish and enables them to make a larger catch. 8. The Americans get ice and bait in harbors round our shores, and without ice and bait they would be unable to make successful voyages. 9. I have never known nor heard of any Canadian vessels fishing in American waters, and know of no be efittheycan derive from so doing. 10. The large number of American vessels fishing in Canadian waters must diiiiinish the catch. ' '. If Americans were excluded from our waters, 1 have no doubt but ould be a general benefit to Canadian fishermen. DONALD Mc DOUG ALL. Sworn to at Main-a-Dieu, in the county of Cape Breton, this 28th day of J 111 V, before mo. GEO. IJIGBY, J. P. No. 140. yiij.\V. r" ' » III the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, John Bagnall, of Gabarus, in the county of Cape Breton, at ]iieseut of Louisburg, in the county aforesaid, lisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 have been engaged for about fifty years in tiie inshore fisheries, ill and around Gabarus Bay, in the county aforesaid, and have taken [mackerel, codfish, herring, and halibut, and am well acquainted with [the manner in which the inshor.' iiabery is there conducted. 2. About six or seven year;- ago there were some American fishing- I vessels in Gabarus Bay. During the past five or six years they have |p ircliased bait in small quantii ics in Gabarus Baj\ 3. Mackerel and halibut are taken in Gabarus Bay. Codfish and her- iriug are taken in large quantities. Three years ago about three hun- Idred barrels of mackerel were taken in this bay, and there are about loue hundred boats fishing around the bay, and this summer b^^e boats lliave taken from eight to sixty barrels in each boat, in G "a' as Bay [there are from six to seven thousand quintals of codfish taken yearly. Vll this fish is taken in boats. To the people around Gabarus Buy these [fisheries are of great value. i. The mackerel and herring are inshore fish, and are mo'^tly all taken '•*hore. TI,"ee-fourths of thy mackerel and herring is inshore. I am Lc dav at Louisburg, but reside and fish at Gabarus. JOHN BAGNALL. Sffoni to at Louisburg this 2Gth aay of July, in the county of Capo iretoii. before me, PATRICK O'TOOLE J. r.for and in the County of Cape Breton. 80 F ^^■^■■^>../ ■fi ,:/^k.i^ 1266 P i}if t ■> hi-tA , I Win i" AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2f0. Ul. In tbe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treat-| of Washington. T, Peter Bosdet, of West Arichat, in the county of Rich in oiid audi province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows; 1. During the past thirty-t'."io years I have been engaged in thetisii ing trade, and my acquaintapce with the fisheries on our coasts extentlil over that period. 2. The herring fishery is about the same as it has been in tbepasil The mackerel vary from year to year. xYom 1871 to 1874 the niackertl were plenty, but they were scarce in 1875 and 1876. I believe thattliel scarcity of 1875 and 1870 will not, however, be permanent. 3. The use of trawls and the throwing overboard of offal are botll very iujurious to the cod fishery. Both these practices tend to drivtl away tlie fish from their usual haunts. 4. The herring fishery is altogether inshore, that is, withia thwl miles of the shore, and the greater part of the mackerel are caugkij within the same distance. I consider that the inshore fisheries areoi much greater value than those outside. 5. I am strongly of opinion that the inshore boat fishery on our coastsl has Veen greatly injured by the Americans baiting the fish and dra\viiij| theLi away Irr u the boats. I refer only to the mackerel in making tliis statement in this paragraph. e. I consider that it is a great benefit to the Americans to be allowed J to land and dry their nets and cure their fish on our coasts. Tbe pmj lege of transshipping cargoes is also a great advantage to Araericatj mackerelers, and they can of course make more trips and catch ii fish than they otherwise could, and by this means, I believe, tiiati can make three trips to the fishing-grounds in the same time ia wbitl| they could otherwise make two. The privilege of getting bait on ( shores is also a vasi advantage to American codfiahermen who iudeedl could not profitably oarry on the codflshery without this privilege. Ilit| procuring of ice on our shores is also essential to the codfishermeDji| without this they cannot keep their bait fresh. 7. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no practical ail| vantage wlir.tever to Canadians, and I never heard of Canadians avail ing themselves at any time of such privilege. 8. I consider that the Canadian boat fishermen could carry on tliw fishery more profitably and successfully if the Americans were excluiitil from within the three-mile limit. P. BOSPET. The said Peter Bosdet was sworn to the truth of this affidavit, at^Vfjij Arichat, in the county of Kichraoiid, this 2d day of August, A. D. T before me. E. P. FLY.NX. .1 Justice of the iViw No. 142. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Ualifax, under tbe Treat| of Washington. I, Frincis Marmean, of Arichat, in the comity of Richmond a!i| province of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows; In tlie matter of A.WARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1267 1. I have resided liere for about sixty years, aud have a good kiiowl- edfe of the flshing-business, aud of the fisheries ou this coast. li. The Americau cod-fishermen, in my opinion, cannot profitably cany oil the cod fishery without procuring bait on the shores of Canada or >'ewfoiuKlland, and 1 believe that the privilege of procuring ice on our shores is also an advantage to the American cod-fishermen. 3. I do not thiiik that the i)rivilege of fishing in United States waters is of any advantage to Canadians, and I never heard of Canadians fish- ing in American waters. 4. 1 believe that our fishermen could carry on the inshore fishery on our coas*^s, especially the mackerel fishery, very much more successfully if the Americans were excluded from our inshore waters. F. MARMEAN. The said Fran Ms Marniean was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at Arichat, in the county of Kichmond, on the 4th day of August, A. D. 18(7, before me. ISIDORE LeBLxIXC, A Justice of the Peace. 'So. 143. Ill the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, David Grouchy, of Descousse, in the County of Richmond, and 'roviuce of Nova Scotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows : I, I have been engaged in the fish trade during the past thirty-throe [years, and have dealt in codfish, haddock, mackerel, and herrings. 1 consider the inshore mackerel and herring fisheries to be of very [much gre titer value than those outside. The herring fishery is almost altogether inshore, and I believe that the greater portion of the mackerel [are caught within three miles of the shore. 3, From my experience in the fishing business I have no hesitation hbatever in saying that it Avould be far better for Canad ans to have I their inshore fisheries kept to themselves. Even if the American Gov- jeinment should put heavy duties on our fish, I do not believe that the lAiiu'riciuis can give us any adequate compensation for our fisheries, aud II believe that it is almost impossible to estimate too highly the value |of Canadian fisheries, 4, The mackerel caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, are, in my opinion, |ei|iial to any in the world. J believe that the reason why American |iiuickerel bring better prices is that they are better handled and put up. 5, Around this coast the food of the mackerel is principally inshore. II. The privilege of transshipping cargoes is of great advantage to the viiierican fishermen as they are thereby enabled to make more trips Jaiid consequently catch more fish than they otherwise could. The privilege of procuring bait on our shores is of great value to Itlie Aiueiican cod-fishermen, who coulil not profitably carry on the cod- jlislicrv of the deei) sea without this privilege. They also procure ice ou Dili shores to preserve their bait fresh, and without this means of pro- |t'iviiig the bait it could not be kept fresh for more than two or three It is of no valuf whatever to Canadians to be allowed to fish in pMiiericiUi waters. 1 have never heard ot Canadians availing themselves |)t the iniviiege of so doing. •4. tit '" : :-^?f^--' 'J 268 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Uitku > l-ai.,. m^^ 9. I consider the privilege of transshipping cargoes antl proem ingbaiti ou our shores is worth at least 50 per cent, of their catch to A' icaJ iisbenuen. D. GROUCHY, The said ]>avid Grouchy was sworn to the truth of this anidavitail Descousse, in the county of Kichniond, on the 1st day of August, A d! 1877, before nic. E. P. FLYNN, A 'fust ice of the iViie, Xo. 144. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treatii of Washington. T, Isidore LeBlanc, of Arichat, in the county oi Richmond aoJ province of Nova 8cotia, merchant, make oath and say as follows: J. During the past two years I have been engaged iu the fish tradfj and for twenty years previous thereto I was a master-mariner, aud Lave a good knowledge of the fisheries around the coast of Canada. 2. Formerly the mackerel were caught altogether with hook and line! l)ut of late years the Americans are using purse-seines in this fisherr [ The codfish are principally caught with trawls, and the herring with i and seines. I believe that the cod fishery is being injured by theiise(i(| trawls and by the throwing overboard of oflFal. 3. The American fishermen have fished inside of the three mile 1 whenever they could get the chance. I myself have seen the Americaiii| fishing inside of the three mile limit after the Reciprocity Treaty, i whenever the government cutters were not in sight. 4. The inshore mackerel and herring fisheries are worth moretbantli(| eutside fisheries, in my opinion. The greater portion of the mackeielij caught within three miles of the shore, aud almost all the herring witliiil that distance. The inshore mackerel fishery is greatly injured by tkl Americans coming in and throwing bait, and enticing the fish awiiyfroiii| the shore fishermen. 5. Toth Canadian and American fishermen catch codfish, h:ulilod| hake, and halibut to some extent on our shores. 6. I believe that the mackerel caught in Canadian waters are bett«| than those caught in United States waters. 7. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to laiidaci dry their nets aud cure their fish on our shores. The p' ivilege of tracJ shipping cargoes is also of very great value to the American ftshernieJ as it enables them to catch more fish by making more trips than tlifjj otherwise could. When the mackerel are plenty the Americans can,l) means of transshipping cargoes, make two trips to the Gulf of Si| Lawrence in the time it would otherwise take them to make one. 8. The American cod fishermen cannot profitably carry on the (Itfpl sea cod fishery without procuring bait on the shores of Canada orXe»| foandland. 9. The privilege of fishing in American waters is, in my oi)inioD.«i Jio value whatever to Canadians, and I never heard of any Canadiif vessel making a voyage for fishing purposes to American waters. 10. The fishing operations of Canadians are considerably hiuderedj! the Americans fishing in our inshore waters, as they entice awayl fish aud lessen the inshore catch of our fishermen. In tlie matter of t AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1269 11, The greater part of the bait that the Americans procure on our tliores tliey purchase from our lishermen, but they catch part of it in jiir insiiore waters. This summer I saw an American vessel setting lietsfor herring in Arichat Harbor. ISIDORE LeBLANC. The said Isidore Le Blanc was sworn to the truth of this affidavit at ^ricliat, ill the county of liichmond, on the fourth clay of August, A. 1877, before me. E. P. FLYNN, A Justice of the reaec. Xo. 145. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Bryan Murphy, of Port Uood, in the county of Inverness, fisher- Dan and trader, make oath and say as follows : 1, For thirty-five years past I have been actively engaged in the fish- ti;; business as a practical fisherman, and during that time I have mad© rips on board American tishing-vessels, and I have generally been fa- iiir with tiie fishing business on this coast for all that time. :!, I have known some years as many as seven hundred American [essels fishing in the gulf and the shores around Nova Scotia, Cape ^reton,and the Mag If tbe Americans could not land, &c., and enjoy the privileges 1278 AWARD OP THE IfLSHERY COMMISSION. granted by the Washington Treaty, they could not get one fourth of tW Hsh they now do. In lact 1 do not think they wouhl tish at all in our waters without these rights. MicuAKL + McDonald, mark. Sworn to at Whitehaven, in the county of Guysborough, tills 24tti day of July, A. D.1877, before me, iirtst having been read and explniued JAMES A. TORY, «/. P. for the County of Ouyaborouyk No. 157. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under thoTreatj of Washington. I, George Murphy, of Fort Hood, in the county of Inverness,] fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the occupation of fishing in these parts for I fifteen years past, and have taken some trips in American fishingves^ | sels on this coast, and have fished in a fleet of American vessels duid bering between lOU and 200 sail in the gulf and around the coast oil Nova Scotia and Ga|)e Breton, Sydney, Louisburg, and the Magdaleo | Islands, and have had large opportunities of judging of the gcoenl character of the fishing business on this coast. 2. 1 have seen as high as five hundred American vessels in this barboi of Port Hood, and have known as many as seven hundred Amerieaii vessels fishing in the gulf in one season. These vessels average about GO or 70 tons burden, and have a crew of about fifteen men ; but I have I known many American vessels of larger tonniige, ann sometimes withi | crew of twenty men. The average cargo of mackerel was tliree hun dred barrels each vessel, and of codfisii generally about five or six liun dred quintals. They average about three trips per season. Mackerel I brought about $15 per barrel, and codfish from $4 to $5 per qiiintil. This was when I was working with the American fleet. I cannot 8|»eat[ positively as to numbers for the last year or two. 3. The cod fishery about here is about as good as usual now ; aware of any falling oft' in the quantity or catch. Tue mackerel tisberv I has fallen off somewhat during the past two or three years, but this lias only been in bite, not in numbers. There are as many inackeH in our waters now as ever there were. The only reason I know of to the falling oft' in the catch of mackerel lately is the use of the seiuesbf the American ftsbgrmen, and the practice of throwing bait overboanl. which has made the mackerel less sharp to bite. If our groiiuds m properly taken care of I know no reason why our mackerel groim(lj| should not be as productive during the next ten years as ever bcfoii'. 4. 1 have seen American fishermen within the last three years catci I ing mackerel in these waters with purse seines, and they would som^ I times take as many as one thousand barrels at one haul. Theyconjill only save half of these, and had to let the rest go, some being killed >ii| the operation. This kind of fishing is very destructive to our ttsliin?! grounds. I never knew a Canadian fisherman to use purse seines, m\ most of the mackerel caught by them are taken in boats. 5. I have seen American fishermen since the Washington Treatjl catching fish in this harbor within one mile of the shore, and \iH During the past two or three years the best fishing has been witbiu tbnti miles of the shore, and most fish are taken within that limit. \Vlieuoi| AWARD OF THE FISIIEKY COMMISSION. 1279 lioard Aitioiican lisliing-vesHels wu tuuk iioiiily all tlie cargo uf itiaekerol iiislioro. 0. Tlic Aincricnns catch bait within three uiik'.s of the shore — both herring and sqnid. All bait \» caught inshore. They chieily buy now, and tlit'ir reason for this is, because it pays them better than catching it. Otirtisliennen catch bait better than the Americans. To my knowledge. AS many as llfty or sixty American vessels have baited here this season, in this "vicinity. 7. Our herring tlsheriea are very valuable to Canadian tLshermen. It is the most protitable business we have now. I have known our own yieriuen to take from 150 to 20U barrels of herring in two days, in one boat. If the American fishermen should take hold of this herring-fish- ing and begin to seine herring, it would be a great injury to us and a loss to our business. S. Tbo main body of the mackerel feed around our shores in the shoal irater. Their food is small fish, which only frequent the inshores. In the autumn season the mackerel particularly keep close inshore. 0. It is a great advantage for American fishermen to be allowed to be allowed to laud and dry their uets and cure their fish ; and also to transship their cargoes. They are in the habit of doing this constantly glace the Treaty of Washington, and their fishermen always consider it au advantage to them as enabling them to refit for a new voyage with- out going back i » their home ports. They can thus catch more fish and niaiie more trips during the season. 10. The privilege of being able to catch or procure bait in our waters ami ports is one of the most important advantages which the Americans derive from the Treaty of Washington. This is so great an advantage that if the Americans were not allowed to procure bait from Canadians, or catch it in Canadian waters, I believe they would have to abandon thdr cod-fishing in the gulf and around our coast altogether. The bait which they u?e will only last about three weeks when preserved on ice, ami it would be impossible for Americuas to carry on the cod-fishing Imsiiiess to any profitable extent if they had to be dei>endeut on Ameri- can ports and waters for all the bait they used. 11. The American fishermen also find it a great advantage to them to procure ice from our ports. It is in this way they are able to preserve their bait, otherwise they would have to salt it, which is considered a great injury to the bait. 12. I know of no advantage whatever which Canadian fishermen de- 1 rive from the privilege of fishing in American waters. Americans .say that our fishing-grounds are their best and most valuable. I never heard of any Canadian vessels going into American waters to fish, and I see no likelihood of any doing so. 13. I could not undertake to name any certain money value to each I American vessel of the privileges which they now have of fishing and Igetting supplies in our waters; but I don't .see how they could carry on jtheirflsheries in these parts wi U any kind of profit or success if they Hid not enjoy them. They would not be able to take as many trips, nor jcould they get on with the same ease, and their cod-fishing would be |iiext thing to ruined if they could not get bait here. 14. 1 believe if there were no American fishermen in our waters, and lour own fishermen had exclusive use of British-American waters, that he would be able to catch more fish and derive greater profits, and that jonr fishing grounds would be better preserved. Canadian fishermen Icarry on their business with greater care than Americans, and instead |of throwing the offal overboard to glut the fish, they carry it to the shore. GEOKGE MUKPHY. 1280 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sworn to nt Port Hood, in tlic county of Inverness, tbis 20th day of | July, A. 1). 1877, before me. JOBN McKAY, J. p. No. 153. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, James rHELAN,of Arinhat, in thecounty of llicbmond, and rroviuct of Nova Scotia, merchant, mal. with a crew of IG men. I have seen them fishing and catching niiuk erel. 1 have seen them also at Cape Kozier fishing mackerel iiislm^ and very near the rocks. I have seen them also seining many times ii, the Bay of GaH{)c>, at Sandy Beach. The seines were drawn frum tli( shore; in fact all the mackerel that have been caught by the Ameriraii schooners that I have seen have l)een taken inshore. 3. The cod fishery is about the same now as it was formerly. 4. The mackerel are taken by means of hand-lines and seinesi bv tlio Americans. I have seen them fishing with hand-lines inshore, ainll have seen them seining with haulingscines from the shore, und wiik purse seines in deep water, but inside three miles. 5. The practice of throwing fish-ofi'al overboard by the Americans i,| a great injury tv the fisheries, because it poisons the water, drives avrar the large fish, and kills the egcs. G. Tlie inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside, ill ' the fish are caught inshore. 7. It is the common practice of the Americans to come in among tli«{ boats and by throwing bait entice the mackerel away with them, so tk we could not take mackerel without going alongside of their \emk which they did not like at all. 8. Seining, as |)racticed by the Americans, is injurious to the HsheriKJ because it takes large and small fish; all the small fish are thrown a\raj| and left to perish on the strand. 9. During the last years of the Reciprocity Treaty nearly all tli* Americans were supplied with both the purse and hauling seines. 10. The fisheries have increased greatly since 1871, that is the i)! fishery, and up to date the mackerel fishing is better than last .vear.iiiiij the increase in the cod fishery is due, in my opinion, to the fact tiiattbcj Americans have retired. 11. Mackerel feed inshore on lance, shrimp, and other small iisb. 12. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to traiissli:J cargoes, because it enables them to keep ou the fishing grounds ami ie| double their fares. 13. The Americans could not profitably carry on the cod and lialibjrl fisheries if they were not allowed to come in our iushores either to tatcli| or buy bait. 14. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is ffon!i| a load, and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cuduinlj halibut fishery is worth these fisheries. 15. Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing operatio!)! of our fishermen to a great extent, because we cannot compete witil them, and they take all our fish. DONALD WEST. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Gniw Greve, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Cauatia, tiiij L*8th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Jmticc of the Fcace^ Frovince of Qu(k(- Id the matter o m AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1283 No. IGl. Id the matter of the Fisheries Commiaaion nt nalifax, under tbe Treaty of Washington. I, Mich VEL McInnis, of Port Daniel, cotinty of Bonaventiire, Prov- I ini-e of QiielMMJ, farmer and tisheriuan and merchant, make oath and 1 say as follows : I. Am acquainted with all the fisheries from Point Macquereau to ';i.s[H'biiit' ; 1 have followed these flsheries for 15 years. :'. Am thirty-one years of age, and since I can remember, the mack- Ln-I tisliiii^ by Americans has been carried on on an extensive scale on I this liliore. ,). To tiie best of my knowledge, 100 schooners have visited these hiiuresll always speak of between Point Macquereau and Paspebiac) Ivrarly. The average tonnage of these vessels is about 70 tonn, each luWl having from lU to 15 men. for a crew. I am acquainted with the linatkerel fishery only. 4. 1 don't remember of any of these vessels ever missing their voyage. j. I imve been many times on board of American fishing- vessels fish- bd; on this shore, and have heard them say many times that most of jibe schooners have made two trips in a season. C The herring fishery is the same as it has been for the past 15 years, lltiii nultish also. Mackerel are taken by the Americans with hand-lines and seines. The practice of throwing fish otl'.ils is injurious to the fisheries, ||»taiise it gluts the large fish, and kills the small ones. !t. Kvery year since I can remember, till 1870, 1 have seen the Ameri- aiis tishing inshore often at our net moorings and catching mackerel ati aiilasthe.> could with hand-lines. 10. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside. II. All the bait, herring, smelt, caplin, and lance are caught inshore. ^lo^thinis of the codfish and twothiids of tbe mackerel have been pudit inshore. ; 1.'. I have seen the Americans many times come among our boats, and pine (he mackerel away by throwing bait. They have done the same im many times, thereby causing me great danmge, because there were UDore tish left to get. They do this whenever they get the chance. III. I have seen the Americans from my boat and from the shore any times, going around looking for a place to throw their seines. I U.I have seen many times the American trawlers come in Port bniel for bait. jlj. About 20 different trawlers come here every sea.son for their bait. IWard the Americans say often that they recpiire 00 barrels of bait Viiif;) to make their voyage. JK The li.shery has not diminished since 1871. " The Americans take herring here for bait only. |1\ Oil (piestioning the Americans on board their own vessels, the.y <)Jeiitly told me that our mackerel was of greater value than their ID. |l'' Mackerel breed and feed inshore. Our inshores are one of their rtliiig-gronnds. ?' 1 have seen the Americans frequently ever since I can remember Itodry and repair their nets, and it is a great advantage to them. p I consider it a great advaut^tge to Americans to be able to trans- I 1284 ▲WASD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. i^ I I i m Htaip tlieir cargoes, becaane it enables tbem to keep ou tbe grounds, and to make an extra voyage. 22. It is also a great advantage to tbem to be able to procure bait in our insborcs. 23. Tbe Americans could not carry on tlie co l-S 5«r 4 5^ si 8 a* « »5 ;.S8 «s s ».~ a ^5 t g AWAHD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, 1285 11 a 1^ \'A Ice n a « • * .5 ^^^ «3 e « k S.o «i ■s-.S >■ 2 • ^:= si .= 1*2 . *•« » ♦ V V-B « S ^ 111 •2 5t is' •^-^ ill S53 ^^.^ IP <. s * ^ N * ia'-'i s if ••a i vj & I 1 * a a 5' Bt O a. X H s u J4 : w : : : ^ • JS tt if D — — tx B P • g 8 ' 9 K >■ J) •3 1 s 3 "< or S883SS83SS8 5 Us "' 8f-f 888S8S8888 vf riV gS|g*83PS2 8 88SS8S88S of (erf 888SS8S g 53 "■= 888 S2 |:S- ^ bilSg-sS'g'S'gl "ft- ^ ./-A ■^. fj^*****" '-'. ■ * ' . ■ ' " ■■■■^i-i i! ■J . [ - '2 115 g I 1286 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION Xo. 163. Isaac Mercer, aged 31 years, residing at Bay Roberts, CoiiceptioD Bay, New fouudlaiid, tisheriiiaii, inaketh oath and saitb : I am acquainted with the fisheries of this country, by having followed the same fur eighteen years. I saw tiiree United States fishing sclioon ers in Spaniard's liay and two in this harbor last year. I heard of a large number uf these vessels being in this bay Uist year, but I only saw five as above. They came to the bay for fresh bait; the schooners seen by me came for fresh squids, and, as I believe, the other United States vessels that visited this neighborhood last year all came for fresh bait, They came in from the Banks, where they had been fishing, for fresh bait. They purchased bait from our people and jigged squids joiuth with our people to supply their wants. Newfoundland fishermen catch codfish generally within a mile or two of the shore. The Newfound land fishery (cod) is an inshore fishery, as is the bait fishery, iiicliulin;; caplin, herring, and squids. I never knew of a Newfoundland vessel fishing on any of the shores or coasts of the United States of America, I believe the supply of bait to United States fishermen will act iiiju riously upon the supply for local fishermen, and that it will ceitaitilv decrease the supply for the latter. I believe that the operations of United States fishermen on the baiilii ofl" our coast, well supplied with fresh bait, tends to reduce the catcii of colanter, residing at Grand Bank, Newfoundland, maketh oath anil saith : I have become acquainted with the Newfoundland fisheries by follow ing the same for twenty years. I have observed a large number of United States fishing vessels ill this neiguborhod from time to time; this summer there have beeu over three hundred such vessels in this bay. These vessels came to purcbasej bait, and they did so purcbavse fresh herrings for bait. I have sold fresh bait to United States fishing vessels; theniimberj baited by me has been from twelve to fifteen vessels. Each vessel took I from forty to sixty barrels herring ; the price paid for such herrings ml and in the neighborhood of Grand Bank has been about sixty cents |)erl barrel. I have seen United States vessels fishing oft* Pass Island, insii!eof| the headlands; this I have seen frequently, and at such times they a ways fished within three miles of the headlands, from Cape LahaDetoj Point May. Newfoundland fishermen catch codfish within three miles of tbe shore] except in exceptional instances, when they go off certain special seai to six to nine miles off tbe coasts, but generally the fishing is prosecut«., tbat onr fisliories sliould be kept exclusively to ourselves, nor slionH foreigners be allowed to get fresh bait in our iiisbores, nor dry tbeir nets, nor cure tlieir fish on our shores. These are privileges wliich ought not to be granted to strangers ; and if this continues, many of our people will be driven to seek employment elsewhere. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my kiiowi. edge and belief, correct. JOHN LEGRESLEY, The said John Legresley has sworn to the truth of the above state- ment and atndavit, at Point St. Peter, in the county of Oaspe, and Prm ince of Quebec, this 13th day of August, A. D. 1877, before nie. P. FORTIN, J. P. :So. 171. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, John B. Fauvel, of Point St. Peter, in the county of Gaspc, and Province of Quebec, make ojvth and says as follows : 1. I am a merchant in fish, of the firm of John Fauvel, of Jersey, in the Channel Islands. I am the manager of the Arm in this county. I have lived on the coast f<»r twenty-one years, all of which time i to engaged in the tish business on this coast. We have our principal es tablishment at Point St. Peter. We have others at Mai Bay and Loii» Point on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. 2. Wc entploy altogether 36 boats of our own. These boats fish on shares. We also employ about 20 boats belonging to lishermeii; these men sell their fish to us. We also purchase fish and flshoils generally, but our principal business is the codfishery. Our codfish is specially prepared for warm climates, our principal markets being those of Brazil, the West Indies, Spain, Portugal and the Mediterranean ports. Tlie special property of our fish, which enables it to command a higher price, is that it is so hard and thoroughly dried. Our fish cannot be allovreil to remain more than three days under salt before being dried. Fist j salted in bulk on board of vessels is too long under salt, and caiuiotbe dried in the manner iu which we dry our fish. Fish so long under salt j as it must be when salted on board a schooner becomes salt burnt, awl never will dry thoroughly. Another peculiarity of our fish is that it is I dry salted and not pickled. This peculiar preparation enables iis to conunand a higher price for our fish on account of its keeping qualities in warm climates. The imme of Gasp6 fish iu foreign markets is always | considered better than any other. 3. We ship about from 3,000 to 3,500 quintals of dried codfish besides | other fit>h and oils. This fish commands from $4.50 to $8 per quintal We ship this fish on our own and other bottoms. 4. We have never shipped any fish to the United States markets, as | our fish gets a better market elsewhere. 5. The right of fishing on the American coast is not of any value to I us. I never knew of any one having gone there to fish from this coast.! 0. The privilege granted to the Americans of fishing iu our iusbore| waters is a very serious injury to us. Our population is already la enough to fish our own waters, and must suffer severely by Aiuericaii| competition. I do not hesitate to say that our fisheries ought to be kept exclusively to ourselves. [Ill the matter of : I it'*««' AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSLON. 1295 7. The principal bnit-flah on this coast are mackerel, lierrinjj, lannco, isntiiil, clams, caplin, &c., all of whicli are taken close inshore. I con- sider tliat tlie ])rivilegu granted to the Americans of landing to take bait is a very valuable one, as no vessel Hankflshing can depend on I ).||(ii,jr a supjily of bait on the Banks, and must land to obtain bait. Salt bait is by no means equal to fresh bait. S. Tbe privilege enjoyed by the Americans under the Treaty of Wash- ington of entering our ports to transship cargo is also a very valuable joiietotliem. I lieri'by swear that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the I iibove statement is correct. JOHN B. FAUVKL. flip said John B. Fauvel has sworn to the truth of the above alHdavit lilt Point St. Peter, in the county of Gaspe and Province of Quebec, this tliirti'i-nth day of August, A. D. 1S77, before me. P. FOUTIN, J. P. No. 172. |lii tbe matter of the Fisheries Con>mission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I. John Legros, of Point St. Peter, in the county of Gaspe, make |oiitb and say as follows : am n fish-merchant. I am a partner in the firm of James Alex- ander, of Point St. Peter, f )r tlie past 11 years. Before that timi) I was llor I'j years manager for the firm of Fruing & Co.. of Jersey, Channel jlslaiids, who are fish-merchants on this coast. I am thoroughly ac- [(juaiiited with all that relates to the taking and curing of fish and the pslitnide ffenerally. Oir principal establishment is at St. Peter's Point; we have also lone at Sboldrake on the north shore. We employ 24 boats of our own and supply about 20 more belonging to fishermen who give us their fish. lliicb lioat is manned by two men, and we have employed on shore about piieiuiiu and a half to a boat. We deal in other fish and fish-oils, but Oiiriiiiucipal business is in codfish. Our Gaspe fish has better keeping qualities in warm climates, and |ihis fact enables it to command a higher price in foreign markets be- use it is better dried. It is salted, and not pickled. It remains but [iliiee or four days in salt before it is exposed to the sun to be dried. I Our fish commands from $4 to $8 per quintal in the foreign larki'ts to which we export it. j. Tbe privilege of fishing on the American coast is of no use to us; jiooiie has ever gone from here to fish there. " Tbe American free market for our codfish and other fish is of no hine to us, as from the reason I have stated before our fish gets a bet- |er price in the markets for which it is specially prepared, i. I certainly consider the permission granted to the Americans of fsliiiig in our inshores, r.n«i of taking bait there, a very valuable one. [lie leave to transship cargoes, oi)ers, sailmakers, and other mechanics. Besides these, our foreign- i»i";' vessels are manned by about 140 men, and our coasters by about ViAmg in all 2,010 men. Our firm has been established in this pimtry for more than a century, and has always been in operation lice. 82 F 1298 AWARD OF THE PI8HEBY COIflllSSION. li 3. In 1876, our firm exported 70,000 quintals of dried codfish to Brt^ zil, Spain, Portuf^al, West Indies, and Italy. The fishery that year was a partial failure. We exported, also, that year 40,000 gallong of fish oil. In an average year we would export from 90,000 to 100,ooo quintals of dried codfish. 4. None of our fish is exported to the United States, as our fiHh it Erepared entirely for exportation to hot climates, where it is known to eep well, it being of a superior quality ; we could not obtain in the markets of the United States for our fish a price that would be remo nerative. We even tried the United States market with green herring during the Reciprocity Treaty, when there was no duty, and wefoondit did not pay. 6. Most of our codfish are taken within three miles of the shore. 6. During the Reciprocity Trepty and the period of licenses I saw m Dually a large fleet of American vessels fishing for mackerel on the nortb as well as the south shore of this Bay of Chaleur. On one occasioD I saw at Perce 80 to 100 sail at anchor. Since I came to Paspebiac, three years ago, I have seen several American vessels fishing for mackerel io this bay, and today several are fishing within the 3 mile limit. The day before yesterday they took their mackerel with seine close to the shore, much to the injury of our inshore fisheries, as it hinders our cod fishermen very much in their getting bait for their fishery. 7. The following is a list of our various fishing establishments: Pas pebiac (headquarters), Perce, Grand River, Newport, Pabos L'Anseaii Beau Fils, Magpie, Cape Cove, Dock, St. John, Natashquan, iu tiie Provinceof Quebec, Carraquette,Shippegan, in New Brunswick, Arichat, Small and Big Cheticamp, in Cape Breton, N. S. 1 hereby swear that the above statement is to the best of my kDovl edge and belief correct. D. ORANGE. The said Daniel Orange has sworn to the truth of the above affidarit at Paspebiac, this sixteenth day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN,J.P. No. 176. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Joshua Mourant, of Paspebiac, in the county of Bonaventure, and Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. I am 34 years of age, 27 years which I have lived on this coast. I am a native of the Island of Jersey, Channel Islands. I am 27 years in the employment of the firm of LeBoutillier Brothers, of Jer sey, who carry on the fishing business. I am 20 years an agent, and | for the past four years I have been the general manager of the tirin. 2. The following is the list of the fishing establishments of this tirm: | Paspebiac (headquarters), Bonaventure Island, Thunder River, Mag|ii(' Green Island, Wood Island, all in the Province uf Quebec, and FortaDej Bay, on the coast of Labrador. 3. We own 170 fishing-boats, with from 2 to 3 men each, and we em I ploy, as fishermen and shoremen, carpenters, clerks, blacksmiths, anil other mechanics, over one thousand men. We own 5 foreigugoi>i{| vessels, and charter 7 others, 4 coasters. 4. Our principal business is the cod fishing and curing, and also her ▲WAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1299 riD2 Mild tlHb oils. We export, on aa averaKe, aunually, 31,000 quiutaU of dry cmlflsh to BruziU aud Mediterranean and West Indies. We also ex|)ort abont 50,000 gallons of'ood and seal oils. All of this oil goes to fingliAli markets. We do not export any Usb to tbe United States at preHent, nor for three years. We have tried both herring and large codAsli (dry and green), and took great pains that it should give satis- faction, iiiid with all that it was sacrificed in tbe American markets. As to tbe dry codflsh that we prepare for the before-named foreign markets, and whicli is of a superior quality, the American market would not pay ns what we pay for it here. 5. Tbe American free market is of no use to us at all. 6. Tbe great bulk of the codflsh taken is got within three miles of tbe shore. 7. The right of fishing in American waters is of no value to us ; we never go there to fish. 8. From 1854 until the expiration of the period of licenses tbe Ameri- cans tJHhed in the Bay of Ohaleur in great numbers for mackerel — they used generally to load their vessels. Since 1871 we have still seen them, but not in such numbers, and we see them still; they are here to- day. An American captain told me yesterday that be caught over 30 barrets of mackerel off tbe lighthouse on tbe point. Tbe mackerel fishing in this liay generally begins about tbe 20th of this month. Ac- cording to reliable information, I believe the mackerel is now plentiful ill the bay, and lots are caught in the nets. 9. I believe it is our interest to keep our fisheries to ourselves, and not allow strangers to participate in them, as our population is increas- i JDg, and if strangers are allowed to fish in our inshore waters many of our young men will have to emigrate. lU. Many of tbe American schooners use trawl lines in the prosecu- tion of their cod-fishing, which causes great injury, it being most of the I mother tisb they catch. They also do «lamage by tbe practice of throw- j ing over tbe ott'al. 11. If tbe American Bank fishermen were prohibited from taking or I buying bait on shore, they could not carry on their Bank fishery sue- [cesstully, as tbe supply of bait on the Banks is not certain. I herel>y swear that ihe above statement is, to the best of my knowl- I edge and belief, correct. J. MOUKANT. Tbe said Joshua Mourant has sworn to the truth of tbe above aflB- Sdavit at Paspebiac, in tbe county of Bonaventure and Province of Que- {bee, this sixteenth day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 176. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Frank LeBlanc, of Port Daniel, in tbe county of Bonaventure, Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : !• I am fifty years of age. Since the age of 14, that is, for the past 36 |fearg, I have been a mariner. I have sailed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence^ ^n the coasts of the maritime provinces and Newfoundland, the Atlantic ''oasts of America, to tbe West Indies, and to Great Britain, and for the St 25 years I have been master mariner in command of a coasting ■..If- ! 1300 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. vessel employed in the fishing business, and owned bj- Messrs. LeBoa tillier Bros. Before entering into the employment of Messrs. LeBoutillier Bros., I lived for 7 years in Boston, U. S., and during that time I was engaged in tishing during the summer on board of American mackerel Ushing vessels, while during the winter I w«>nt to sea on different voy ages — sometimes to the West Indies, so.netimes to Europe. Oar cruising grounds during those 7 summers, after mackerel, wt-ro for the first voyage the Bay des Cbaleur, off Batburst, and Grand Aiise. close to the siiore, and we made our second voyage on the north shore of Priuce Edward Island, off Rustico, close to the shore, not only within the 3 mile limit, but as close as we could get. We took the fish with hook and line, the mode called bobbin.;-. I mean to say that during the ', summers alluded to we made two trips each year, going always to the pla<%s mentioned above. The American schooners on which I made those voyages hailed from Bass River, Cape Cod, and were about to 70,()()() pounds each. When tiiose vessels commenced tishing on the north shore, I can state that the lialibiit were very abundant. At present, however, the inhab- itants find it diflicult to get any for their own use. I attribute this talliiifj off to the number taken by the Americans with trawls, which is ;in extremely destructive mode of tishing, as it kills the large mother iisb. While in the States, 1 learned that the Americans had ruined iminy of their fishing-banks with trawl-iines, and since then I have lieartl from United States fishermen that a similar destruction has been going on on the Anierican coast. '). I consider that the ])rivilege of fishing in American waters is abso- lutely useless to us, as I know from experience that fishermen going from here there would not be able to catch fish enough to pay for their salt. 0. To my own knowledge the crew, of some of those American ves- sels have gone ashore and often committed depredations on our coasts. Tliey used to break down fences, trample the gardens and crops, and iu- i suit the people. Five years ago there were a great many United States fisliing-vessels at anchor at Port Daniel, and a band of tishermen from tliem went to my house, burst open the door, and tiied to force their way in. They were only prevented l)y my wife and children defending I themselves. My wife herself had to threaten them with an ax ; finding I such resistance, they went away. I hereby swear tliat the above statement is to the best of ray know!- ledge and belief correct, as is also the following statement : In the same [year a boat's crew landed from one of those American fishing-vessels at Port Daniel ; they, during the evening, robbed the garden of Dan Sul- llivan, my neighbor ; his wife saw them, and went out to remonstrate, Klien one of them pulled out a revolver and fired at her ; the ball went Itlirough the door post, she standing at the door. F. LeBLANC. The said Frank LeBlanc has sworn to the truth of the above afiddavit, lat Paspebiac, this sixteenth dav of August, A. D. 1877, before nie. P. FOFvTIN, J. P. No. 177. p the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Thomas C. Remon, of Little Pabos, of the county of Gaspe, of jiht Province of Quebec, make oath aud say as follows: 1 lam a native of Jersey, and have been on this coast for more than lyears. I was for seven years in the Gaspe Fishing and Coal Mining pinpauy as clerk. I afterwards and since carried on business on my pii account. I am thoroughly conversant with all that concerns fish ^nd fishing. I keep fishing-boats. ^2, Iain well acquainted with the fishing carried on from Paspebiacto pee, a distance of about 1)0 miles. The principal fisheries on this pt are tlie cod, uiackerel, herring, and halibut. The baits are caplin, jetriiig, mackerel, squid, smelts, and clams. 1302 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. I<^ 3. With regard to codfish, I think the namber of fish on the groands is as great as it ever was ; though each iudividaal boat may not take so many as formerly, still there are very many more boats now than then, and the quantity of fish exported annually is much greater now. The best quality of codfish is that taken close inshore. 4. I do not believe that any vessel fishing on the Banks conUl carry on that fishery with success and make a paying voyage without the privilege of coming inshore to buy or take bait, as the supply of bait on the Banks is very uncertain. 5. I have often seen American Bank-fishing vessels come close inshore, within the three-mile limit, to take bait; they also came frequently in. shore to get wood and water. 6. The mackerel school inshore, and the bulk of them is taken in.shore. They feed on the small fish and the shrimps in the shallow shore water. 7. Prior to the year 1854 a considerable number of American achoon ers fished in our inshore waters here for mackerel. In 1853 one of them was taken and confiscated by a British frigate, the Devastation. From the year 1854 till the expiration of the period of licenses, a very large number of American schooners fished on this coast for mackerel. I have seen as many as 6U at one time in the ofiing. The average annual num ber of United States mackerel schooners that visited the coast above mentioned, during that period, I estimate at not less than 200. They averaged, I should think, 80 tons, and carried crews of from 15 to 20 men. All their vessels took full fares ; many of them made two voyages. They took each trip, I should think, from six to eight hundred (8U0) bar rels. Most of this fish was taken inside the three-mile limit. 8. It was a common habit with the Americans when fishing for tnaclc erel to come close inshore among our boats that were also fishing for mackerel, and by throwing overboard bait plentifully and allowing their vessel to slowly drift outside, to draw the fish away from our boats outside. 9. The herring and cod spawn in great numbers on this coast. 10. The American free market for our fish is not of the least use to for our fish are prepared for either our own market or for warm us countries, where they find a better market than in the United States. 11. The privilege of fishing in the United States waters is of no value to us whatever. 12. I think it of great importance to us that our fisheries should re main entirely in our own hands. 13. The practice of throwing overboard offals is very injurious to the fishing-grounds. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my know! edge and belief, correct. THOMAS C. REMOy. The said Thomas C. Bemon has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit at Little Pabos, this fifteenth (15th) day of August, A. D. 18", before me. P. FORTIN,J.P. No. 178. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, William O'Connor, of Little Pabos, of the county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. I am 50 years of age, and for the last thirty years have fished a AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1303 carried ou the fishery at this place. I am practically well acquainted with fishing and all that relates to the fish trade. I know thoroughly all the coast from Gaspe to Paspebiac. The chief tish taken on that coast are cod, mackerel, halibut, and herring. The baits are caplin, mackerel, herring, squid, launce, smelt, and clams. All tliese baits are takeu close inshore. •2. There are just as many codtish now as there ever were, although luiiiiy more are taken every year, there being more bo, its ; it does not seem to have diminished the number at all. :i. It is my opinion that the Americans could not fish for cod on the Banks and make profitable voyages without having the right to come inshore to take bait or to buy it. 4. During the Reciprocity Treaty and the period of licenses there were annually a great number of American vessels fishing for mackerel ill our inshore waters on this coast. I mean within three miles of the (•oast. There were from Cape Despair to Paspebiac, annually, on an average, a couple of hundred, I should think, and I have seen as many as sixty sail American schooners at one time in the ofting. These ves- sels took the greater part of their mackerel within the three-mile limit. The tonnage of these vessels varied from 60 to 100 tons, manned by from 15 to 18 men. They generally took full cargoes here, carrying ou an average about 700 barrels. The mackerel taken was of a fine i|uality. 5 For the first five years of the Treaty of Washington, that is from 1871 to 1875 inclusive, I have seen a good many American vessels flsh- I ing for mackerel on the same grounds and over the extent of coast above described. I estimate their annual number at one hundred ( 100). I They were vessels of the same description as before, and took about the same quantity of flfih. 6. It is certainly of no value to us to have the right of going to fish I in American waters. ". The Uuited States free market is of no use to us, for our fish is pre- I pared especially for hot climates, where, unless it were extremely dry |aiKl hard, it would not keep at all. 8. I think the privilege acquired by the A m ericans, through the [Treaty of Washington, of resorting to our insh ores and harbors for dry- liug and hauling their nets, getting wood and water and ice, obtaining jshelfer, and transshipping cargoes, is one of very great value to them. I'aereby swear that the above statement is to the best of my knowl |e(lj;eaud belief correct. WILLIAM O'CONNOR. The said William O'Connor has sworn to the truth of the above affl- |ilavit,at Little Pabos, this thirteenth (13th) day of August, A. D. 1877, Ibet'ore me. P. 1 ORTIN, J. P. No. i:9. jlnthe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1. John M. Luce, of Grande Greve, in the county of Gasp^, and t'rovince of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1' I have been engaged on the coast of Gaspe for 16 years. I am man- M^rfor the firm of Wm. Fruiug & Co., of Jersey, Channel Islands. I "ide at Grande Greve, where we have our principal establish men tt 1304 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. We have also fisbiuii^ establisbineuts at Cape de Rosier, GrifBii's Cove. Fox River, Claridorme, Grande Vallee, INIont Louis, and Gaspd Basin! all in the county of Gasp^. We have also several fishing establish ments in I^ew Brunswick. 2. I am j)ractically acquainted with all tliat relates to the catcliiuo and curing of flsh, as well as to the nature of the fish required lor the different foreign markets. 3. The principal fisheries of this coast from Gasp6 Bay to St. Aiiiie des Monts are the cod, halibut, mackerel, and herring. 4. The cod is quite as plenty now as when [ first came on the coast, though the quantity may vary each year. This year the flsh are iu uu usually good condition. 5. Halibut were plentiful all along this south coast of the St. Law reuce when 1 first came here, especially at Grand Vallee and Magdalene River; now the quantity is very small indeed. I attribute tbis de- struction of the halibut fishery to the exhaustive fishing of the Aineri cans with their numerous and large trawls. All these halibut and other fish are taken close along shore, within the three-mile limit. 6. In the year 1800 and following years up to 1868, during the Keci procity Treaty and two years of licenses, at least one hundred Aiueiicau mackerel schooners fished for mackerel along this bay and coast witji seines and bobs. I have seen them seining in the harbor of Gasp*;, iu side of Sandy Beach. These vessels were from 70 to 150 tons, baviug from 15 to 20 men each. They generally loaded, and would average from 600 to 800 barrels. 7. The herring fishery is as good as usual. This spring tbey were very plentiful. 8. The right of fishing on the American coast is of no use to ns. We have as much as we can do on our own const. Our fishermen would not go there ; and the fact that so many Americans come to our waters to fish, leads us to believe that they have not fish nearer home. 9. The free market of the United States is not of any benefit to us, I have never shipped fish to the United States, and I do not know of any other merchant from this coast who has. Our fish is prepared iua peculiar manner for the Brazilian, West India, and Mediterranean mar kets, where it commands a higher price than other fish. 10. Without the permission to fish iu the inshore waters, and to get bait along shore, no foreign or other vessel could make a successful tisli ing voyage. 11. I am most decidedly of the opinion that our inshore fisheries should be kept exclusively to ourselves. Our fishing population is ia- creasing, and will require the use exclusively of our own fisheries. No Indemnity that we may receive will be au equivalent for the loss caused to us by granting the use of our inshore fisheries to foreigners; audit the Americans come here in greater numbers, many of our flsbermeii will have to emigrate from the coast. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my kuovl edge and belief, correct. J. M. LUCE, In the matter B^i The said John M. Luce has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit,] at Grande Greve, iu the county of Gaspe, this 10th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTI>.J^.i' gill'' ly about one-fourth of the number that used to come during the Reciprocity Treaty. '». The presence of so many Amtrican vessels in this bay and along •lo coast, above described, was very injurious to our fisheries, depriv- i^'j us of the bait for codfish, and by their superior dexterity prevent , our people from taking as much as they would have done other w '6, as they used to draw the fish outside with their bait, and also, by throwing the offals of the mackerel overboard outside of the bay, they used to keep the codfish from coming inshore; the iujury has been a* great in proportion since the Treaty of Washington. 7. The American vessels fishing cod on the banks cause injury to the inshore cod fisheries — tirst, by using trawl lines, they kill the mother- In the matter of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1307 sh ' second, by the hurt caased to the codfish by the offals, which being swallowed by the cod, the bones swallowed destroy theui. 3. The American tnackerelers nsing seines, ttshed in the Bay of Qaspe, inside of Sandy Beach and Peninsula, hauling their seines on shore. 9. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no value to us ; our fishermen will never go there. 10. The American free market for our fish is of no value to us; we make a superior drycodtish to them, and we ship to Brazil and Eu- roi)ean markets. 1 have been in business for 34 years, and have never shipped any fish to the United States. And we do not know of any other merchant ever having done so. 11. It is our interest to keep our fisheries to ourselves, and not to al- low foreign fishermen to come into our inshore fisheries. 12. The competition of the Americans is very hurtful to our own fish- j eniien, especially as regards the mackerel and halibut for this coast. 13. American fishermen committed many depredations, and they used I to land and sell many articles without paying the duty. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, correct. WM. HYMAN. The said William Hyman has sworn to the truth of the above deposi- [tioii, at Grande Greve, in the county of Gasp^, and Province of Que- I bee, this 4tb dav of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. 'So. 182. I 111 the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. Abraham Gavey, of Grande Greve, of the county of Gasp^, of the [Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 am 35 years of age; I am a practical fisherman, and have been [engaged in carrying on the fishery for the last 20 years ; I am well ac- Iqnainted with the fisheries carried on in this bay and the neighborhood. llwas born bere. 2. The fisheries here are cod, halibut, mackerel, and herring. 3. 1 have seen a large number of United States vessels fishing in this Ibay every year for mackerel and cod ever since I can remember, but |tliey were much more numerous during the existence of the Reciprocity maty. I should think that there were, during that treaty, at least from One to two hundred American vessels fishing in this bay every year. They were, on an average, from 60 to 100 tons eacb, manned by from Jo to 20 men ; a good many of these vessels, as they themselves have old me, made two voyages. I have seen myself, at one time, as many 50 American fishing- vessels anchoied from Grande Greve to Little Jaspe, a distance of one mile. The average catch of each vessel, as fcearas I can reckon, was about 500 barrels; and the mackerel they oij was, especially at the latter end of the season, of the very first tnality. That mackerel was taken by hook and seine ; the seining was lone in the harbor, inside of Sandy Beach, and also in the bay with |nrae seines. 4. During the first years of the Treaty of Washington the number of berican schooners mackerel-fishing in this bay and the vicinity was 1308 A\VARF3 OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. f'^K II: \t, H Wn mi abontn quarter of what it was duriug the Reciprocity Treaty, althougli there were as raauy fish then as during the Reciprocity Treaty; but for the last three years the fishing has fallen off. This year, however, tliev seem to be increaainjj again. 5. The throwing overboard of offal is extremely injurious to tlietish and Qshiug-grounds. This is always done by the American fishiuc vessels, both in the bay and outside. G. The United States fishermen have oft'^n committed depredations on this coast, threatening to do bodily hartu to the inhabitants, traiup. ling down the crops, and stealing sheep and potatoes. One vessel tried to run down my brother, Daniel Gavey, and his partner, who were ia their boat going codfishing ; this occurred four years ago. 7. It is my opinion, and 1 am sure all the fishermen on this part of the coast think so also, that the privilege of fishing in United States waters is of no value whatever to us. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my kiiowl edge and belief, correct. ABRAHAM GAVEY. The said Abraham Gavey has sworn to the truth of the above affi- davit at Grande Greve, this tenth day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 183. In the matter of the "Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Peter Ferguson, of L'Auce an Beaufils, county of Gasp^, aud Province of Quebec, make oath aud say as follows : 1. lam 55 years of age. I was born here and have lived here all my life. I began to fish when I was 15 years of age. I am practically acquainted with the fisheries of this coast. 2. The fish found on this coast are codfish, herring, mackerel, aud halibut ; the principal baits are herring, capelin, squid, mackerel, smelt, and launce. The herring spawn abundantly along the coast, aud we see great schools of young herring during the summer. Bait is generally abundant; when one fails we get another kind ; we always get bait close inshore, always within the three-mile limit. We find that the codfish is generally as abundant as it was 30 years ago ; but the fishing is more abundant; according to the state of the weather, and the supply of bait. In L'Ance au Beaufils Cove, where there are 36 boats, the fish is mostly caught within the three-mile limit, very few going to the Bank. Niuety per cent, of the fish is taken inside the limit of three miles. 3. It would not pay an American schooner fishing on the Bank to re- main there fishing without the privilege of taking bait on shore. Slie could not make a profitable voyage and trust to getting bait on the Bank, I have several times seen American bankers coming to get bait ou sbore, and last year one of them employed my neighbor to seiue caplin tor bait for him. 4. During the Reciprocity Treaty and the period of licenses, I saw a great many American mackerel schooners along this coast, and several times I have counted as many as thirty between Whitehead aud Cai)« Despair, within the limit. The average number during each seasou was between 200 and 250. They used both to take the mackerel inside AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1309 ot the limits and bait them outside. I was on one occasion on board a gcbooner that baited the mackerel close to the shore, and thus brought them outside. This was an American schooner. I believe this was a comiiiou practice. Tliese schooners were from 60 to 100 tons, and took tiom lour to eight hundred barrels each. They told me themselves that tbev generally made two trips in the season. They used to grind up the small mackerel they took for bait. It is a common practice for the Americans to begin to fish inside the limit. The mackerel generally feed on shrimps, close inshore, and on other small fish. J. During the first three years of the Treaty of Washington they con- tiuueil to come in numbers, and tish as before in our inshores. There were at least half the number that used to come under the Reciprocity Treaty fishing each year on this shore; as I have said, after the begin- ning of the Treaty of Washington, for the last couple of years, I have not seen so many. 0. 1 believe that the mackerel spawn along the shore. We have often taken the young mackerel fry in our lance-seines along tlie beach. We ceuorally see the mackerel schooling along this siiore about the end of August, and two years ago I saw them as thick as capliu in among the boat moorings. I believe if the Americans must come tliey could take as many as during the years past. The mackerel taken along the shore are of tine quality. 1. The right of fishing on the American coast is of no use to us ; our people don't want to go there. 8. Their free market is of no use to us. Our tish is prepared for for- eigu markets other than that of the United States. I mean for Brazil, West ladies, Spain, Portugal, and the ports in the Mediterranean. !i. The competition of American fishermen in our waters is a tremen- ! (lous detriment to our fishing interest. 10. It would certainly be more advantageo is for us to keep our in- shore fisheries to ourselves. I hereby swear that the above statement is to the best of my kuowl- I edge and belief correct. PETER FERGUSON. The said Peter Ferguson has sworn to the truth ot the above affidavit, j at Cape Cove, in the county of Gaspe, and Province of Quebec, this fourteenth (Uth) day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 184. [la the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I.Christopher Baker, of Capo Cove, make oath and say as fol- |lows : 1. lam mayor of Cape Cove. I am 39 years of age. I was born here, jaadbave lived all my life at Cape Cove. I have fished for 14 years. I jbegan to tish at 12 years of age. Since 1 was liG years of age, I have jweu engaged in the fishery business on my own account, and keep fish- jiDgboats. I have always had 10 or 12 boats fishing every season. I Biu practically acquainted with all that relates to fishing, sind the fish Me. lam well acquainted with the coast of the Gulf of St. Law- Neeaud the Bay of Chaleur from Ga8j)e Basin to Paspebiac, a distance pt about 100 miles. 1310 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. V 2. The principal fish taken along this coast are the cod, herriDg. mackerel, and halibut, cod-flshing is the principal, and the baitn ar^ herring, caplin, mackerel, squid, smelt, and lannce. The run of cod fish is about the same as formerly, though there are more boats nov than formerly. 3. No vessel, American or other, could make a profitable voyage at Bank fishing without the privilege of taking bait on shore, or briugiug it from the fishermen of the coast. I do know that bankers come tur bait to the shore. 1, last year but one, sold bait to an American liauk- fisherman, and hired my seine to another to seine caplin, which caplio he seined from the beach. 4. Herring spawn here along the shore in abundance. 5. I have seen many American vessels fishing along shore during tbe existence of the Beciprocity Treaty and the period of licenses. I hare seen at one and the same time in Cape Cove, when I was fishiog,5u American mackerel schooners anchored in the bay. There were some at the same time at other places. I believe that each year along this coast during the period specified above, at least (200) two buDdred American schooners used to fish for mackerel, each from 50 to 100 tons, manned by from 12 to 18 men; some, and I believe the most, made two voyages, and I believe they took on an average 600 barrels each. Most of the mackerel they took was taken inside of the three-mile limit. G. A smaller number continued to fish for mackerel inshore, sren when the cutters were placed on the coast to prevent them. 7. For the first years of the Treaty of Washington the Americaus cod tinned to come in numbers, but for the last two years they have uot come in such numbers. They fished as formerly, inside of tbe three mile limit. I consider the number that come about here was about one third of the number that come during the Beciprocity Treaty. 8. It is a great advantage for the Americans to have the privilege of fishing inshore; without that privilege they would get very little mack erel outside of the limit. I have bought fish (codfish) and oil and cod roes from them. I have heard that they did trade a little on tbe coaat] 9. I have seen the Americans throw ofi^als overboard, and I believe this to be injurious to the fish and the fisheries. 10. The privilege they have of taking bait on shore, of getting lee. and transshipping cargoes is of great value to them. 11. The right we have acquired by the Treaty of Washington of fijli iug in American waters is not of any value to our fishermen. 12. The American free market is no benefit to us ; my fish is prepared for the Brazil and European markets ; the price we could get iu tbe States would not pay us. 13. It is certainly our interest to keep our fisheries to ourselves, and not to allow foreigners to participate in them. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knovl edge and belief, correct. CHRISTOPHER BAKER. The said Christopher Baker has sworn to the truth of the aboreafi davit, at Cape Cove, in the county of Gaspe, this 14th day of August, | A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. Id the matter < AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 185. 1311 Id tbe matter of the Fisheries GomtnissioD at Halifax, ander the Treaty of Washington. I, DAVID Phillips, of Peniusula, in tbe county of Gaspe, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have lived at Peninsula, in Gasp6 Bay, for forty-six years. I am a tanner and have fished. I understand practically all that relates to the takiug and curing of fish. 1 am 72 years of age. 2. Tbe principal fish taken in this bay are the cod, mackerel, halibut, and herriug. ,{. The codfish taken varies in quantity year by year, but more is taken DOT than WHS taken 30 years ago. I believe that the codfish spawn in tbe bay, and we see great quantities of the young codfish. 4. The herring spawn in this bay. I have seen the sea whitened by tbe milt of the male. 5. Formerly mackerel were very abundant, and I have seen the mack- i ere! schooliug in great numbers. I have seen them so thick that one coald almost walk on snow-shoes over them. Last year and the year be- fore but few were caught. This year the mackerel are appearing in quautity, and there is the prospect of a good catch. 1 have not for many years seen the mackerel so large, and good in quality. When I first came here a few American schooners used to fish in the bay for mackerel, but afterwards they became so numerous that I have seen as many as forty of tbem in tbe bay at one time. During the time of the Reciprocity Treaty I they tisbed in the bay in great numbers, and I estimate the annual num- ber tbat did so at from 100 to 150 and 200. The tonnage of these ves- Iwls was from 50 to 100 tons. Some of these vessels m AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1313 injurious to our cod-Hsbery. It fflutH the Hali, and thoy won't bito on tlit> lines. It Hoats away with the tide and draws the tish otT after it. J. In l.S.'»l, and during the continuation of the l{eei|) loity Treaty, ami yt'iirs of the license system, a largo tiuinber of Aincricai! niackorol- tisliiiij.' vessels were seen all alonj; this coast. They used oven to fish ill imoiii,' our boat inoorin}j« for mackerel. I have seen at one and the same tirnu itbout 30 American mackerel schooners in this neigh borhooil. I jiiive (!ouiit(Ml 100 sail in ditl'orent ports in view at the same lime, and Mii'vc that the total annual number that visited thij coast during the tiiiii' named was between 400 and .500. Many of them made two trips. Tlii'ir toiuiage would average from 50 to l.'iO tons, with from 15 to 20 111,11. and they took from 400 to 800 barrels. The most of this llsh was taken within the three-mile limit. Since the beginning of the Treaty of WaHhington a considerable number continued to fish for mackerel in our iiishores. I should estimate the number to have been from one to two liiiiKlml. The habit practiced by the Americans of coming in among our boats fishing for mackerel close inshore, and by throwing out large quantities of bait, thus baiting the mackerel away outside of the reach I ot our boats, was exceedingly injurious to us and our fishermen. 5, The nmckerel spawn along this coast, and the Bay of Gaspe in pcr- Iticiiliir I have seen alive with the mackerel-fry. I have seen the sai le I iliiug along the coast. II. The fattest mackerel are always closest to the shore, because thc^ |tky find the most bait ; and this is the case with every kind of fish. The right of fishing on the American coast is of no use to us. We Idoiit want to fish there, and I never knew of any vessel from here hav- lin;,'{rone tliere to fish. If there is any fish there, why do they want to leoiue here and fish ? 8, Our fish l)eiiig prepared for warm countries will not find a market lin the United SL-vtes, so that the right of selling our fish duty free in Itlie United States is of no use to us. % The right of fishing in our domestic waters, of drying fish on our «liores, of takin}:^ bait along our beaches, and of transshipping cargoes |iu our harbors, is a very great privilege to the Americans and of great value to them. It is also a very serious loss and inconvenience to us. 10. Our population is rapidly increasing, and we require all our fish- leriesfor our own fishermen. If the Americans continue to disturb our Mters and drain our fisheries in front of our very doors, many of our Joiiug men will have to emigrate. 11. Many times I have known people on this coast obliged to keep in heir bouses, and in some cases to arm themselves for protection, to de- lend themselves from American fishermen on drunken sprees along fchore. They also used to commit trespass, break down our fences, and pmm our fields. I have known of two young girls having been car- ped off on American vessels against the wishes of their parents. Iliereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- ke and belief, correct. JAMES RODNEY. The said James Rooney has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit t Perce, in the county of Gasp'j and Province of Quebec, this thirteenth ay of August, A. D."l877, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. 83f it i li ■■'it M II i7i>' l^)tii{|L. 1314 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 188. In tbe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treatr of Washington. I, Francis LeBrun, of Jersey, Channel Islands, at present residing in Perce, the county of Gasp^, of the Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been living at Perce since 1857 ; since that time I liave been carrying on the fishing business on my own account. I deal only in cod- fish, and employ ten boats. I am thoroughly conversant with every op eration connected with the taking and curing of fish. 2. The quantity of codfish is as great now as it ever was, althougli the number of fishermen and the quantity exported have increased very much. 3. All the fish prepared by me are exported either to the Brazils, tlie West Indies, or to South Europe. The price obtained for this ^sh varies from $4.50 to $8 per quintal. i. More than three-fourths (3) of the fish taken on this coast, is talieii within the three-mile limit, and the fish taken inshore are always of a superior quality to those taken outside. 5. The baits for cod are herring, caplin, mackerel, launce, smelts, squids and sometimes clams; all these baits are plentiful, and are all taken cloa inshore ; some of them, caplin and launce, are taken from tbe shore. G. Since the Treaty of Washington cod and herring are taken in about the same quantities as before. Mackerel this year are very abundant, being much more plentiful than for some years back. 7. The cod and herring spawn on this coast. I have often seen their eggs and then the small fish here 8. During the years of the Reciprocity Treaty great numbers of American fishermen used to fish for mackerel along this shore. Tlie | average number of these American vessels fishing annually iu thisiin mediate neighborhood was from 100 to 150, all fishing within tbe three | mile limit. The tonnage of these vessels ranged from 60 to 150 tons each, manned by from 12 to 20 men. Their catch averaged about odd | barrels each trip. Many of them made two trips, and some even three, Even during the years of the preventative cutters, the Americans still managed to fish in the inshore waters by dodging the cutters. 9. During the first years of the Treaty of Washington, there was still a | considerable number of American mackerel ve.ssels seen on this coast, 10. The inshore fishery for mackerel and herring is much more vaina ble than the outside ; in fact these fish are seldom taken far from shore. The relative proportion of the two fisheries is as fifty to one I thiak. 11. I am aware that the American Bank fishermen are Constantij iu | the habit of coming to the shore to obtain bait, either by taking it them selves, or by buying it from our fishermen. They also obtain ice, in | which they preserve this bait. 12. I do not believe that any vessel fishing on the Banks could carrj I on the fishery with profit, or at all, without the privilege of obtaiiiinq fresh bait from the shore, as the supply of bait on the Banks is vein uncertain, many vessels being for weeks at a time unable to obtaiuanv, 13. The privilege of entering our harbors to obtain wood and water j and to transship cargoes is a very valuable one to tbe Americans. 14. The privilege of fishing in the United States waters is of ponsfj whatever to us. I never knew of any of our fishermen resorting to| those waters to fish. [in the matter ol AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1315 15. The free market of the United States is also of no value to us. 16. Many disturbances have been caused on shore by the American fislieiineu. On one occasion they abducted a young girl, a minor, against the consent of her parents ; fortunately one of the cutters was near at hand, and, overtaking the American vessel, got back tha girl. 17. I consider that much damage is done on the fishing-grounds by I the Americans throwing overboard offals. They kill the fish by this practice. . „ , , 18. The privilege granted to Americans of landing on our shores to [dry their nets, cure therr fish, of obtaining bait in our inshore waters, {as well as of fishing there generally, is one that is exceedingly injurious {to us, and of very great value to them. I hereby swear tliat the above statement is to the best of my kuowl- edge and belief correct. FEA2^0IS LeBRUN. The said Francis LeBrun has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit lat Perce, this 13th day of August, A. D. 1877, befr -e me. ■ P. FORTIN, J. P. No. 189. [in the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, William Johnstone, of House Harbor, Magdalen Islands, county ofGaspe, Trovince of Quebec, merchant, make oath and say as follows: 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries that are carried on about the Magdalen Islands for the last 27 years. 2. Fishing by the Americans for herring about the Magdalen Islands has been extensively carried on. Their vessels average about 65 tons ; ^lie herring vessels have 8 men, and mackerel vessels from 12 to 15 men each for a cre^v, 3. The American herring fishing vessels take away yearly from the glands about 600 barrels in bulk each. 4. The Americans carry on the herring fishery by means of seines and pets. They are obliged to land in order to fish ; they have erected stabhshmeuts on shore latterly. 5. The practice of throwing the offal of fish overbo^Ti, as done by the Americans, is highly injurious to our fisheries, because its gluts the fish, ^nd, decaying on the bottom, poisons the water, driving away the large sh, and killing the young and eggs. 0. Daring and before the Reciprocity Treaty the Americans have ilffays fished from the beaches about the Magdalen Islands. i. The inshore fisheries about the Magdalen Islands are of much jeater value than the outside. ^. I have seen the Americans many times in each season come in tooiigour boats whilst they were fishing mackerel in Pleasant Bay, and ly throwing superior bait entice the fish away with them. These vessels rift in a straight line, and all the boats anchored in their way are bilged to move or be run down. 9. The hauliugseines are used from the shore. The purse-seins are licked in deep water, but always inshore. The pursesein is injurious ") the fisheries, because it gathers in all kinds of fish, both large and Dall. The large mackerel only are saved; the others are thrown away ead, which destroys the ground as well as the fishery. !■*'' Mr,.; 1316 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 10. The American trawlers resort to the inshores of the Magdalen Islands for bait for their cod fishery. 11. God, halibut, and haddock are taken in the inshore waters of the islands by the American fishermen, and also by the Canadians. 12. The food of mackerel is found inshore. It consists of lance, shrimp, sea-fleas, and insects adhering to rockweeds. Many breed iu shore on sandy and muddy bottom in Pleasant Bay and the small Coves around the Magdalen Islands. 13. I consider it a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to land to dry and repair their nets, and to cure their fish. 14. The privilege of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by the Americans is a great advantage, because it enables them to keep on the flsbiug grounds, and to double their fares during the fishing season. 15. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to procare bait in our inshores, either by fishing for or buying it. If they buy it, it is because they find it more profitable, and it saves time. 16. The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fisheries i about the Magdalen Islands so profitably without being able to resort I to our inshores to procure bait. 17. It is of no practical .advantage to Canadians to be allowed to fisli in American waters. And I don't know of any Canadian vessels ever going there to do so. 18. The privilege of transsl ipping cargoes to the Americans is wortli a load. And the privilege ot getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth from 50 to GO per cent, of these flsheries, which would otherwise not exist. 19. Fishing by Americans in Canadian waters hinders the fisbinj I operations of our fisheries to a great extent. Ifot only by their practice of enticing the fish away from the boats or by the practice of throwing I fish offal overboard on our fishing grounds, but because they are so | much better equipped with vessels and fishing tackle that they talvei the best and largest fish, and by superior numbers overpower the boat | fishermen. 20. The Americans resorting, to our inshores for fishing purposes ti advantage of this opportunity to trade with the inhabit ants withgoi smuggled from the United States, these goods being an extra supply of I ships' stores taken on board for that purpose. They give them iu ex [ change for bait and in payment for labor, thereby defrauding the ens toms, and injuring legitimate trade by regular tax-payers. W. JOHNSTONE, Sworn to the best of his knowledeg, information, and belief, atHalil fax, county of Halifax, Province of Nova Scotia, Dominion of Canada, | this 23d day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. W. D. HARRINGTON, Jtistice of the Peace^ Province of Nova Scotk. No. 190. If M-"Mi ill if In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty | of Washington. I, Charles Fournier, of Magdalen River, county of Gaspc, Province j of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. Have been acquainted with the fisheries on this coast for 22 yeanl 2. From 1854 to 1866 the fishing by the Americans on this coast Iml AWA':iD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1317 [been very extensive for mackerel between Cape Chat aud Magdalen iKiver, a distance of 63 miles. 3. To th(; best of my knowledge, about 100 vessels have visited these Isiiores yearly during the period mentioned mackerel-fishingv 4. Tbese scuooners used to make good voyages yearly, and their car- Igoes averaged 350 barrels of mackerel each trip. These schooners (average about 65 tons, with a crew of about 15 men. The mackerel fishery seems to have decreased, but the cod and herring fisheries are the same as formerly. 6. The Americans take mackerel by means of haud-lines and seines. 7. During the Reciprocity Treaty, on this coast the Americans have iilways fished for mackerel inshore. 8. It is the common practice of the Americans to come in among our boats, and by throwing bait, entice the fish away with them, thereby icausing us a great loss. !). I iinow that the American tishermen have used the hauling-seines rery often. I once helped to load an American schooner in the Mag- ialen River with mackerel. They were all taken with a hauliugseine Inshore. 10. Since 1871 the codfishery has greatly increased. I believe it is bwing to the absence of Americans from our waters. Mackerel were rery plenty last year, and a great increase over former years. 11. Mackerel feed inshore on lance, sea-fleas, and other small animals. 12. It is a great advantage to Americans to be able to transship arn;oes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds and I ilouble and triple their fares. 13. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters; \z') 1 don't know of any vessel tVom here ever going there to do so. 14. Fishing by Americans in our waters injures our fishing operations I a great extent. It brings in a competition that we cannot sustain, hey having better vessels and better gears. IJ. Some years ago three American vessels came and anchored in Japlalen Kiver until they had their full load of halibut. They caught heo! with trawls, and all inshore. his CHARLES + FOURNIER. mark. Witness : A. D. Johnstone. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Magda- kn River, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, Vs27th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. L. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 191. I the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. K, Alexis Noil, of Fox River, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, nerman, make oath and say as follows: 11. Ilave been acquainted with all the fisheries on this coast from Grif- ls( ovetoChlorydrome, a distance of 33 miles, for the hist 30 years. 'Dili 1854 to 1866 the fishing by the Americans has been very exten- !«• The number of American vessels that have visited these shores 1318 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. |i:S,> for mackerel fishing, daring the period mentioned, hive been about 150 yearly. The average tonnage of these vessels was about 65 tons, with a crew of about 16 men each. The average cargo of these vessels yearly, is 350 barrels mackerel. And I have heard the captains of these vessels say that they generally make two trips in a season. 2. The cod and herring fisheries are about the same as they were 20 years ago. 3. The Americans take mackerel by means of seines and baad-liaes principally the latter, and all inshore in 2 or 3 fathoms of water. 4. The throwing of fish ofl:als overboard on the fishing grounds is a great injury to them and the fisheries, because it poisons the water, drives away the large fish, and kills the eggs. 5. The Americans have always fished inshore and made their loads of mackerel. During the Eeciprocity Treaty, and before, often very close to the shores. 6. The inshore fishery is by far of greater value than the outside, because all the fish on this coast are caught inshore. 7. I have seen the Americans frequently come in among our boats while they were fishing mackerel and entice the fish away by throwing bait, thereby causing our fishermen great loss. They have done the same to me often. 8. The cod fishery has greatly increased since 1871, owing no doubt to the Americans having left our waters, thereby giving them a cbanceto restock. 9. I have heard the Americans say many times that our inaclierel were better and brought a higher price in their markets than theirown, 10. Mackerel feed all along our iushores on lance and other small fish. 11. I have seen the Americans several times setting nets close to oar shores for mackerel. 12. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to trans ship their cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing | grounds and to double their fares. 13. It is of no advantage to Canadian fishermen to be able to fish in I American waters, and I never knew of any vessel from here going there | to do so. 14. The privilege granted to Americans to transship cargoes k worth I a load, and the privilef^ of getting bait in our inshores for their cod | and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. 16. Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing opent I tions of our fishermen to a great extent, because we cannot compete | wiih such well supplied and geared vessels. Witness : A. D. Johnstone. ALEXIS X KOIL, mark. In the matter ( Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, at Foi Eiver, county of Gasp^, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, ttej 27th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1319 No. 192. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the treaty of Washington. I, JonN Paokwood, fisherman and farmer, of Cape Rosier, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. I am acquainted with all the fisheries carried on on this coast from Cape Gasp^ to GriflBn's Cove since twenty-five years. During the Treat}' of Reciprocity mackerel fishing by the Americans on this coast was very extensive. I mean from 1850 to 1856. 2. I have seen the Americans fishing for mackerel here in Cape Rosier Cove, at Cape Bon Ami, at Jersey Cove, and catching mackerel. I have been on board of their vessels when they were fishing, and I have seen them from the shore and from my boat, and catching mackerel, and always inshore, generally in line with the points. I have seen them yearly during the period mentioned above many times during each season. 3. During the period mentioned, to the best of my knowle fisheries, because it gluts the fish, poisons the water, and kills the eggs. 6. The Amp cans have always fished inshore here during the Red procity Treat;y .< /^ckC' "' -^bout one-half mile from the shore. 7. The inshore fisheries ..';.>: much greater value than the outside. All the fish here are taken inslioie. 8. I have seen the Americans come in among our boats, and by throw ing bait entice the mackerel away with them; and I saw them one time throwing ballast rocks at a boat that had gone too near their Hues. 9. Since 1871 the cod fishery has increased greatly, and I believe it is owing to the absence of Americans from our waters. 10. J have heard the Americans say frequently that our mackerel were better, and brought a higher price in their markets than their own, 11. Mackerel breed and feed on this coast inshore. Their food is launce and sea-fleas. 12. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to traussbip their cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds, and to double their fares. 13. It is of no advantage to us to be able to fish in American waters, and I don't know of any vessel from here ever going there to do so. 14. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is worti a load, and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. 15. The fishing by the Americans in our waters hinders the Ashing j operations of our Canadian fishermen, because they are better supplied and geared than we are, that they take all the best fish. his MESIAH + TAPP. mark. Witness : A. D. Johnstone. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Foi Kiver, County of Gasp6, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canaaa,| this 31st day of July, A. D., 1877, before me. y. LAVOIE, Jttstice of the Peace, Province of Canada. In the matter ( AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1321 No. 194. In the matter of the Fisheries Cora mission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, James Samuel, of Fox River, County of Gasp^, Province of Quebec, iisberman, make oath and say as follows : 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries which are carried on on this coast from Grif&n's Cove to Chlorydorme, a distance of 33 miles, for 25 years. The mackerel fishery by the Americans has been very extensive dur- ing the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 1866 and before, on these shores. 2. 1 have been several times during a season on board of American mackerel-fishing vessels. I have seen them fish, and have fished my- self with tbem. They fished always inshore very close the shore in 2 or 3 fathoms of water. 3. The number of American schooners which have visited these shores for mackerel fishing yearly during the period mentioned above, was about 150. The average tonnage of these vessels is about 65 tons, hav- ing about 15 men for a crew each. These vessels have taken away from oar shores yearly, at least 350 barrels of mackerel. I have heard the captains of some of these schooners say that most of them were on their second trip. They also told me that their first trip was generally made about the Strait of Canso, Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Isl- and. i. The cod and herring fisheries are about the same as formerly. 5. The Americans take mackerel by means of hand-lines and seines. But 1 have seen them use the hand-lines only on this coast. 6. The throwing overboard of fish ottals as practiced by the Americans I injures our fishing grounds and fisheries; because it gluts the fish, and then the decaying of these ofifals poisons the water, driving the large I fish away and killing the eggs. <. The American schooners have always fished inshore during the Re- I ciprocity Treaty and afterwards, and have made their loads of mack- I erel often very close to the rocks. 8. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside. All [the fish on this shore are caught inshore. 9. It is the common practice of the Americans to come in among our Ihoats when we are catching mackerel, and by throwing bait entice the jfish outside, where we cannot go. 10. Since 1871 the cod fishery has considerably increased, and it is my [opinion that it is owing to the absence of Americans from our waters. U. I have heard the Americans say frequently that the mackerel jcaught in our waters were of a better quality than their own, and brought jahigher price in their markets. VI. Mackerel feed all along our inshores on lance and shrimp. 13. 1 have seen the Americans frequently setting their nets close to lour shores for mackerel. U. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship iTgoes, because by doing so it enables them to remain on the fishing- IgTounds and to double their fares. 15. It is of no advantage to Canadians to be able to fish in American wters. 16. The privilege of transshipping cargoes to the Americans is worth id. And the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod fid halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. 1322 AWARD OF THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing operations of our fishermen to a large extent, because we are not supplied with ves- sels and gears to compete with them. bin JAMES + SAMUEL. mark. Witness : A. D. Johnston. Sworn, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Foi Eiver, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 27th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Jmtice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 195. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Tteaty of Washington. I, Edward Trachy, of Perc6, county of Gasp^, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. Am acquainted with all the fisheries on this shore for 60 years past. 2. Between 1854 and 1866, the fishing by the Americans on this coast has been very extensive, between Cape Cove and Cape Perc6, a distance of about nine miles. 3. I have seen the American schooners inshore engaged in mackerel fishing. I have been on board their vessels many times, and I have seen them from the shore and from my boat fishing and catching tish be tween Bonaventure Island and the mainland. 4. About 150 American vessels have visited these shores yearly for mackerel fishing, each vessel averaging about 70 tons, having from 12 to 15 men for a crew each. 5. During that time I have spoken to American captains, and they told me that they had made good voyages, and sometimes two during a season. 6. These schooners have carried away yearly from our shores an aver- age of 500 barrels of mackerel each trip. 7. The fisheries are about the same as they were 20 years ago; bat this year the cod fishery has increased greatly. 8. The Americans take mackerel by means of hand-lines. I have never seen them using seines. 9. The Americans, before and during the Reciprocity Treaty, have taken the most of their mackerel inshore. 10. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside on this shore. Herring, caplin, lauuce, codfish, and the best part of the mackerel are taken inshore. 11. I have been greatly annoyed while out fishing mackerel, by hav- ing the Americans come in among our boats, and by throwing bait, en- tice the mackerel outside with them, where we could not go. 12. I have seen the American fishermen many times come inshore and set nets for bait, and thus taking the bait away from us. 13. I have seen yearly several American schooners come in the cove here for bait ; and I remember once of one waiting two days until our fishermen had caught enough bait for her. 14. There is a great increase in the cod fishery since 1871. I think this is owing to the absence of Americans from our waters. In the matter o AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1323 15. Tbe same fish tbat are taken by the Americans inshore are also taken by the Canadians. 16. Herring are all taken inshore. The Americans catch them for bait only on this coast. 17. It is a great advantage to Americans to be able to laud to dry and repair their nets. I have seen them doing so frequently. 18. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to tragship cargoes ; because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds and to double their fares. 19. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to procure bait either by catching or buying it. If they buy it, it is because they gave time, and more profitable to them. 20. It would be impossible for the Americans to carry on the cod and halibut fishery without being able to procure bait in our inshores. 21. Tbe privilege of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by the Americans is worth a load; and tbe privilege of getting b^iit in our inshores for their cod and halibut fisheries is worth these fisheries. 22. Fishing by the Americans io our waters injures our Canadian fish- ermen very much. I have had my nets badly torn by the American fishing vessels anchoring among them and sailing over them. It is also an injury to us, because it brings in a competition tbat we cannot sustain. Their vessels and gears are so much better than ours, that they take all the best fish. EDWARD TRACHY. Sworn to the best of bis knowledge, information, and belief, at Perc6, county of Gasp4, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 26th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. 'So. 196. Iq the matter of tbe Fisheries Commission at Halifax, uixler the Treaty of Washington. I, Edwaed Bunn, of Fox River, county of Gasp6, Province of Quebec, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. Have been acquainted with all tbe fisheries on this coast, from Griffin's Cove to Chlorydrome, a distance of 33 miles, for tbe last 20 years. During tbe Reciprocity Treaty, the fishing by Americans has been very extensive. The number of American vessels tbat have visited these shores for mackerel fisning during tbe period mentioned have been about 150 yearly, these vessels averaging about 65 tons, with a crew of about 15 men. Each vessel takes away from our shores, on an average, 350 barrels of mackerel a trip. They very often make two trips in a season. -. The Americans take mackerel by means of seines and baud-lines. I never saw them using their seines on this coast. They take all their mackerel inshore in two or three fathoms of water. 3. The throwing of fish ofifals overboard as practiced by the Ameri- cans is a great injury to tbe fisheries, because it poisons the water on onr fishing-grounds, driving away tbe large fish and killing the eggs. 4. The Americans have always fished inshore during the Reciprocity l^ty, and always made their loads of mackerel, and often very close to the shore. 1324 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. iirfi ■!il"'jl 4 5. The inshore fishery is of much greater value than the outside. All the fish on this coast are caught inshore. ^ G. It is the common practice of the Americans to come in among oar boats, and by throwing bait entice the mackerel outside out of oar reach. 7. Since 1871, the cod fishery has greatly increased. 8. The same fish that are caught by the Americans inshore are also taken by the Canadians. 9. I have heard the American fishermen say that our mackerel were better, and brought a higher price in their markets than the mackerel caught in their own waters. lU. Mackerel feed along our inshores on lauuce, shrimps, and sea- fleas. 11. I have seen the American fishermen frequently setting their nets close to our shores for mackerel. 12. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to transship cargoes, because it enables them to keep on the fishing-grounds, and to double their fares. 13. It is of no advantage to Canadian fishermen to be able to fish iu American waters, and I don't know of any vessels from here going there to do so. 14. The privilege granted to Americans to transship cargoes is worth a load, and the privilege of getting bait in our inshores for their cod and halibut fishery is worth these fisheries. 15. Fishing by Americans in our waters hinders the fishing operations of our fishermen to a great extent, because their vessels are so much better equipped than ours, that they always take the best fish. his EDWARD + BUNX. mark. Witness : A. D. Johnstone. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Fox River, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominion oi Canada, this 27th day of July, A. I). 1877, before me. N. IjAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Provmje of Quebec. No. 197. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Joseph D. Payson, of Westport, in the county of Digby, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries twenty years ; two years on board of American fishermen in Canadian waters. 2. American vessels to the number of three and four hundred annu- ally fish in the Bay de Chaleur for mackerel ; the average number of men is from twelve to fourteen to each vessel. This is within my knowl- edge for the past twelve years. 3. The average number of codfish taken by Americans is about twelve hundred quintals to each vessel ; and besides that, they annually make a mackerel trip of from three to five hundred barrels of mackerel. 4. The present condition of the fishery is not as good as it was in the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1325 past for either codfish or mackerel. Herring have Dot decreased as mncb, but they also are not as good as the past. 5. Americans carry on the codfish and halibut fishery chiefly with trawls ; they do some by hand-line on George's. Maclierel are caught bv seines and hook and line. 6. Most of the mackerel caught in the Bay de Ghaleur are caught within three miles from the shore, and have been before and during the Treaty of Washington, by large numbers of American fishermen. 7. The American fishermen use what is called "purse-seines," and are ruining the mackerel -fishery wherever they are used, by driving the fish from the shores. 8. American fishermen catch bait within three miles from the shores iD Saint Mary's Bay, but not very large quantities. 9. American fishermen trawl for halibut and codfish in the Bay of Fundy iu the inshore waters. Halibut, codfish, haddock, hake, and pollock are caught inshore by Canadian fishermen. 10. Since the Treaty of Washington there has beeA a decrease in all kinds of tish in the Bay of Fundy, caused principally by trawling, and by the large quantity of fish-oft'al thrown over by the fishermen from the vessels. 11. The herring fishery is greater in'-,'uore than outside in Canadian waters. Americans catch herring foi' bait and for sale at Magdalen Islands. The American fishermen catch some herring for bait in the Bay of Fundy. 12. There are a few mackerel caught in American waters at some sea- sons of the year that command a higher price in the American market, but my opinion is that mackerel caught in the Bay de Chaleur are quite as good and usually bring about the same price in the American market. 13. The food of mackerel is found chiefly inshore, called "brit"; they breed in the head of the bays ; their principal breeding and feed- ing places are inshore. U. The privilege of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by American fish- ernien since the Treaty of Washington is a very great advantage to them ; it enables them to catch a much larger quantity of fish. 15. It is a very great advantage to Americans to procure bait from the Canadian inshores. They prefer to buy it, as it saves time. 16. The American fishermen could not carry on the cod and other fisheries of the deep sea to any extent, or with any profit, without the privilege of cesorting to our inshores for bait. IT. It is a great advantage to Americans to resort to Canadian in- shores for ice to preserve bait. Quite a number of American vessels have been supplied with ice at Westport this present season. 18. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no practical value or advantage to Canadians. 10. If it was not for the large fleet of American fishermen in Canadian wters, a large and very profitable business could be done by Canadian fishermen. The foregoing statement is correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. J. D. PAYSON. Sworn to at Westport this 11th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me» BENJ. H. R0GGLES, J. P. 1326 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 198. In the matter of the Fisheries Oommission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Thomas O. Cook, Gape Causo, in the county of Guysboro', mer- chant, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the ftsheries actively for the period of twenty-five years. Dnring that time I have been engaged in the figl trade, buying and selling and carrying on a general fish basiness. 2. During prosperous years, as many as three or four hundred Aic:.- ican vessels, I understand, are engaged in the mackerel fishing in the North Bay. Each vessel would average from twelve to fifteen meD. The American vessels now fishing are larger and better than those for- merly used. Each vessel fits out to take three hundred barrels on an average. 3. I have known from two to three hundred American vessels call at Canso during the season for bait. To make up this number, I count several calls by the same vessel. I have known them hook squid jd- shore, but not much. They generally buy it, because it pays them best and saves them time. 4. The inshore fisheries are of greater value to the inhabitants along the coast than those outside. All kinds of fish are caught inshore by our fishermen. Our people do not, in the county of Guysboro', prose- cute the outshore fishery almost altogether. 5. The opportunity given to the Americans of transshipping their c; goes is of great advantage to them ^ also the privilege of getting b and ice. They are enabled, by having these privileges, to make more trips and catch more fish. Bait can be bought cheaper in Canadian ports than in the United States. Ice also, I think. 6. American fishermen could not so profitably carry on the deep sea fisheries if they were not permitted to land and buy their bait and ice, otherwise they would not land and do so. 7. Never heard of any Canadian vessels fishing in American waters, THOS. C. COOK. Sworn to at Canso, in the county of Guysboro', this 25th day of Jaly, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES A. TORY, J. P., For the County of Ouysborough. No. 199. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, W. Wyse, of Chatham, in the county of Northumberland, in the Province of New Brunswick, at present of Chatham, merchant, maiceth oath as follows : 1. I have been in business for five years in Chatham, and have had business with fishing parties around our coast previous to '72 and since 1854. I have had charge of a salmon-preserving establishment on Fox Island, Miramichi Bay, and exported salmon in tins to amount of from 8 to 10,000 per annum, also lobster and mackerel to amount of aboat 1,000 dollars per annum ; also during this time American fisbermeD have been accommodated on this island with water and other matters AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1327 necessary for tbe carrying on of their fl8beriea. This of itself was, I consider, a very great advantage to them generally. 2. I biivp been acquainted with tlie British fisheries in Xew Bruns wick (luring tbe time I was engaged at my Ashing establishment, say in eacli year from 15th May till loth September. I have seen and counted ill that time as high as 170 sail, partaking of all the benefits of tbe three-raile limit as much as if they were Canadian titihermen. I have seen them in a fine morning after a storm in our bay, between Portage and Badwin Island, for a whole day, and in that time a s|)lendid fishing has been done. This was at a time they had no right totisli within tbe three mile limit. This bay was their chief place of re- sort, and they bad all the benefit of our buoys, lights, and every con- venience. This valuable acquisition should be of a large value to Ameri- can tislieniien, and no benefit to us. I am quite sure tbe average of each vessel would be about four hundred and fifty barrels a voyage. 3. Tbe efifect of so large a fleet of American vessels fishing in British waters, and only one mile from Fox Island shore, was most injurious to oar mackerel fishermen around tbe islands, as they would throw bait and draw them off. i, Tbe mode of fishing at that time was with book and line. Since that period a seine, or purse-seine, is used, and large catches are made. 5. During tbe time I was engaged in fishing at Fox Island, a gradual falling off took place with tbe fleet; whether it was owing to finding other places more profitable, I could not say. 6, I would judge by the movements of the fleet, fully two-thirds of the tish were taken within tbe three-mile limit. ;. In the year I was on Fox Island, American fishermen had all tbe beueflt of buying bait, getting fresh supplies, fresh water, wood, &c. I This I consider a great benefit. At one time, when procuring these ne- cessaries at Badwin Island, they set on fire and burned about twenty I acres of marsh and woodland, whether accidentally or not could not be ascertained. Damages were put down at the time about $600. 8. Tbe privilege of landing cargoes and transshipping to their own homes during the season is very great. It enables them to make two i trips a season with ease. This privilege is worth about $400 per trip. 9. 1 have not seen them fish for bait, but have sold them pogies. These are a fish about half the size of herring, and as fat as butter I When ground up, make good article of bait. They have bought our I spring herring often. 10. Mackerel has decreased in qnanfity along the Miramichi Bay and [coast, as our own shore fishermen say they are much more scrace of late [years, and cannot account for tbe fact. Ten yci'.s ago establishments Imade it their business to buy mackerel for canning purposes, and pre- I served yearly from ten to fifteen thousand lbs.; now, and the last five [years, they are all closed. 11. The food of mackerel is chiefly got along the shores. Small fry of [the different species are their chief food. Their principal breeding places [are along Bay Ghelenrs and other places along Prince Edward Island [and Gulf of St. Lawrence. 12. 1 cousider the privilege granted to American fishermen to land [and dry their nets invaluable. 13. 1 consider the privilege of fishing in American waters of no ac- |conQt or value to Canadians whatever. 1^ The value of transshipping cargoes, and getting bait, &c., is worth aboat $400 per trip. 1528 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 15. I believe it has hurt our shore fisheries to a cousiderabic exteDt; could not say the value. 16. It is true that United States fishermen have sold goods to our fish- ermen, and evaded the duty. 17. Another advantage the Americans have enjoyed is the Miramiclii lights, our coast lights, harbor buoys, shelter from storms, gettiug fre^i, supplies, fuel, water; in fact, it is impossible to enumerate all the ad vantages and value of these privileges. Look at the protection of our rivers, the expense connected with protecting the spawning fish, the fry of which all serve to feed our deep-sea fisheries. WILLIAM WYSE, Sworn before me at Chatham this 11th day of August, A. D. 1877, G. W. BLAIR, J. P. No. 200. ;::::^:; In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treatj of Washington. I, James Flynn, the elder, of Perc6, county of Gasp^, Province of Quebec, planter, do make oath and saj' as follows : 1. I have been acquainted with the various fisheries on this coast for upwards of 40 years. 2. During the duration of the Eeciprocity Treaty a large fleet of American vessels frequented this coast for fishing purposes, say from Point St. Peter's to Cape Despair, a distance of 18 miles or thereabout, 3. 1 have often seen the American schooners close to the shore mackerel fishing. I have often seen them fishing from shore, and catchiug mack erel in the channel between this and Bonaventure Island. | 4. Upwards of 100 vessels or American schooners have fished mack erel in this vicinity each season. These schooners average about 70 tons, with a crew of about 12 or 14 men. 5. The fisheries generally speaking are much the same as heretofore. But the cod fishery has greatly increased this summer. 6. Mackerel is caught by the Americans both with hand-lines aud seines. 7. The Americans previous to and during the Eeciprocity Treaty took most of their fish inside of the limits. 8. The inshore fishery is decidedly the most valuable, as heiriug,cap lin, lance, smelt, fully two-thirds of the mackerel, and the greater portion of the codfish, are taken inshore. 9. It was a common complaint with our fishermen that the AmericaQ schooners came inshore and enticed away the mackerel by feeding tiieui, thus preventing our people from catching any more. 10. I have also heard our fishermen complain that the Araericans came inshore to set their nets for bait, tnus preventmg their obtaining a sufiiciency. 11. I have on several occasions seen American schooners come into the coves and set their nets for bait. 12. The several kinds of fish taken inshore by the Americans are also taken by our fishermen. 13. A great increase has taken place in the cod fishery since loil, i caused no doubt by the absence of the Americans from our waters, thns j allowing our fishing-grounds to be restocked. 14. Herring are all caught inshore, the Americans catching tbeoj for bait only. 1 the matter of t AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1329 15. I have often heard the remark made by persons who have heard the Americans say that the quality of oar mackerel was superior to theirs, realizing a higher price in their market. 10. It is undoubtedly a source of great advantage to the Americans I to be allowed to land, dry, and repair their nets. 17. The transshipment of cargoes will be a great advantage to the I Aniericaus, as it will enable them to keep on the fishing- grounds and 1 double their fares. - 18. The procuring of bait, either by catching or buying, is also a great I advantage for American fishermen. If they buy, it is in order to save {lime. 19. The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fisheries [ffithout procuring bait within our limits. L'O. The privilege of transshipping cargoes, as now to be enjoyed by J tlie Americans, will be equal to one load ; and that of getting bait for jilieir cod and halibut is equal to the value of those fisheries. JAMES FLYNN. Sworn to tho best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Perc6, Icoimty of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 28th Idav oi' July, A. D. 1877, before me. R. K DUVAL, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 201. jn the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, EomiND Flynn, of Perc6, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, planter, and mayor of Perce, do make oath and say as follows : I have been acquainted with the various fisheries on this coast up- Mrds of 35 years. 2. During the exi?' nee of the Reciprocity Treaty a large fleet of iiiierioan vessels fre.^ueuted this coast for fishing purposes. 3. 1 have often seen the American schooners close inshore mackerel Isbiiig. 1 have seen them catching mackerel in the channel between ]liisaii(l Bonaventure Island. 1 1 have seen as many as 50 to 100 American schooners during sev- iral successive seasons mackerel fishingin this vicinity. These schooners Jverage about 70 tons — each crew consisting of from 10 to 14 men. 0. 1 have often spoken to American captains, who stated they gener- lly made good voyages — making two, and I believe in some cases three, |oyas;es during each season. I (i. These schooners would, on an average, take 400 barrels of mackerel Wi our shores each trip, i. The fisheries are, generally speaking, much the same as hereto- p: but the cod-fishery has greatly increased this summer. [ S. Mackerel is caught by the Americans both with hand-lines and pies. I'J. The Americans previous to and during the Reciprocity Treaty Mht most of their fish within the limits. [10, The inshore fishery is decidely the most valuable, as herring, cap- I smelt, launce, fully two-thirds of the mackerel, and the greater por- puot the codfish are taken inshore. I lUt was always a common complaint with our fishermen that the 84 F 1330 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. American schoolers came iushore and enticed the mackerel away by ieediag them, thus preventing our people from catching any more. ' 12. I have also heard our fishermen complain that the Americanj came inshore to set their nets for bait, thus preventing them from ob taining a sufficiency. 13. I have often seen American schooners come into the coves and set their nets for bait. 14. The various kinds of fish taken inshore by the Americans are also taken by our fishermen. 15. A great increase has taken place in the cod fishery since 1811 caused no doubt by the absence of the Americans from our waters, thus allowing our fishing grounds to be restocked. 16. Herring are all caught inshore, the Americans catching them for bait only on this coast. 17. I have heard it stated that our mackerel is superior to the Ameri. can, but am not personally cognizant of the fact. 18. It is undoubtedly a source of great advantage to the AinericaBs to be allowed to land, dry and repair their nets on this coast. 19. The transshipment of cargoes \i!ll also be a great advautagcto the Americans, as ?<■ will enable them to keep on the fishing grouuJs and thus double their fares. 20. The catching ci buying of bait is also a great advantage for American fishermen. When they buy, ir is to save time. 21. The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fisberies without procuring bait within our limits. 22. The privilege of transshipping cargoes, as now to be enjoyed bj the Americans, will be equal to one load, and that of getting bait forcoll | and halibut is nearly equal to the value of those fisheries. 23. Fishing in our waters by the Americans is, and always has been, j a serious injury to our fishermen, who cannot cope with them on account of the superiority of their vessels and fishing gear. EDMUND FLYXS, Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Percti, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 28tli| day ot July, A. D. 1877, before me. R. N. DUVAL, Justice of the Peace for the Province of Quebet No. 202. ef!f''fcii; !l>Ni lathe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treat; | of Washington. I, John Vardok, of Mai Bay, in the county of Gaspd, province ofl Quebec, planter, and justice of the peace, do make oath and say as | follovt'S : 1. I have been engaged in and am intimately acquainted with tltl various fisheries on the coast of Gaspe, and those of the north sboreo(| the St. Lawrence, upwards of 48 years. 2. Previous to and during the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty a j large fleet of American schooners frequented our coast for fishing puij poses. 3. I have often seen the American schooners close inshore catcbinfl mackerel) and should say that I have seen as many as one hundred sail at one time in Mai Bay. . | 4. During many succc <=■«>! ve seasons I have seen from 100 to \M AWARD OF THE FISUERY COMMISSION. 1331 American schooners mackerel fishing in this vicinity. These schooners are from 50 to 100 tons, some even larger, and are manned by 10 to 15 men. 5. The American captains to whom I have spoken told me they gener- ally made good voyages, generally two, but even three voyages during each season. (5, These schooners would, on an average, take from 400 to 500 bar- rels of mackerel from our shores each trip. 7. The fisheries are much the same, generally speaking, as in times past, but the cod fishery has greatly increased this season, and is far be- yond an average so far. S. The mackerel is caught by the Americans both with seines and hand-lines. 9. The Americans have, in my opinion, always taken most of their fish within the limits. 10. The inshore fishery is by far the most valuable, as herring, cap- IJD, smelt, clams, launce, at least two-thirds of the mackerel, and a great portion of the codfish are taken within the limits. 11. It has always been a commou complaint with our fishermen that American schooners came inshore and enticed the mackerel away by feeding them, thus i^reventing our fishermen from catching any more. 12. Another complaint with our fishermen has always been that the Americans came inshore to set their nets for bait, thus preventing them from getting sufficient for their own wants. 13. 1 have often seen American schooners come into Mai Bay to set their nets for bait. U. Our fishermen catch the same fish as aie taken by i:he Americans along our shores. 15. The absence of American fishermen from our waters since 1871 has uo doubt been the main cause of the increase of the cod fishery, as they have thus allowed our fishing grounds to be restocked. IG. Herring are all caught inshore, those caught by the Americans on this coast being for bait only. 17. 1 have always understood from the Americans that our mackerel was of superior quality to their own, and fetched a better price in the American markets. 18. There can be no doubt that the right to land, dry, and repair nets on our coast will be an important benefit to the Americans. 19. The transshipment of cargoes will also bean important advantage to the Americans, as it will enable them to keep on the tiijhing grounds, and thus double their fares. 20. The buying and catching of bait is also a great benefit to the Americans. When they buy, it is in order to save time. 21 The Americans could not carry on the cod and halibut fisheries to advantage without the privilege of procuring bait within the limits. Halibut is generally caught within a mile of the coast along the north shore of the St. Lawrence. 22. The right to fish in our waters by Americans is, and must ever be a serious injury to our fishermen, who cannot cope with them, on account of the superiority of their vessels and fishing gear. JOHN VARDON, J. P. Sfforu to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Perce, county of Gasixi, Pravii.ce of Quebec, Dominiuiou of Canada, this Ist day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES ALEXANDER, Justice of tlie Peace, Province of Ouebeo. 1332 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 203. Ill the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, uDder the Treaty of Washington. I, George Dumaresq, of Fox River, county of Gasp6, Province of Quebec, merchant, malie oath and say as follows : 1. I am acquainted with all the fisheries carried on on this coast am] on the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the last 34 years. 2. During the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 1866, and previous to that time, mackerellishiug by the Americans on these shores, from Cape Rosier to Mont Louis, and also in the Bay of Gasp^, has been very extensive. 3. During the period just mentioned, an average of 150 schooners have visited our shores here yearly for mackerel fishing. Tliese vessels averaged 70 tons, with a crew of 15 men. 4. These vessels made yearly a good voyage on these shores. I heard the Americans say so many times, and that often they were making two voyages. 5. American fishermen have acknowledged before me that yearly these schooners that visited our shores here for mackerel, carried away from 400 to 500 barrels of that fish. I have known vessels taking 250 barrels of mackerel in three days, and very close to the shore at about 4 and 5 fathoms of water, near Fox River. 6. The cod fishery is as good now as it was formerly. 7. The Americans catch mackerel with hand-lines and seining. I liave seen them fishing, and catching fish with both. I have never seen the Americans fishing elsewhere on these coasts than inside the three miles. 8. The practice of American fishermen of throwing fish offals over- board is very injurious to our fishing grounds in several ways; in the first place it feeds the fish too much, thus preventing the fish from tak- ing bait; also the putrid ofTals upon which the fish feeds on the bottom must be injurious to the mother fish, thereby destroying the fry. 9. On these shores the Americans have always fished inshore. I have seen them fishing inshore continually during the Reciprocity Treaty. I have seen vessels loaded. I have not seen them seining elsewhere than in Gasp6, but I have seen seines on board of several vessels. 10. The inshore fisheries are by far of a greater value than the out- side ores. All the fish here are caught inshore. 11. I am aware that the Americans have been in the habit of using artificial bait when they came to fish anio?)g our own boats, and tbe moment that bait w^as thrown out mackerel would suddenly rise to tlie surface, and alter them, making good catches. The Americans would leave lor deep water, and no more mackerel was to be caught inshore. I am aware, also, that Americans have threatened to stone, and did stone, too, our fishermen in their boats, because they say our tisliermea were interfering with their fishing. 12. This practice has been carried on during all the time the Ameri- cans have visited our coasts for mackerel fishing, and this was at a time of the cod fishery when mackerel as bait was most needed. 13. The Americans use both hauling and purse seines, both of which, iu my opinion, are injurious to the fisheries in this respect, that it takes all size of llsh, a part of which they do not save, being of no market value. 14. The cod fishery has rather increased since 1871; herring AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1333 about the same. Tbe increase of codfish in my opinion is greatly due to tlie fact tliat the Amerians have retired from our waters. 15. I bare beard American fishermen say that our number one mack- erel was superior to theirs, and reached a higher price in their market than their own. 16. Mackerel feeds on shrimps, launce, and fry of other fish. The food of mackerel is all inshore ; that is what keeps mackerel inshore on these coasts. 17. It is a great advantage for Americans to be able to land on our shores, and to dry their nets and cure their fish. 18. It is a great advantage to Americans to be able to transship their cargoes, because it enables them to remain on the fishing grounds and to double their fares. 19. It is a great advantage to Americans to be allowed to procure bait inshore by catching it, or by buying it ; and if they buy, it is because it is more profitable to them. 20. It is not an advantage to us to be allowed to fish in American waters. '11. The privilege of the Americans of transshipping their cargoes on our inshores is worth to them another voyage, perhaps two. 22. The Americans would not carry on halibut or cod fishery profit- ably in our waters if they were not allowed to procure bait in our in- shores. 23. The privilege of being allowed to gst bait inshore for cod or hali- but fishing by the Americans, is equal to their fisheries of cod and halibut. 24. The fishing by the Americans in our waters injures our fishing operations greatly, because it brings in a competition that we cannot sustain, the Americans being so well supplied and fitted out with vessels and fishing gears, that on the fishing grounds they take the best fish. Besides, with their large seines seining for mackerel, as I Lave seen them in Gasp PMI In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, William Lloyd, of Lickeport, in the county of Shelburne, master mariner, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for twenty-eight years, for twenty-four years as master. I have fished along the soutlierii coast ol Nova Scotia from inshore otf seventy-five iniles and took mostly codfish. and am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Shelburne County. 2. I have seen in one day twenty sail of American vessels en gaged in taking codfish on the above-mentioned fishing grounds. From La Have Bank to Brown Bank there are this summer at leas^ fifty vessels of Americans. They are double the number of our vessels. These Anier ican vessels carry from ten to fifteen men each, and take from sixty AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1345 tlionsaad to one hundred thousand pounds of fish each. They carry on the flsbins on the above-mentioned banks by trawling and get the bait aiul ice with which they are enabled to do so principally in Shelburneand Yarmouth Counties, and without this bait and ice they could not carry on the tishingon the above-mentioned banks. These American vessels are a great hinderance to Nova Scotian vessels, as they have more hooks ami are larger vessels '.,nd take away the fish from us. The Americans take mostly all th<> i flbh on these Banks by trawling; Nova Scotian tisliermen principally by hand lining. Trawling I consider a bad method of talcing fish. The Auicricans bring in here their small and scale fish, which they were formerly in the habit of throwing overboard, and find here a good market for them ; these fish the Americans were in the habit of throw- ing overboard. They take away the best fish home with them. The Americans purchase bait and ice in this port and in other ports in this coiiuty. They purchase because it saves time and expense, and it would take a long time to catch sufUcicnt bait. WILLIA^r LLOYD. Sworn to at Lockcport, in the county of Slielburne, this llth day of Ansnst, A. 1). 1877, before me. DAVID EISENHAUER, J. P. Xo. 214. Ill the matter of the Fisheries Commission at IJalifax, under tlio Treaty of Washington. I, James Alexander, of Point St. Peter' -, in the county of Gaspc, 'ivviiice of (Quebec, merchant, do make oath and say as follows : 1, I have been acquainted with the various fisheries on this coast for upwards of fifty-eight years. 2, Trevions to and during the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty, a large lleet of American vessels frequented this coast for fishing pui- [ posps. 0. I Iiave often seen a great number of American schooners close in shore catciiing maokerel, particularly' in j\Lil Bay and the Bay of Gaspc. 1. I have seen as many as 50 to 100 sail and upwards of An)erican schooners, for several seasons, mackerel-fishing in this vicinity. These [scliooiiers would average upwards of 70 tons each, manned by 10 to 1.5 I men. •"). The American captains to whom I have spoken stated thoy gener- lly made youd voynges, always making two and often three voyages [each season. I'. These schooners would take on an average from 100 to aOO barrels [ot mackerel from our shores each trip. ". The fisheries are, generally speaking, much the same as heretofore. [But the (0(1 fishery has considerably increased this summer. '^. Mackerel is caught by the Americans both with lumd-lines and iSfiiics. '■'•The Americans, previous to and during the existence of the lli'ci- [lnwitv Treaty, took most of their fish inside the limits. '"; The inshore fishery is by far tiie most valuable, as herring, smelt, fjH'li'i, lance, fully two-thirds of the mackerel, and a great portion of 'lii'codtisli, are taken inshore. 11. It has been a common complaint with ou^r fishermen that the Amer. 85 F 1346 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ican Bcboouers carae inshore to entice away the mackerel by feedino them, thus preventing any more being caught by our people. 12. Our fishermen also complained that the Americans set nets lor bait close inshore, which prevents their obtaining a sufficiency. 13. Have not seen them set nets. 14. The various kinds of fish taken inshore by the Americans are also taken by our fishermen. 15. The catch of codflsli has greatly increased since 1871, caused no doubt by the absence of the Americans from our waters, thus allowing our fishing-grounds to be restocked. 16. Herrings are all caught inshore, and are only caught for bait by the Americans on this coast. 17. I have always understood from the Americans that our mackerel was superior to theirs, and fetched a higher price in their markets. 18. The landing of nets to dry and repair, by the Americans, ouour coasts, is an undoubted advantage for them. 19. The transshipment of cargoes will also greatly benefit the Amer- icans, as it will enable them to keep on the fishing-grounds and double their fares. 20. The catching and buying of bait is also an important advantage for the American fishermen. When they buy it is to save time. 21. The Americans cannot advantageously carry on the cod and hali- but fisheries, without procuring bait within the limits. 22. The privilege of transshipping cargoes will benefit the Americans to the extent of one load. And that of getting bait for cod and halibut is nearly equal to the value of those fisheries, as the latter is all takea within the limits. 23. Fishing in our waters by the Americans is, and always has been, a serious injury to our fishermen, who cannot cope with them on account of the superiority of their vessels and fishing gear. JAMES ALEXANDER, J. P. Sworn, to the best of his.knowledge, information, and belief, at Point St. Peter's, in the county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominiou of Canada, this 1st day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. PHILIP TIBERT, • Comr.P.D.F. No. 215. t In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, George Privel, fish niercha r'^ of St. George of Mai Bay, county of Gasp6, Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. I am acquainted with all the fisheries that are carried on on the coast of Gasp6 for 40 years past. I have been fishing myself for cod, herring, and mackerel for 30 years. 2. During the Reciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 186G, the American fishery for mackerel on this coast, from Point St. Peter to Sandy Beaeli, Gaspe, has been extensive. 3. To the best of my knowledge about 80 to 100 vessels have visited these shores for mackerel-fishing yearly. The average tonnage of these American vessels was from 60 to 65, with a crew of ten to fifteen men. 4. During the period mentioned above, 1 have been on board several American mackerel-fishing vessels, while they were fishing close to oar AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1347 I coast. I have seen tliein actually fishing and catching mackerel with hamllines iuside three miles, and I heard many times the flshernien say tometbat they were doing very well, and sometimes two i-rips during I the season by each vessi'l. 5. These American flshingvessels must have carried yearly during that period at least 800 barrels. 0. 1 have seen the Americans, yearly, during the Reciprocity Treaty, Icoutinnally fishing for mackerel, and very close to the shore, from Point St. Peter, all along the coast of Gasp6 Bay. (. I have seen the Americans catching mackerel only with hand-lines. 8. The use of the seine is injurious to the fisheries, because seines take [all kinds of fish and of all sizes ; the small ones not being marketable lare thrown away and lost. !). The practice of Americans of throwing fish offals overboard is in- Ijiirions to our fisheries, because it gluts the fish and prevents the fish ilrom biting, and also because it poisons the water, drives the fish, and jiiills the eggs. 10. Our inshore fisheries are by far more valuable than the outside lones. Mostly all the fish here is caught inshore. 11. The practice of the Americans of throwing their mackerel bait jamongour boats, and afterward retiring from the shore, has been highly liiijimous to us, because it enticed the fish away, so that we could not Itake mackerel afterward. They have done that as often as they got la chance; it has been done to me and to my neighbors very often, there- V causing us a great damage, not only in mackerel-fishing, but also in jthe cod flsiiery, by thus preventing us from getting bait. 12. The food of mackerel consists of lance, sea-tieas, and small animals Boating in the water; this food is inshore; that is what keeps mackerel tnsliore. Mackerel breed in the Bay of Gasp6 and feed along the shores. 15, 1 consider it a great advantage to Americans to be allowed to land jfoidrying and repairing their nets or seines, and to cure their fish. 14. 1 consider it a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to |traiisshi|) their cargoes in our harbors; because it enables them to keep puthe tishing-grounds and to double their fare. 15. 1 consider that the Americans could not carry on profitably the fcod or halibut fisheries in our waters if they were not allowed to procure Wit inshore. IG. 1 consider it a great advantage for the Americans to be allowed to [get ice in our harbors or on our shores to preserve their bait. li. It is no advantage to us to be allowed to go and fish in American raters, and I know of none of our vessels having resorted thither for [Ishiug purposes. 18. The privilege to Americans of transshipping cargoes is worth the |fahie of a load and sometimes of two. 111. The value of the privilege to Americans of taking bait on our Jbores for cod and halibut is worth to them the profits of their fish- lies of cod and halibut, because without that privilege they would not onie. -0. Without speaking of the drawback the presence of Americans ishore sometimes causes to our own fishermen, their presence and fish- pig on our shores injures us very much, because we cannot compete fith tlieiu, on account of their being far better supplied and equipped pr the fisheries than we are. Ou the fishing-grounds they take all the «st tish, and besides they ruin our fishing-grounds. GEORGE PRIVEL. Severn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Point 1348 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Ml St. Peter, county of Gaai)(3, Province of Quebec, Dorainiou of Caiiadi this Ist of August, 1877, before nie. K LA VOIR, Justice of the Pence, Province of (Judw. No. 216. In tbe matter of the Fisheries Commissiou at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Daniel Devot, of the Basin Amherst Ishmd, Magdalen Islands, make oath and say as follows : 1. I am 62 years of age ; I was born here and have always lived liere, I am well acquainted with all the iiaheries of these islands. 1 luive flshed myself from these islands for forty years. 2. The herring are found all round the.se islands as soon as the ice lias gone, some years as early as the 20th of April, but generally in tbe lie ginning of May. They come in the greatest quantities into I'leasant Bay. They begin to spawli about the lOth or 15th of May each siiiiii;', They have never failed to spawn here each spring, always in great iiiiin bers, but differing, sometiu)es more, sometimes less. They spawn in from half a fathom to two fathoms of water, close to the sboie. Tbev also spawn in abundance in the harbor of Amherst, and in the basin at the Moulin. In the harbor they spawn in very shoal water, there not being not more than a foot of water above the eggs at low water, lliave seen the eggs at the bottom attached to the sea herbs, kelp, »S:c., and to the rocks. When the male herring are depositing their milt over tlie eggs the water is made as white as milk ; this is especially the case, ami to be seen in calm weather. Altera strong breeze of onshore windtlo the eggs are often washed by the surf upon the shore or bea( li iu great banks. The herring here spawned by the end of jMay or the be ginning of June, as when taken at this time they no longer contain any spawn. We find the young herring about an inch and a half long about the beginning of August in all the bays and coves round the islands, but more particularly iu I'leasant Bay. 3. The Americans have come to these islands to seine herring eveiT spring, as long back as I can remember, some ytiars in greater nuinbtis than others, but always in great numbers. They Jilways have laij;e schooners ; sometimes I have .seen large three-masted schooners, brij;\ and even steamers — these were American vessels. They seined tioiii the shore, landing to haid their seines, on to or close to the slioiv, Without landing on the shores they could not seine in this way. Tin) take immense quantities of herring in this way, frequently takinj; a* much as two thousand barrels in one haul of the seine. Several vessels join and help to haul the seine, and they load in common from the quantity of herring in the seine. When a great quantity of herring re mains iu a seine for more than one day, this herring is lost, astiieiisi thus jammed together soon die and sink to the bottom. Tlit.se heiiiui are lost, and I have often seen a thousand barrels of herring thus iosi • 4. Without the right of landing on our shores the Americans cOiilil j not thus haul their seines. 5. 1 have seen as many as from 100 to 1.50 American vessels here at I one time for the herring fishery, and these were large vessels, carrjiu^j from 900 to 1,000 barrels at the least. 6. The mackerel are taken with nets in Pleasant Bity and all aronmi these islands, beginning generally about the 10th of June. Thisni't' In the matter of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSIOX. 1349 fisliing for mnckerel lasts about ten or twelve days, and generally ends about the 20th of June. When wo take the mackerel at the beginning (it this iiet-flshing season they are full of eggs. By the 20th of June, \vbea tbis net-fishing ends, the mackerel have deposited their eggs. Iliev spawn in deeper water than the herring, where the sea seldom breaks. The line and hook fishery for mackerel begins about the begin- iiiiijr of August, and by this time it is very seldom that we find mackerel withepS^ ill them. About the beginning of August the Americans come ill ffmit nniiibers for the mackerel fishery in Pleasant Bay and around the^isliiuds. I have sometimes seen from GOO to 700 sail of American mackerel fishers in and around the islands. I once saw 400 sail at one time adiored oil' my place at the iMoulin. I. The permission to fish in American waters is of no use to us; our lislicniieii do not go there. 6. The American free mai ket is of no use to me. I am in the fish trade lor iiiYself for the last fifteen years, and I have never sent any fish to tlie United States. I sell my fish either in llalifax or (Juobec. My dried cwllisli goes to the "West Indies ; my mackerel to llalifax or Quebec. !i. The American fishing crews often land and commit serious depre- (1 itioiis. Xo later than last week they landed from four schooners in 'Itasant l>ay, and got up a riot at Amherst Harbor. Two years ago snme Ainericans forced an entrance into my own house, causing by their violence Hiid noise much alarm to my family. They broke open the I (lonr of uiy house. 1 lierehy swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- I cii^e aud belief, correct. DANIEL + DEYOT. uiiirk. Witness : W. WAKEIIA3I. The said Daniel Devot has sworn to the truth of the above affidavit, jat Amherst Harbor, Amherst Island, Magdalen Islands, county of Gasptand Province of Quebec, this twenty-first (21) day of August, A. 1 11. 16(7, before me. P. FORTIX, J. P. No. 217. [lu the matter of the Fislicries Crmmissiou at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I,.IosEi'H 81NETTE, of Griffin's Cove, county of Gaspe, Province of |Qiiebec, fisherman, make oath aud say as follows: am acquainted with all the fisheries that are carried on on the coast lot Gaspt' since 35 years. ! 1. During: the Eeciprocity Treaty, from 1854 to 180G, and some years iliefore that time, the mackerel fishery by the Americans on these coasts, Jliora Grillin's Cove to Madeleine Eiver, has been very extensive. -. To the best of ray knowledge, 150 American vessels have been on jtliese shores yearly for mackerel fishing, during the p^^riod mentioned. lie average tonnage of these vessels was 70 tons, aud their crew IG imeu, 3. 1 have been one season employed on board of an American schoon- er during the Beciprocity Treaty. We went all along the coast from tee to Madeleine Biver, and we fished at Grand Etang, Ciilorydorme, 1350 AWABD OF THE FISHEBT COMMISSION. fe*J'6 Grande Valine, and Madeleine. We fished about five or six acres from land. With hand-lines we toolc fish. The large fish we kept and the small were thrown overboard. 4. I have noticed in one day as much as twenty barrels which were thus thrown overboard. 6. Besides I have seen the Americans fishing always inshore, and yearly, from my house and from my boat. I have never seen tbe Ameri cans fishing on this coast elsewhere than inshore, and very close to tiie shore. 6. The American fishing vessels always made good fares at that time mentioned, and it is also to my knowledge that most of these schoooerij were making two voyages a season each. 7. These American schooners haveyearly carried away from oursbores here during the period already mentioned from 400 to 500 barrels of mackerel. 8. I have also noticed the Americans trawling along the shore liere for catching halibut. 9. Tbe cod fishery is as good now as formerly ; herring also. 10. The Americans catch mackerel with hand-lines and witii seiner, either hauling or purse seines. I have seen the Americans seitiiugwitli a purse-seine at Griflin's Cove, at about two acres from land. There was so much mackerel in the seine that it burst. I have seen seines ou board every American vessel I have been on board. 11. The practice of Americans of throwing fish ofifals overboard is highly injurious to our fishermen, because it gluts the fish and poisons the water by decaying on the bottom, thus killing the eggs and driviug the fish away. 12. The Americans have always fished inshore during the period men tioned above, and caught all their fish very close to shore. 13. The inshore fisheries are by far of a greater value than the out side ones. All the fish on this coast are caught inshore. 11. When the Americans were not with us we would take mackerelas well as themselves, but the moment they were coming with their vessels among us and throw bait our catching was done, except if they allowed us to fish with them, but most of the time they threatened to stone us if we did not get away. They done that as often as they got a chance. They have done that to me many times ; and, more than that, they once rnn into my boat, notwithstanding my cries, and would have drowned me had I not been quick enough to cut my boat- anchoring cordage. 15. In my opinion, the use of the seine is injurious to the fisheries, specially the purse seine, because it takes a great deal more fish, and of every quality and size, a part of which is not saved, but thrown over board or aside to die. 16. I have seen many times the Americans coming in here for herring, which they have bought for cod, halibut, and mackerel fishing. 17. During the first years of the Eeciprocity Treaty, and before, the Americans used to take all the mackerel, big or small, but later they | only took the number one mackerel. 18. Mackerel feeds on launce, shrimps, sea fleas, &c. This food is in shore ; that is what keeps here mackerel inshore. There is an abiin dance of food for mackerel all along our shores. 19. It is a great advantage for Americans to be able to land, to dry | and rei)air their nets, and to cure their fish. 20. It is a great advantage for the Americans to be allowed to trans I ship cargoes in our shores, because it enables them to double their fares, j I have seen that done at Fox River. In the matter o I *;!;«■■»»«• AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 13ol 21. I consider it a great advantage to the Americans to be allowed to come in our insbores to catch or bay bait. And if they buy it, it i» bo- cause tbey save time, and are able to keep longer on the flsbinggronnds, and catch fish. L>2. Tbe Americans could not fish profitably for cod or halibut, or even mackerel, if they were not allowed to come itishore to get bait. 23. I consider it also an advantage to Americans to be allowed to come inshore for ice to preserve their bait. 24. I do not consider it an advantage to us to be allowed to fish in American waters. 25. The privilege to Americans of transshipping cargoes is worth them a load, or the value of a load or two more. 20. The privilege of getting bait inshore for halibut and cod is worth to tlie Americans these fisheries. 27. Besides the troubles and riots which the Americans have raised insbnre, and which I have witnessed myself, besides also the difticulties we had in our small coves here insetting our nets on tbe moorings, which was often impossible, on account of the Americans having anchored too close, or because we were afraid that they would lose them during the night in getting under way, the fishing by Americans in our waters is highly injurious to us, and ruin us, because it brings in a com- petition on tlie fishing-grounds that we cannot sustain, they being better supplied with vessels and fishing gears than we are. his JOSEPH + SIXETTE. mark. AVitness: J. A. CUELLET. Sworn to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Grif- fin's Cove, county of Gaspe, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, this 31st day of July, 1877, before me. N. LAVOII], Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 218. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JoEN PHELA.N, of Port Daniel, county of Bonaventure, province of Qac'uec, dshery overseer, make oath and say as follows : 1. Have been acquainted with all the fisheries on the shores of Bay Clialeur for a space of 35 years. About 150 American fishing vessels have visitfcd the shores of Port Daniel and neighboring shores from 1814 to 18'JG, for mackerel fishing. I have counted as many as (!0 at a time inshore; each vessel having an average of 12 men for a crew. I liaye seen .American fishing schooners every year fishing inshore, from Point Mii'jquereau to Paspebiac, a distance of 30 miles. 2. Dii'.ing the period mentioned from 1854 to 18GG, I have often been on boa/d American fishing vessels which were fishiig at about half a mile from the shou. I have seen them actually catching nuickerel inshore. i. I have often heard American fishermen say that they were doing ^ell :it tbe mackerel fishery. 5. To tbe best of my knowledge the American fishermen have always ffiivi? good voyages yearly. 1352 AWARD OF Till;: FISHERY COMMISSION. !?*M 0. The cod fislicrv is fully us p;o
    ,ii the bay, the cod fishery was poor on this coast, whilst now there are codlish in abundance. 9. To the best of my knowledge, from ISoJ: to 18GG the Ainericaiis have fished mostly inshore. 1. Our inshore fishery is of greater value than the outside (1 ;ihvn.v> speak of this shore from Point Maecpiereau to Paspebiac), becau.se mack- erel, coil, and herring are all caught inshore here. li. Several times I have heard complaints from our own (islicniii'ii about the Americans causing them injury by coming in among the Imats and enticing the fish away, thereby causing them great lo.ss. Tlit Americans do this whenever they get the chance. 12. j\Iost of the American fishing schooners are supplied with the purse-seine for mackerel fishery. The Americans have always used tlie purse-seiiu? inshore. I have seen them use them several times each .sen- son, and with success. I have never seen them use the seines out.side. I can safely say that two thirds of the mackerel are taken inshore. They lave seined all along this shore. 13. The use of the purse-seine is injurious to the fisheries, because they take all kinds of fish, large and small, the latter being throwu away dead or maimed, so that it could not live. 1-1. I'jvery year some American schooners come in Port Daniel fur bait. They both fish for and buy it. They catch their bait with nets. 15. nerring are all caught inshore. The Americans take them here for bait only. 10. Mackerel feed all along the inshores in Bay Chaleur. Tlieir food is launce, small herring, and other small animals. 17. I have seen the Americans several times come a.shore to dry and repair tlieir nets. 1 consider it a great advantage for them to be allowed to do 80. 18. It is a great advantage to the Americans to be able to tnnssliip their cargoes ; because it enables them to keep on the fishing grounds and to double their fares, 19. It is a great advantage to xVinerican fishermen to be able to pro- cure bait in Canadian inshores. I don't believe they could carry ou the cod and halibut fisheries otherwise. 20. The privilege granted to Americans to fish in Canadian inshores injures Canadian fishermen to a great extent. It brings in a competi tiou that we cannot sustain. The Americans being better equipped with fishing gears and vessels, that they have all the chance. 21. If the Americans were not allowed to fish in our inshores we might do well in good seasons, even with our poor outfits for mackerel. The reason our outfits are so poor is, because we are not supported by strong and rich companies like the Americans. JOn::^ PHELEN. In the matter AWARD or THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1353 Sworn, to the boat of his knowledge, information, and belief, at Port l);iiiit'l, <'t>niit,v of Bonaveuture, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Can- 1,1 1 tliis L'.5il (lay of July, A. J). 1877, before nie. N. LAVOIE, Justice of the Peace, Province of Quebec. No. 219. Ill the matter of tlie Fisheries (Jointnission at IlaliTax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, SlXTE Lafuanoe, of Amherst Harbor, Amherst Island, Mujjdalen M:imls. county of Gas[)e, Province of (Quebec, make oath and say as iiillows : 1. I am (57 years of age, and I have lived here for 4S years, and I have ii>lie(l (liwiiijj; all that time, thonjrli ibr the last seven or eifjht years I ii;i\\' not lislied much. 1 am well and practi.'ally acquainted with the ii>liiri('s carried on in Pleasant Day, off Andierst Harbor, ami around •Jipsc islands. :', The licninfj spawn in great abundance in Pleasant Pay and Am- lii'ist Harbor and all aronnd the islands, and they have never failed to tiiimi and s[)awn hero every year, as above stated, since I llrst came lute. They si)awn in shallow water, on the Hats of Amherst Harbor, iiiaiiionf,' the seaweed, where at low water there is not more than one toot of water over the spawn. Their spawn is generally attached to the Miiwei'd. In Pleasant Pay and around the islands they spawn in from lialt a fathom to two fathoms water. They spawn in May, and during I the spawning' season, when the weather is fine and the sea calm, the sea I over the spawning ground gets white like milk; this is caused by the i milt of the male fish. Towards the end of Augnst and in September, LiiftiMinantities of small herring about two inches long are seen in the liiiibor and in Pleasant Bay ; tliese tish keep in sniall schools. Towards Hiniiig they come inshore, while in day-time they seem to go out to sea. I Tlie mackerel feed on them, and when the tishermen are fishing for mack- rtd ill the bay, and when they see schools of small herring pass by their [boats, they know that the schools of mackerel are near at hand, and get iMdy for tliem. Ever since I came here, I have seen every year large numbers of [American schooners fishing for herring with seines, and I have seen as [niam as 150 of them at one time. About 25 years ago they used to load land take away from 800 to 1,100 barrels each. They used to take the jberriug with seines ; they used to draw their seines asliore, and the men [vent on the laud to draw the seines. They used also to dry their seines I shore, when their voyage was completed. 1 have seen myself one [lianl of a seine for herring load two American schooners of at least l.lHJOharreU each, and this was not a rare occurreuce ; .and I know that Jas many as 3,000 barrels have been taken in one haul. I have seen ^einesthat had been drawn near the shore, moored for three days; that , as long as the fine weather lasted, and the schooners that were part- Iwrsintlie seine, sometimes six in number, used to send their boats to lake out the fish with dip-nets. When the bad weather came on they "(rere obliged to tip the seine and allow the fish to go, some of them still lalive, but most of them dead and of course lost. 1. If the Americans had not the right of landing on our shores, they wiild not be able to draw their seines ashore. 5. Mackerel are found in great abundance sometimes, at other times 1364 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. they appear in less quantities, in Pleasant Bay. They have never jet failed to come every year. The time of Ashing mackerel extends from the 10th to the end of June — that is, mackerel-Hshing by meauH of netn in Pleasant Bay. They are then, in the beginning of this flsliery, fuii of spawn ; towards the end of this fishery a great nnmbor have spawned, as we find their bodies empty of the spawn ; but still some have retaiueii it to deposit it a little later. When we begin to fish for mackerel witli hook and bait we no longer find them full of spawn, they are then spent. I hereby swear that the above statement is to the oeat of my knowl edge and belief correct. bU SIXTE + LAFUANCi:. niaik. Witness: John Galt. The sjiid Sixte Lafrance has sworn to the truth of the above iiffldavit. at Amherst Harbor, Magdalen Islands, this twenty-first (2l8t) day of August, A. D. 1S77, before me. P. FORTIN, J. P. Xo. 220. Ill the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under tlie Treatj of Washington. I, Gabriel Cormier, of Amherst Harbor, Amherst Island, Magda leu Islands, county of Gasp6, Province of Quebec, make oath aiulsiu as follows : 1. I am 77 years of age. I was born here and have lived here all my life. 1 fished from the age of 15 till about eight years ago, aroiiud tlie ^ Magdalen Islands, at Auticosti, on the north shore of the gulf, froinl Natashquan to Blanc Sablon, and for the last 7 years I have coufineil \ myself to fish in Pleasant Bay and off the neighboring shore. I m well acquainted with all the fisheries carried on at the aboveuameil | places; they are cod, herring, mackerel, and halibut. 2. As soon as the ice disappears from the shores of these islands, her ring are seen in great abundance, coming close to the shore for the pur pose of spawning. They spawn in Amherst Harbor and all the islamli. | I have seen the eggs of the herring on the flats near the shores, every ■where around the islands. They spawn in a depth of one foot to two or 1 three fathoms, and during the spawning season, that is during May, tlie sea gets white, as far as we can see, in Pleasant Bay, towards House I Harbor and in Amherst Harbor with the milt of the male fisb. In Julyl we begin to see the herring-fry, half an inch long, with large beads amll eyes. In September they are about two inches long, and begin to bej shaped like the adult herring. In October they are about three incbejj long, and we use them then as bait for the codfish. We take tboselittlel herring with dip-nets along the shore, and sometimes we find enoiiglf in the stomach of the codfish taken to serve us as a bait for the wbolej day. Since I first commenced fishing, I have never seen tlie herrinJ fail in Pleasant Bay or round these islands. They always conietC spawn, though sometimes in greater numbers than others. There isn^ place in the gulf or on the coasts of the maritime provinces, as farasff In tbe matter ol AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1355 hare beard from the numerous fishermen with whom I have spoken, where herring spawn in such abundance as at the Magdalen Islands. 'i. The Americans have come to fish for herring round these islands ever siuco I can remember, and about 20 or 25 years ago they must bave conio some years to a number of 15U sail or more annually. 4, In June mackerel come into Pleasant Bay in great numbers ; we thencutuh them with nets, and we then tlnd them full of spawn. When, in August, we fish for them with hook and line we find them spent ; they are then beginning to get fat, and recover from the effects of spawn- iuff. 5, I may also state that the Magdalen Islands are spawniug-grounds for the codfish. 6, The right of fishing in American waters, granted to us by the Treaty of Washington, is not of the least use to us. 1 have never heard otone of our vessels going to fish in those waters. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, correct. GABKIEL + CORMIER. mark. Witness : John Galt. The said Gabriel Cormier has sworn to the truth of the above affi- davit, at Amherst Ilarbor, this twenty-first day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. FORTiy, J. P. No. 221. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Edward A. Conway, of Gaspe, in the county of Gasp^, make oath aud say as follows : 1. 1 am agent at Saint John's for the Messrs. J. & E. CoUas, fish mer- chants. I was also agent at Moisie for 2 years before I came to this place. I am in the fish business for the last 7 years. -. The principal fish on this coast are the cod, the halibut, mackerel, and herring. All these fish are caught in the inshore limits. At Saint Joiia's we occasional'' ^sh on the banks. 3. It would be impossible for any vessel to continue to fl.sh on the Banks or inshore waters of this coast without coming on shore for bait, asallour b.tit is caught within three miles from shore ; in fact all our bait is taken close along ashore. The usual bait — lauuce, herring, cap- lin, &c., are taken all the time right on shore. i The right of fishing in American waters is of no value to us ; we have no desire to go there, as we have all the fish we can take, if left nndisturbed, at our own doors. 0. The American free market is of no use to us. All our fish is pre- pared for and shipped to Brazil, the West Indies, or Europe. In my time, I have never known of any fish having been sent to the United States. I hereby swear that the above affidavit is, to the best of my kuowl- eilgeand belief, correct. E. A. CONWAY. 1356 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. '•:N^-*1 The s.ud Edward A. Conway has sworn to the truth of the abovi afllidavit, at Saint John's, in the county of Saguenay and Province of Quebec, this 8th day of August, A. D. 1877, before nie. P. FOIITIN, J. /'. No. 2L»2. In the niattei of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, PiiiLiAS SiROis, of L'Islet, in tlie county of L'Islet and Pi(»viii(i.. of Quebec, make oatli and say as follows : 1. I am engaged in the fishing business for the last KJ years. I own a fishing establishment in St. John Itiver, north coast of the river St, Lawrence, on which I keep 24 boats. 1 am thoroughly acquaintt'd with all the oi)(!rations connected with lishing on this coast. I am acquainted with the lisheries rarried on between Mingan and Seven Islands, 2. The princii)al lish caught are thecod, halibut, mackerel, and iicrriiia. o. The cod is the ]uincipal lish, and gives rise to the priiu'ii)al lisliin,: on the coast. All tiie Hshing on the coast specilied is carried on within the three-mile limit, with the exception of the St. John's Bank and Mm gan Bank, upon which the boats of this coast go and fish soim'tiiM'<, generally in the fall, but the great bulk of the Qsliing is carried ou miidi iui-.ide of the three-uiile limit. 4. The bait — we use cai)lin, launce, herring, clams, and trout, mack- erel and squid occasionally, also smelt. These lish are all taken elosi ou the beach, excejit the squid, but all far within the three-mile limit, It would be impossible for a foreign fishing vessel to fish for cod on tin Banks of St. John or Mingau outsire boats there are tish- iii'; the less cacili one will take, and when bait is scarce, if foreigners are "ll'iweil toome with large seines and lish tlay and night for it, as [ kiioiv they liavi; done, oi course tln-ie is less (di.ince of our lishcrmeu pi'ttiujjeiioiij'h to carrv on tiwAv (isherv. F 11:41,. 1 'Ax- '\\\" \ " A A>' AV y A rO^ .■■t ..-1 .t\" "^ ■. i ■. " ,> V\>' ^ o.\'* V » .^;...:^ A; -vs*i ^I'-JT" J ! .358 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8. I consider tlie privilege of fishing in American waters, granted to us by the Treaty of Washington, of no value to our fishermen, as thev would never thiuk of leaving their o\\ u profitable waters for ones already exhausted. 9. I consider it a matter of great importance to us to keep our fish- eries in our own hands and not to allow Americans or any one else to have the right of exhausting oui- waters. 10. The American market for our fish, free of duty, is of no advan- tage to us. I have never shipped any fish to the United States ; all our fish are sent to Europe or the Brazils. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of ray knowl- edge and belief, correct. JOHN KENOUF. The said John Renouf has sworn to the truth of the above aftidavit iit St. John, in the county of Saguenay, of the Province of Quebec, tliij 5th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. r. FORTIN, J. p. Xo. 224. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, William Francis Bower, of Point St. Peter, of the county of Gaspe, of the Province of Quebec, fisheries agent at Sheldrake for Messrs. John & Elias CoUas, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have for the last three years been manager of Messrs. J, & E. Oo'las's fishing establishment at Sheldrake. I understand thoroughly every operation connected with fishing and curing fish. 2. The fish taken here are cod, herring, mackerel, and halibut ; of these I am only concerned in the cod-fishery; but lam well aware that all the fisheries here are carried on within three miles of the coast, excent on one small bank, which lies some seven or eight miles from tiie shore, be- tween Sheldrake aad Thunder liiver. The fishermen, however, very seldom go there. 3. The codfish cured here rank as Gaspe fish, number one, and are superior to American cured fish, and command higher prices in the Bra- zilian and European markets. 4. I can confidently state that our fishermen will never go to fish in United States waters, and consequently that the right acquired by the Treaty of Washington is of no value whatever to us. 5. From the knowledge I have of the fish trade, I am in a position to state that the right of having a market free of duty for our fish in the United States is of no value to us. I hereby swear that the above statement is, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief, correct. WILLIAM FKANCIS BOWEK. The said William Francis Bower has sworn to the truth of tlie above aftidavit at Sheldrake, this seventh day of August, A. D. 1877, beioreme. P. FORTIN, J. P. In the matter c lu the nmtter of m'< "',' '■ AWARD OF TlIK FISHERY COMMISSION. 1359 Xo. 225. lu tbe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I Hyppolytb BouDRi'.AU, of Esquimaux Point, of the county of Sii'uenay, iu the Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : ]. I am 40 jeais of age, and have been a fisherman for the last 25 vears. lam well acquainted with the fisheries carried on at the Mag- dalen Islands, Anticosti, and the north shore of the river and gulf of St. Lawrence, from Sheldrake to Blanc Sablon. I was present when Mr. Julien Boudreau gave his affidavit, and having heard it read to me, I declare tliat T fully concur in all his statements and opinions, as being to ' 'u'si ul my knowledge and belief correct. IIIPPOLYTE + BUUDR15AU. uiark. Witness : .luUN (lAL. The said Hippolyte Boudreau has sworn to the truth of the above atiiiiavit. at Esquimaux Point, this 8th (eighth) day of August, A. D. ; bIT, before ne. P. FORT IN, J. P. No. 22G. lu the matter of the Fisheries Comujission at Halifax, under thi3 Treaty of Washington. 1, Francis Cormfer, of Esquimaux Point, in the county of oague- I nay, and Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 am a5 years of age. I have been fishing for 22 years, and am I well acquainted with the fisheries of tlie Magdalen Islands, the island of Anticosti, the north shore of the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence, (from (Sheldrake to the Straits of Belleisle, and being i)reseut when Mr. I Julien Boudreau gave his affidavit, and having t'eard it read to me, I fnlly concur in all his statements and opinions, and hereby swear and declare that all his statements and opinions are, to the best of ray I knowledge and belief, correct. FRANCIS + CORMIER. nmrk. Witnes : W. Wakeham. Tli8 said Francis Cormier has sworn to the truth of the above affi- [tlavit, at Esquimaux Point, this 8tU day of August, A. D. 1877, before me, No. 2: P. FORTIN, J. P. jliitbe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under (lie Treaty of Washington. IjPlacide Doyle, of Esquimaux Point, iu the Couii^v of Saguenay laiiil Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : • Iliave l)eeu .'iU years a fisherman and am mister and owner of a r'ooiier. I am ia ^ ears of age. 1 urn well acquainted w.di the fish- 91 f-''if^^'-- 1360 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION r'««si tmm ff'tw *^ ' ^ ■ Si I mm eries of the Mugdaleu Islands, the Island of Antic;isti, and the north shorr of the Itiver and Gnlf of St. Lawrence, from Sheldrake to Blanc Sablon and being present when Mr. Julien Boudreau gave his attidivit, ami having heard it rejid to me, I fully concur in all his stateineiiis ami oi)inions, and hereby declare that all he has said is, to the best of im knowledge and belief, correct, and to this I swear. TLACIDE +'d0YF.i:, uiaik. Witness: Wm. Wakeham. The said Placide Doyle has sworn to the truth of the abo.s stutciiii'iit at Esquimaux Point, this eighth day of August, A, D. 1S77. Ix'tbre im. P. FOKTIN, J. y, No. 228. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Tioatv of Washington. I, Gabriel Coriviier, of Esquimaux Point, of the county of Saijiie- nay, of the Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. I am 50 years of age, and have been a practical iishernian for tin- last 35 years. I am well acquainted w th the fisheries carried on on tlic Magdalen Islands, /iUticosti, the north shore of the lliver and GnllOi St. Lawrence, from Sheldrake to Blanc Sablon ; and being present wlieii Mr. Julien Boudrer.u gave his afTidavit, and having heard it read toiin', I fully concur in all his statements and o[»inions, and declare tliat they are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, correct. GAliRIEL + COlJMlEi:. murk. Witness: JouN Galt. The said Gabriel Cormier has sworn to the truth of the above allidn- vit, at Esquimaux Point, this 8th (eighth) day of August, A. 1). iSn, before me. P. FOKTlX,J. P. No. 229. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Tieaty of Washington. I, Xatuaniel Boudreau, of Esquimaux Point, of the county Saj nay, of the Province of (iaebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. I am 40 years of age. I have been carrying on the fishery in tiie | Gulf of St. Lawrence for the last ■'?" years, and I am well acquainted" the fisheries of the Magdalen I.'lands, of Anticosti, the nortii slion the Kiver and Gulf of St. Lawr>?nce, from Sheldrake to Blanc Sabluii. and being present when ]\Ir. Julien Boudreau gave his allidavit, ainL having heard it read to ine, 1 liilly concur in all his stalL-niciits ai opinions, and declare that all he has said is, to the best of my belii I ■"uli knowledge, correct. his NATHANIEL + BOUDIM-AI' iniirk. Witness: John Galt. ill llie matter o AWARD OP T/IE FISHERY COMMISSION. lafii The faifl Xatbaniel Boiulrenu has sworn to the truth of the above nlli- (lavit at Ksqnimaux Point, this (8th) eighth day of August, A. D. 1877, bt'tbre me. r. FORT IX, J. P. No. 230. In tlie matter of the Fisheries Commission at llalifax, uuiler the Treaty of Washington. I, JuLiEN BoUDRKAU, of Esquimaux Pjiut, in the county of Sague- miv, iiiaive oath and say as follows : 1. I have lived hero 10 years ; before that 1 Jived at the Magdalen Islands wbere I was born. I am (53 years of age, and have been a lisliermaii for 50 years, and for the last 4."i years I have been carrying oil tlie fishery with a vessel of which I was master and owner, on the north coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from Sheldrake to the Straits of lielleisle, and in the Straits of Belleisle, and on the Atlantic coast of Labrador, as far as Cape Harrison, at the Magdalen Islands, on La Have Bank, at the mouth of the Bay of Fuudy, and on George's Bank, lam well acquainted with every operation relating to the taking and iiiiiig of codtish, halibut, mackerel, and herring. 2, 1 am also acquaiated with seal hunting on the ice. 'i Tlie fisheries carried on along the coast of the north of the St. Lawrence, from the Sheldrake to the Straits of Belleisle, are the cod, j halibut, mackerel, and herring. All these fish are caught within the j tliieemile limit all along the coast named, with the exception of the Ut, Joliii and Mingan Banks, Natashquan, Kejasca, Belles-Amours Banks, where the fisheries are carried on also outside of the three-mile [limit, at a distance of from three to six miles from the three mile line. I, The bait for taking cod and halibut is capliu, herring, launce, squid, Idaiiis, mackerel, and trout. All this bait is taken near the shores, and [generally, as in the case of launce, caplin, herring, with seines from the ire. Herring, as well as mackerel and trout, is also taken in nets. [S^liiiil are taken with jigs, by hand. j. Since I visited the north shore of the St. Lawrence and tiie Straits lofBelleisle, that is to say, for the last 4.") years, I find that the fish taken illegs'lly in tiie Americans at Natasli reliable information, American vessels *«eal.so ill the habit of fislrng at this places in even greater numbers. ^"limber of American vessels still visited Natashciuan after the exist- fweof the ltecr,>n;city Treaty, but the quantity of codfish having pkeiied, they dia not visit the place in such numbers. 1 have al- wu American •n. Sj F vessi'ls fishing on the Banks of Natashquan and iBil tl! 1362 AWARD OF THF, FISHERY COMMISSION. 7. These Aniericau veasels fishing on these Banks and throwing the oftal overboard cause great destruction to the cod by the codfish swal- lowing the heads and spinal bone, thus choking themselves ; besides, it drives tlie cod off the grounds on whicli these offals are thrown. 8. Aniericau vessels fishing on the Bank of Natashquan or any other Bank in the gulf, cannot carry on the fishery' with profit, or at all, im. less they obtain the right of taking bait on shore, that ia, iu British waters. It is true they might bring salted clams from their own couu- try or herrin;Gj from the Gut of Canso, and sometimes take fresh berriiif; on the Bank with drift nets, but this bait cannot be depended upon, ami uo schooner could make a profitable voyage under those circumstances; and without the right of taking fresh bait on our shores no Aniericau schooners could continue to fish on the Banks. 9. At Bonne Esperance, Five Leagues, Middle Bay, Belles Amours, Bradore, Blanc Sablon, the Americans use seines for taking cod; these they haul on shore, and by means of these seines they take large quau titles of codfish — large and small — many of the small ones too small to be cured, and they have to be thrown away, thus causing a wantou waste of this precious fish. Two years ago, at Blanc Sablon, some American fishermen threw away six Ijoat-loads of small fisli which had been taken in the seine. This way of taking fish is an injury to the fishing ground, to the fish itself, which it destroys without profit, and to the fishermen who fish with hook and line. 10. The herring is a fish that is found in great abundance on this coast, and they spawn at many places, particularly at Betchewar, St. Genevieve, Fashashubac, Kejasca, Washshucootai, Coacoachoo, and many other places to the eastward. American fishing-vessels have beeu in the habit of visiting the coast between Washshucootai and Coacoa choo, both inclusive, for the purpose of taking herring for the last twenty years. They take this herring with seines, which they draw on shore, About 2^* American schooners went there this year; the ordinary flshiuf! schooners for herring took about 1,000 barrels each, and one three- masted schooner took 6,000 barrels (six thousand). This load was for the Norwegian market, and the vessel sailed directly from Washshucoo tai for Norway. During the last twenty years about the sane number of vessels have loaded herring each year. 11. I am also acquainted with the fisheries of the north and soatli coasts of the island of Anticosti. The fisheries carried on there are those of cod, herring, and mackerel, and halibut, and are all carried on within three miles of the coast, there being no fishing beyond that limit; 80 that any vessel coming to fish there must fish within British waters. Some American schooners, about eight or nine, come to fish herring ou the north coast of Anticosti, at Fox Bay, or Belle Bay. Some of them loaded there, others went to com])lete their load at Washshucootai. They have beeu iu the habit of coming for a number of years till this year. 12. About fifteen years ago American vessels began to come and fish for halibut on the coast of Auticosti, and they fished there until this year. They also fished on this coast, and even in the harbor of Esqui maux Bay. I cannot state exactly what number, but I can say that they fished so exhaustively tuat they have nearly destroyed all the hali but on these fishing grounds. 13. The competition of so many American vessels in our waters is injurious in a very great degree to our fisheries and to our fishing in terest ; and the fishermen of this country have a much smaller chance of taking fish when they have so rnny American fishing-vessels ou the la the matter o: AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1363 same fishing {jrouuils as themselves than if they were left aloue. It is cousequeutly the interest of this country to keep the fisheries in our own bauds if possible. 14. The right of fishing in American waters is of no value to us. 15. The privilege of selling our fish duty free in the United States is no use to us; our fish is not prepared for that market. 10. All the coasts that I have mentioned in and about the gulf of the St. Lawreuce are very accessible to American fishermen, and they pos- sess uumerous harbors and good anchorage grounds, where their ves- sels cau hiy with safety. They also can and do procure wood and water and other supplies. 17. The advantage of fishing in the inshore waters is a very great one to the Americans. If they could only fish on the outside Banks, they would do but little harm to us, and would have but poor success them- selves. 18. I rate the advantage to the Americans of fishing in our inshore waters and taking bait on our shores at from 75 (seventy-five) to 90 (niuety) per cent, on the total value of the fish caught. I hereby swear that the above statement, is to the best of my knowl- edge aud belief, correct. JULIEN + BOUDEEAU. mark. Witness : Wm. Wakeham. i The said Julien Boudreau, of Esquimaux Point, has sworn to the truth of this aftidavit, at Esquimaux Point, in the county of Saguenay, ami rrovince of Quebec, this 8th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. P. KORTIX, J. P. No. 231. lathe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of ^V^ashington. 1, Philip Touzel, of Sheldrake, of the county of Saguenay, in the Province of Quebec, postmaster, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 have lived here for the last 21 years, and for three years previous to that I came every summer to this coast to carry on the cod fishery. lam apractical fisherman, and also fish merchant, and am well acquainted V ith the fisheries of this place and the neighborhood. The fisheries on tbis coast are cod, herring, mackerel, and halibut; of these the cod is the chief by far. 2, These fisheries are carried on within three miles of the shore, except tliat sometimes the fishcimen take codfish on a Bank 7.^ miles from the sliore. This Bank is a continuation of the St. John's Bank. 3, The (luantity of codfish on this coast, I think, is now as great as ever it^vas, though of course the catch varies, some years there being more, some less. i- Halibut were formally plentiful on this coast, and the fishermen wiild take plenty with hand-lines, especially ott' Shallop Biver aud ^lunitou Kiver. American fishing schooners, equipped purposely for ualibutiishiug, began to show themselves on this part of the coast about t«!'i years ago, as far as lean remember, although some might have come before. We used to see three or four at once oft' this place ; those 1364 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. vessels used to nmko two, sometimes three, trips oacli season ; tliey kept their halibut fresh on ice. All these vessels took full loads at each trip; they were from 70 to 80 tons each, and could take on an average sevt^n'v or eighty thousand (80,000) pounds offish each. These vessels /A Photographic Sciences Corporation ";^^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY MSSO (716) 873-4503 * .^. ^ 'V- !> <* %^ 4^ z 1368 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 4. The vessels fishing within the three-mile limit are snid, withjn tW Inst seven years down to the present time, to tal^e on an avcra^'e of twenty barrels a day to each vessel. Abont live years ago tlicv twik about thirty barrels on an average i)er day. They take those lisii ;,; the time of the year when mackerel are number one. The mackml taken at that time are worth twelve dollars per barrel to our tislnrnun in the Ualifax market. Our number two, large, are good number one iu the American market. And if Americans were kept out, cmr lislicrnifii wouUl make more money by fishing. These statements I believf to W rather under than over the mark. o. Twenty-five jears ago 1 have seen over a thousand barrels oliniKk erel taken by thirty men within three weeks at Ingonish, in the county of Victoria. These fish were all taken by boats and nets inshoit*, souih close in to ihe shore by nets made fafl to the shore. These barrels I saw packed and weighed, and all of them I numbered and inspecteil. These mackerel were taken in the spring, about the middle of June. About 25 years ago, at Capo North, in the county of Victoria, in tlit^ fall of the year, about the first of November, within a fortnight, I have seen about seven hundred barrels taken, of which two thirds at least were number one. These fish (number one) were worth in the Halifax market five pounds per barrel. These latter fish were taken within liait a mile of the shore. C. About fifteen years ago I conversed with an American fislicimau who fished off Cape North, and who told me that he was glad when Saturday night came, as he would have a spell then, and that every codfish he took was as long as a splitting-table (about four feet), and besides his own vessel there were other American fishing-vessels. 7.. In ray opinion, over-fisMng may have something to do with tbe scaTCity of the mackerel; but within my knowledge, the fishing lias varied, the mackerel, cod, ard other fishing being some years good, and others poor. This year I have seen more squid, which is the hest bait for codfish, and the best coilfish follow them, than I have ever seen in any year during the last fifty years in this bay (Sydney), and to my knowledge codfish always follow the squid. 8. The inshore fishing I consider to be the most valuable, and if tbe American fishermen were not allowed to come inshore to fish mackerel, it would not pay them to come to our fishing-grounds, most of tbe mackerel being taken inshore. 9. I think the Americans must take three-fourths of the mackerel in shore. 10. In my opinion, mackerel may have decreased some, the other lish none, since the year 1871. The Americans have lessened the catch ot fish for Nova Scotia fishermen. 11. The herring fishery is all inshore, and I know of no herring bein;; taken outshore. The American fishing vessels have nearly all two her ring nets with them, and with these they can catch herring lor bait. 12. Our Nova Scotian inshore codfish are much superior to that takni by the Americans, commanding a better price in the American markets. and are better cured. 13. The food of the mackerel is found inshore. They come inshore and feed on tiie small bait found there — a small kind of fish (nini*l in- shore, and of which the mackerel may be full when taken inshore, also on mussels found inshore on the rocks. 14. The mackerel breetl in the North Bay, and around the Maj,'(lalen In the niatto Islands, harbors. Thev feed and breed all round our coasts, in the bavs and AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1369 l.'>. Ill Sydney Harbor (north) tbe Ainericaiis, traiisKhip mackerel, which saves thein a large amount of time, ho that tiiey can take more lish and make a good season. 10, Th(^ Americans ])nrchaso bait, and also ice, in considerable (]iian- fities; witiiout the ice it would be impossible lor them U> prosecute their WMuff voyages. They sometimes i)urchase a trille of supplies when ilievl'all siiort — when they lose an a ichor, sail, or chain, without which tliev woidd have to return home, uiid in running home would run a ;.'ri'at risk. 17. The Canadian fishing ground 1 believe to be muchsuperior to the Auiei'ii'an, and 1 know of no Canadian fisherman who goes to take a fish 111 American waters, and 1 know hundreds of Americans come hero anil li^h. 18. I consider it in no way in the ivorhl a benefit to us for Americans toeoiuc here and lish. They diminish the catch of tish for our men, in- jure our iisiiing grounds, and, in my opinion, it would be much better if thcv were totally excluded. PATRICK ML'LLINS. Sworn to at South Bar, in the <'ounty of Cape llreton, in the province ol Nova Scotia, this 21st day of Jul v, A. I). 1877, before me. .1. A. KICIIAHDSOX, J. P. for and in the County of Cupc Breton. Xo. 235. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, Mi( IIAEL liooNEY, of Douglastowu, in the county of Gaspe. make oath aud say as follows : 1. 1 have been for 30 years a fisherman, antl I am practically related to all that appertains to fishing. I am acquainted with all the north coast of the island of Anticosti. I have fished at McDonald's Cove every year for the ppst 12 years with Mr. Andrew Kennedy, and have been lueseut when he gave his ailidavit and have heard it read. I fully con- tiir ill all he has stated, aud hereby swear that, to the best of my belief, all that he has stated is correct. \\\n MICIIAKL + KOONKY. nmrk. Witness : W. Wakeham. The said Michael liooney has sworn to the truth of the above afflda- vit. at .^IcDonald's Cove, sland of Anticosti, and county of Saguenay, and Province of Quebec, this nintli day of August, A. 1>. 1877, before me. No. 2:}0. r. FoirriN, ./. r. Ill the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1. rKJ'KK BiMouD, of Douglastowu, in the county of Gaspe, make "■'111 and say as follows: 1. 1 have been for 30 years a fislierman, and am p'-actically acquainted "I'll all that relates to fishing. I am acquainted with the north coast 1370 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. of the island of Anticosti. I have fished at McDonald's Cove, in the north uoast of the island of Anticosti, for tlie past 12 years. I have heard Mr. Audre^r Kennedy give his aftldavit, and it has been read to ine. I fully concur in all that he has said, and I hereby swenr that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, what be has said is correct. PETER + BltlOllI). mark. Witness: \V. Wakeham. The said Peter firiord has sworn to the truth of the above allulavit, at McDonald's Cove, island of Anticosti, county of Sagueiiay, ami Province of Quebec, this ninth day of August, A. I). 1877, before me, P. FOKTIN, .' P. No. 237. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Andrew Kennedy, of Douglastown, in the county of Gaspc, iu tk Province of Quebec, make oath and say as follows : 1. I am 57 years of ago, and have been a practical fisherman for tlio last forty years. I fished fur twelve years on. the north shore, at Tlitin der Kiver, and for the last twelve years I have fished at McDonald's Cove, on the north shore of the island of Anticosti. I am thorougldy acquainted with the fisheries of the north shore of the island of Aiiti costi, from the east to the west points. I am part owner of tlie flsliiii^ establishment here, and understand thoroughly every operation cou nected with the taking and curing of fish. 2. The fisheries carried on here are cod, herring, mackerel, and Iiali but. These fisheries are all within the threeiuilu limit. 3. The bait used for taking these fish is herring, caplin, squid, and trout ; all this bait is taken close inshore. 4. Herring are abundant on this coast, and they spawn along the shore, chiefly, however, at Fox or Bell Bay. 5. The American fishing- vessels have been in the habit of resorting to this coast for the purpose of taking herring by means of seines, and this year, according to reliable information, they have already taken 1S,U<>U barrels at Bell Bay and the neighborhood. 0. Since I first came here I have seen from ten to fifteen American vessels fishing for halibut along this const every year. Last year, how ever, there were only two here, and this year as yet n« .le have appeand. Each of these vessels was from 80 to 120 tons ; had a crew of from 10 tn 15 men, and from 4 to C dories. Each dory has two trawl lines of St)" fathoms each, and each trawl lino 350 hooks. Some of these vessels used to make two, some only one trip, and their load amounted to from 80,(KM) to 120,000 lbs. each vessel. When I first came here I could taiit plenty of halibut ; sometiuics twenty a day, but now we can hardly take one. ]\Iy opinion is, and it is the opinion of all the fishcrnieu on tbe coast, that the Americans have exhausted the halibut fishery here by Jioir excessive fishing with trawls. And not only that, but as when catching halibut they also catch codfish and those generally the largest and as they are not prepared for curing those codfish, they throw tliom overboard when they don't find on the spot other fishermen with v\m they can barter them. This great destruction of the large cod, wbii' AWARD OP TUE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1371 arc {^oiioi-iilly the breeding lish, is of no use to any one and much to be reffri'ttt'il. 7. MiK'Uerel were very abujidnnt r.ow as when I first came here. Time seems to have been a falling otf for the last two or three years, but this year there is much better prospect. 8. The cotlHsh ^eem to bo as abundant now as wIumi I first came here, lint tlie nnraber varies from year to year, sometina-H striking one pait ot'tlie shore »noro than another part. i). Codfish and herring are the chief means of subsistence for the fish- (Ttneii resorting to this coast, and it is of the utmost impurtaiiuc that they should bo i)re8erved as much as possible. 1(». I consider the right of fishing in United States waters granted by the Treaty of Washington of no value whatever to our fishermen. 11. It is my opinion also that the free market for our fish in the United States is no advantage to us, for our fish is sold for home consumption ur for exportation to Europe and the lirazils. I'J. It is of the utmost importance for the future of our fisheries, and tor the a. vessels were all lishiu;;and seining close ahuij; the shore within tiic tlnv... mile limit. They lishcd inside the limit, because there was no tislioii; side of the limit. They nearly all loaded. I fished tor them, and wnii them for several seasons, both with the hook and with the seine. Tin. enables me to {jive accurate information with reganl to the lisiiericsiii the Americans on this coast; each of these vessels took froiii .'!(i(i 'n 8(N> barrels. About ten of these vessels fished annually for halibut. 5. There was generally one seine for each three s(;lit>oners, some .seines were shore seines, and some were bay seines; even with the bay seiiif; they never fished outside of British waters. Often they threw the svww after a school of fish, and when the seine was drawn near tlie shun-. it was found that they had herrin<; or youn;; codfish, and nor niaekeiel: and as they wanted no ti^h but m.ickerel, they would allow the jjreate^i part to perish and rot upon the shore. G. The halibut fishing schooners fished along the coast, always witbin three miles. They sttipped fishing in numbers about 7 or H years ago, Since that period we only saw a few ; this year none. When I liist came here I could take na many halibut as I liked, and the people iisel to sell large quantities, and besides used it largely as food : but now, since the Americans have fished so extensively along the shore, we only catch a few. It is not now worth our while to fish for them. My opin- ion is that this scarcity, which is so injurious to the people of the coast. and to the interests of the fishermenof this county iu general, is due en tirely to destructive overfishing done by the Americans, as 1 havestatt^l above, by trawls, &c. Now that the fishing for halibut is at rest, the restocking is taking place, as we see more small ones this year ; and if the Americans keep away for a certain number of years, this tisbiiii! will certainly recuperate, as our fishermen never fish in such an ex- haustive manner as to destroy the fishery. 7. We find on this coast, from Point Charles to St. Nicholas, a ^\\>■ tauce of IL'O miles, excellent spawninggrouiuls, especially at Seven Islands Bay, St. Margaret's Bay, May Islands, Cawee, Trinity lh\. Gadbout, &c At all these places any quantity of herring can be takiii in the spring. 8. The Aujcrican fishiiiggrouuds are of no use to us ; we don't want to go til »re. t>. Our fish is prepared for the Canadian nuukets and Eniope ami Brazil. 10. The popidation is increasing so fast on this coast, and tlio (islieiies are so nee«lful ivv their subsistence, thi^t they sliouhl not bo {•iven away to foreigners ; if they are, half our population will have to enii;jrate. Most of these American vessels trade extensively with the shore poim latiou, and sell and land articles without paying duties. The lisluiie* here are very accessible, as there are ujany harbors, good anciiora^e grounds, and roadsteads. AWARD OF THE FISIIEUY COMMISSION. 1373 II. Tlii> l)iiit for coil-fixliiiig and halibut aii«l umckiMol is very abun (liint aloii;; tlu'sliorisajul the Anu'rioaiisuseil to;joaiul(;«'t it thoriKselves. 1 liavf si'tii tlii'in rcpeati'dly go and digchiiiis at Huveii IslaiidH and tho Mav Islrtixls. I liiiclty swear that tho above stafcnicnt is to th«» best of my iviiowl- ,(l-'eainl lH'li»'l corrt'ct. IMKIIUK IJIJOCnU. The said rit'iro I'rochn, of Seven Islands, has sworn to the truth ot till- iiliove jinitiuvit, at Moisie, h\ the county of Sa;inenay, ami I'rovince 111 Hiiclu'i', this sixth day of Au;jnst, A. I). 1877, belore me. P. FOKTIN, ./. y. No. tiJlO. Ill ibe matter ot the Fisheiies Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washinjilon. 1, Isaac Choiinari), farmer an■ 1 atlirni that the presence of so many American vessels in our waters tbliiug tor mackerel was most injurious to our mackerel fisheries, as it iDust tend to diminish the supply, the methods practiced by the Amer- iwus, either by seines or by hook and line, enabling them to take such '»fge quantities so easily. 1374 AWARD OF TIIK FISHERY COMMISSION. i I* G. Tlie privileKo of nHtiing in American waterH is of no value to un. 1 bave no knowledge of any Canadian vessels being engaged in ILshiog in American waters. 7. Tbe free market for onr fisb in tbe States is of no nso to nH, uk odf tlsb is prepared either for bonie consnmption or for foreign niariicu otber than tbo American, where thcv coniniand better prices. 8. It is my opinion that it is of the greatest importance to lis as Can adians to keep our Hsberies entirely to ourselves as a means of lifvclop ii^g our own fisheries, and fostering our mercantile marine, and {rjvju;; t-mployment to our maritime population, and thereby keeping tbeui from emigrating to foreign countries. 1 swear that the above statement is to the best of my knowledge m\ belief correct. hia ISAAC + CHOUINAIU). mark. Witness: VV. Wakeham. The said Isaac Chouinard has sworn to the truth of the abovo nffi davit, at Cape Chat, in the county of (Jaspe, this thirty-first dav of. Ink, A. D. 1877, before me. r. FOUTIN, J.l\ No. 240. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Austen Locke, of Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, mer- chant, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the buying and selling of fish fur twenty years, iu fishermen's supplies, and outfitting fishing-vessels, and aiu well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Shelburne County. 2. From eight to ten American fishing- vessels run into this port within the two or three years now past. They purchased ice and bait and snpplies to a small extent. They are fitted out at home with sup plies and only purchase when thej* run short, which is a great nceom- modation to them. The American vessels which run in here sell tbeir small fish, which would be an inconvenience for them to carry home: by doing this they take home a cargo of largo and valuable fish. Tbe American vessels which come in here and take ice and bait, trawl for codfish off this coast within twelve or fifteen miles. In ray opinion trawling is an injurious method of taking fish, as it destroys the spawn fish. Out of this port there are about one hundred vessels engaged in the fisheries — mostly codfish — all fitted ont here. The most of these vessels take codfish by hand-lining. The American vessels which tlsb off this coast take, during the year, about one thousand quintals of cod fish each, and could not catch this fish unless they got bait fl"^\ ice in our harbors to enable them to do so. 3. In the falls of seventy-one, two, and three, I had a vessel ninninj; to the North Hay for mackerel, and in seventy-one she made a good trip. She took three hundred and forty barrels of mackerel. She car ried fifteen men. From seventy-one back to sixty-three I had vessels engaged in the mackerel fishery, and in my experience this fishery has varied, being some years good and others poor. Since seventy-three AWAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1375 tiie co«l(isli liiive fallen off to some extent; tliis I attribute to trawling^, as alreiidy statet!. 4. TIh' lisliinir {jrounds nr« injured by tlirnwiuff overboard offal, and HO many Ainericiin vessels throwing over this offal are very injurious to tlie groiiiHls. .'i. Tiio iiiHliore fishery is of jrroator value than the off-shore tlshery, anil twU'vi the value of the off'shore fishery. t;. Canadian fishermen catch codfish in inshore waters along the coast. 7. Since uif;litcen hundred and seventy-one the number of American vessels engaged in taking codfish has very largely increased— there are more than five times as many. 8. Last year from four to five thousand barrels of herrinf; were taken ia the county of Shelburne; these fish are taken all inshore, within three miles of the shore. !». In ])roportion to the whole number of mackerel taken in American waters they do not get so many number one as there are taken iuOana- (linn waters. 10. It is a great advantage to American flshcrmen to be able to pro- onre bait and ice in which to preserve it in the bay and harbors along :ke Canadian coast, and without this bait and ice they could not sue- i tf ssfuily carry on the fishery on the banks off this coast. They purchase i this bait in this county, and do so because they save time and expense liv 80 doing. It would require too much time to catch this bait to any large extent inshore in this county. The privilege of getting bait in- <.horf in Canadian waters interferes with the supply for Canadian banliers, as they make the bait scarce, especially in the early part of ibe season. 11. I have never known uor heard of any Canadian vessels except two from this county fishing in American waters. One of these vessels I myself owned. She went from here to get seines at Gloucester, and oiily caught two barrels of mackerel on the American coast. She re- ])orted that she did not see a school of mackerel on the American coast. This vessel was in American waters during the month of July now past. 12. The privilege of getting bait in Canadian ports is worth six hun- dred dollars to each American vessel. 13. So many American vessels running down here to fish make the fiMi much more scarce for Canadian fishermen. They first employed trawling, and compelled Canadian fishermen to do so in order to com- |iete successfully with them. By trawling the expense in catching is double. Nova Scotia vessels out of this port have commenced trawling vitbiu the last three years. U. I have known of cases of smuggling by American vessels in this couuty, particularly kerosene-oil. AUSTEN LOCKE. Sworu to at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, this 23d day of August, A. I). 1877, before me. JACOlt LOCKE, Justice Peace. No. 241. In the mutter of the Fisheries Commission at Ilalifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I. Daniel McAdams, of Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, mas- ter mariner, make oath and say as follows : '• 1 have been engaged in the fisheries for the past twenty-four years. 1376 AWAKI) OF TIIK KIKIIKRY COMMISSION. «r I linvo tiikcii ('(HlflHh ill the North Hay, nh)n^ the NoiithtMti coast of Nova Hcotiii, on tli» LalMinulor coast, and on tlio liaiiks. A Ion;; i!i^ soiithorii coast of Nova H(;(>tia, in the North Itay, ami on tiie L;il)ir conHt I liave taiion herriii^c. 11. i lelt tlie North Day a rortni;;ht ago and saw a hxTf^ci nmiiliornf Anieri(;an niackorcl-vcsscls tlu'ic and lilicwise ronnd I'lincf \-A\\.\u\ Ishmd. I saw as many as thirty sail in oiu'^ day. L ist snniiMcr 1 aU. saw a hir;i« nnnilu'rot AnuMMi-an vessels enj^aKcd in taking' inuckcrcl. Last year and this year I have seen many Ameri<;an vessels en;;;ig(M| in taking; eodlisli in the North llay. Tiiese American macki'rcl-vcsM'K carry iVom lifteen to twenty men eat'h. Tiie American vessels wliich | saw liad on board abont tiiree linndre«l barrels of mackerel eacli. Tin' Americans take this nuickerel inshore within three miles of tlic siiorc, 3. In the North IJay the American ccMltish-vessels carry Ironi twelve to Hixteen men each, and are fitted out to take fron) a thousand to linii teen humlred quintals of lish to each \essel. 4. The Americans catch almost all their codfish by trawliii;,'. Ilntli last year and this I saw Anu>rican vessels trawling; for codlisli iriniiml the i\[a;;daleii Islands within three miles of the shore. This year I liaw seen as nniny as seven American schooners trawling; inshore witliiii tlinr miles of the shore for codtish. An American schooner which lay along side of our schooner took inshore, within three miles of the shore, t'lom ten hundred to twelve hundred quintals; she took as matiy as oiit> him. d red and titty quintals in one day. The American vessels tlshedto.: large extent insUore this year, as the iisli were more plentiful tliis voir within three miles of the shore than otf. Four years ajjo I have m<\ the Americans set their trawls inshore around Soaterio. Siih-e 1S71 tin Americans lished inshore whenever the fish made in. 5. In the North Bay last summer I have counted in si;;ht from t'orty to forty-live vessels at one time, most of whom were Americans. Tins number I have counted day after day. Nearly all the American vessels. as already stated, take codtish by trawlin;;. Most of the Canadiau vev sels hand-line. Trawlin*; I consider an injurious method of raking tisli. as it destroys the mother tish. In handlininj; very few mother lish arc taken. In trawling the bait lies dead upon the bottom, and the tiiotlier lish which are on the bottom bite at it. In hand-lining the bait is aliiioist contiiiuously on the move. t>. On the Canadian coast of Labratlor four years ago and for ten year* previous, every year 1 have seen American vessels engaged in seiiiiui; codtish on the shore. This I consider a bad method of taking lish, as it destroys all kinds of tish, and the large and very small codtish arc takoii. I have never seen any Canadian vessel seining codtish. Tlie Ameriiin Kchooners on the ]ial>rador coast carry about twenty hands eacli.iiinl are tStte«l for Irom two thousand to two thousand two hundred qiiintiil?. and generally take eighteen hundred quintals each. 7. 1 have seen nniny of the Anu'riciti vessels around the MagtlalfHf' fishing herring and mackerel for bait withiti the last six years. Tliest- herring and mackerel the Americans take in nets. Nearly all the Aiiitri can vessels engaged in cod fishing in the North Uay catch their own bait inshore within three miles. 8. I have known American vessels on the Labrador coast to take a thousand barrels of herring by seining en the shore. 9. The mackerel fishery to my knowledge has always varieil. Ii j seventy-one, two, and three, there were good catches. The herriugtisb- ery is almost always good. The cod fishery in the North Bay and on the banks during the past five or six years bas fallen off to a large extent) | AWARD OF THE FIHHERY COMMISSION. 1377 nartioniarly tUe offshore codtlsh in the North Day. This I attribute to orertisiiiiij:, and to trawling as already .stattMl. 10, TIk' tlirowiufj overboard of offal is very injurious to the fUhin^- croiunK as it drives the tish aw.iy, injures the young llsli,aud destroys tbe spawn. 11. Ill Canadian vraters the in.shore tisheries are in my opinion double tlif vtiliu' <»r the otl" shore fisheries. 1:'. TIh' lieiring fishery in Canadian waters is all inshore. The .Vmeri- cans iii'l tlicni t'ttr bait, both buying and eatithing them. Titey buy in Niiva'^Srotia bays and harbors along t'roin Cape Sable to S<5aterie. They Imiv !•«'« aiise it saves time and expense, and without this bait, and ice iu wliicli to piestrve it, they could not carry on the Hank lishing. 13. The Americans (M>me along the southern coast of Nova Scotia (>niiv III tiit'spiing when bait is scarce, and gobble it up, which interferes Willi N'ova S»!otia liaiikers, and vi-ssels running to the North Hay. II. It would Ih* a great bciiclit to Nova Scotia tishermen if the Ameri- I'iiiis were t'Xi-luded t'roin our inshore tislieiics, and 1 know of no benefit whatever which we derive from .Vmericati lishcrnieii. ]>AN1KL McADAMS. Sttdiii to iit Lockeport, ill the county of Shelburne, this I'.'Wl day of Au- a\y\, A. 1). r"^77, bcfiire me. ACSTKN L()CKE, ,/. /'. No. 1'42. Ill the matter of the Tislieries Commission at Ilalifax, under the Treaty of Wasliiugtou. I, Messie Fourmkr, of Grande Vallee, in the county of Claspe, and I'roviuee of l,>uelH*c, make oath and say as follows : vessels. ^H 1. I bave l>eeu fishing in this place for 28 years. I am a practical iaii vi'v ^m tj>lieriiiaii and am well ac(|uainted with the fisheries of this coast. ;iii;; ilsli. ^M :', littoie the American tishermen began fishing on this coast for hali- tisliaiv ^B but, this tish was to be caught in great abundance, and we frequently' te uiothet ^H luaileii our boats when fishing for cod. At this present time, and for is almost ^^ s^vnai years I tack, we cau hardly take any; in fact, not even enough I tur uiir own consumption. This complete destruction of our halibat fishery 1 believe is due solely to the exhaustive manner in which the Auierieaiis fished for halibut, by means of trawl lines, having uu iiu- I uieiise iiiiiiiber of hof)ks. i Before the American schooners began fishing in our inshore waters I for luiukerel. as they did in such great numbers during the existence of the Rei'iprocity Treaty, mackerel existed iu great numbers all along the bijs itid coves. Toward the latter years of the lieciprocity Treaty, ^^tbe quautity of aiackerel had sensibly fallen off. Last year and this igdalri)^^ ^■pre^^iit suiiime they are again to be found iu great numLters. I attrib- s. Tils'* ^Hnte the scarcity of a few years ago to the great drain caused by the large ^ic Aiii*'^' ^Hflm of Auiericaus that fished here ; and I consider that the present in- • uvvii ^')>' ^Heream* \» altogether owiug to the fact that for some years back the schools I ^H^^ niaekerel have not been so much disturbed. I to take:) ^H 4. ! have seen 32 American schooners anchored among the net moor- ^Jj?» t-'lose inshore at the same time ; but they used to come in less nam- liried. 1° ^^P^ almu8t every week during the mackerel season. They interfered piugti^b- ^■vith the drifting for bait and the setting of oar herring-nets. Ldontbe^H i The crews of some of these vessels used to come ashore and tramp te extent, ^1 ^-^ 1378 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. It ri' "i i> over our crops, force tlnMUHelvcs into our hoiisoH in the most iinlf nun. iier. I iii.vm'ir w iih forced to kcfp awnnl in my Iiouho, nn \\v\\ jis mv neighbor, for eight (laj'H, fearing iiiHultN to the women of our hoiiM'tioiii^ duringtheniglit ; and one morningoneof theHeHclioonerHingettiii;.'iini|tT way, curried oil live herring nets, three that were on the nioorin;;, \)u-,\\i. iug tliem on the moorings, and two nets that were on the drill, witii Uie boat belonging to one of our men nanuMi Landry, the nets of com .,«• Iitjno faot to the stern of the boat. The scluMmer with her anchor ciajjlit ili the net, dragged the boat, with the two men in it, stern foreinnst tor D miles, the scliooner's crew all the time laughing and making a joke ot it. The lives of these two men being in constant Jeopardy, the Aiiii-iiciiiis never made the least etfort to clear the net, by connng in the wiutl, as could have been easily done. The boat and men oidy got clear wlniitlic ropes broke, and the nets were lost to these poor tishermen. 1 hereby swear that the above statt nu-nt is, to the best of iiiy know! edge aiul beliet, correct. Ilia MKSSIK -I- FOritNIEi:. iimrk. Witness: W. Wakeham. The said Messie Fournier has sworn to the truth of the above iitlida- vit, at Grande Vallee, in the county of (iaspe, and Province oK^iKbw;, this 2d day of August, A. J). 1877, before me. P. FOKTiy, ,/. y. No. 243. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under tiie Ticatr of \Vashingt«)n. I, William Haddon, of Grosse Isle, Magdiilen Islands, make oath and say as follows : 1. I am 36 years of age, and have been engaged in the flslieries from Grand Entry Harbor, aiul am well acquainted with the tislierii's ui Grand Entry and of the eastern shores of the Magdalen Islands. 2. The herring spawn without fail every season ut Grand Entry, and they go in the lagoon, and they spawn outside as well. I have seen tk eggs in the water and on the beach. I have seen the spawn altera heavy north wind cast on the beach knee deep. The people of Grosse Isle take the herring with nets, but the American tisbermen take tliem with seines, which seines they haul on shore, and from the shores, thev going themselves on shore to haul the seines ashore. They ahsuguou shore to mend their nets and seines. 3. The American trawlers on the Banks resort to Grand Entry in June to get bait. I have seen 20 and 30 sail every spring for the last ti^f or six years. They go on shore to dry their nets, and also hire nets I'mm the inhabitants. 1 believe that trawling and throwing offal overbuard is injurious to the cod and mackerel fisheries. I hereby swear that the above atUdavit is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, correct. WILLIAM HADDON. The said W^illiam Haddon has sworn to the truth of the above i vit, at House Harbor, Allright Island, Magdalen Islands, county ofj Gaspd, and Province of Quebec, this tweutieth day of August, A. d., 1877, before me. P. FOETIN, J. P. Ill the mutter (J AWARD OF THE FISIIKRY C'OMMIAMION. 1379 No. L»I4. Ill till' miittiT of the FislMM'io?< ('ommissioii at Halifax, midor the Treaty of \VaHliiii)>tuii. 1, loiiN Cahtku, of Port Moiitoii. ill tlu« coinitv of (Juimmi's, at present lit L|i(irt, ill the uotiiity of >SltellMiriM>, llslteriiiati, make oatU atiU say as tollowK : 1. 1 liuvt' Ihm'Ii enjjanpil in flailing for eiy:lifeen years in Aineiicaii ves- vis Hill! ill Nova Scotia vessels for twelve vears, I was in an Ameri- , III wsst'l this spriii<;. While in Aineriean vessels I llslied (mxWIsIi on thf U'ostcrii and (jiiero Hanks, and trawled eodtlsli in the North Hay. lii^licil mackerel in Aineriean vessels year after year, down nntll the t.ill Ix-liii'i' last, around the iiortli side of Cape Hreton, around rrinne Khvitid Island, the Ma;;daleiis, and on the ea8teni side of New Hninii- »|rk. j. Wlu'ii ill the North Hay, I have seen at onetime live hundred Jlsh- I III;'- vessels, most of whom were Amerieans, eii;;a^ed in taking iMckiTt'l. In the falls of seventy one, two, and three, the catch of I iii.irkt'nl ill the North Hay was ^ood. In the fall of seventy three I has III tlie American sehooner Waterfall, of Soiithport, Me., and wo tiKik ill four weeks three hundred and twenty barrels ; a |ioseth and saith that he has had an interview with Capt. HfDrv Smith, master of schooner W. T. Smith, of Glonce.ster, Ma.ss., »bilf lying in the harbor of Port Daniel, on a mackerel-tishing voyage, ^Ixmt ten days ago. \h lieiiig the same Captain Smith mentioned by him, William Mo- il, in his evidence before the Commission at Halifax, he referred him ) some remarks he had made to him some few years ago, on the evil Nits of seining on our shores and throwing tish oftal overboard, par- ficuyy in our harbors and near the mouths of rivers where salmon «rt and other young fry propagate. That he, the said Capt. W. iiith,doe8 recollect that conversation, and also of stating that it was comparison to killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. He, 1380 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. H tn the said Cii|itain Smith, also stated tliat he wouUl depose to tbe same before any le^al tribunal if called upon ; and that large quaiititics nt mackerel were frequently taken that were uniSt for market, ami were consequently thrown overboard, to decompose and pollute tlie wiittrs where thrown, which, if left to nature, would become of iuestiinaltlevalrie to other hshermen at some future time. And that he would willingly sign a petition against the use of seims altogether for mackereltishing, either to the United States or the Do. uiinion Governments. Moreover, that it was his, Captain Smitli, Mm that if the practice of seining was continued for ten years consecutively. it would to a great extent annihilate the mackerellishery bolb in tiie Dominion and American waters. And that he has been connected with the lisheries during tlie last thirty-tive years, and feels competent to give an opinion on that sub ject. That he is a native of !Xova Scotia, but has resided for sevenil years in Salem, Mass. And allowed the said William McLeod to use his name with refeiviRc to the above subject. WILLIAM ^klcLEOD. Sworn before me, at Port Daniel, this twenty-seventh day of Auf;nst. in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy seven. W. MILLANjV.i'. At same date, also ai)peared before me, tlie undersigned jnstieeot the peace, Joseph ilorie, of Port Daniel, who deptiseth and saith that he was present and witnessed the conversation in the margin. JOSEPH HOIMK. Sworn before me the day and year abi>ve mentioned. W. MILLAX, J. v. No. 240. 14 In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Allan Matthews, of East Ragged Islands, in the county of SLel- burue, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been in the habit of supplying ice to fishing vessels dnriiig the past two y^ ars, both Canadian and A mericau vessels. I have last year and this present year supplied ten Canadian vessels with ice. The Canadian vessels take from one ton to three tons each. Last stun mer and the present summer I supplied two American schooners '>vitli ice. A ton and a half each. They used this ice for bait which they got in this harbor. With this bait the American vessels fished on La Have, Brown, and Port LeBear Banks off this coast. They take codlishou the said Banks by trawling. ALLAN MATTHEWS. Sworn to at Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, this 22d day of August, 1877, before me. AUSTIN LOCKE, J. !'■ No. 247. Id the matter of tbe Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treat; of Washington. I, David Mubbay, jr., of Port Mulgrave, iu the county of Guys- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1381 ' ~- — Is (luring 1 have last ■ with ice, ■ Last sum- ■ uers 'Aitli ^1 ™Af ■ boroiigb and Province of Nova Scotia, collector of customs, make oath and says as follows : 1. I have been acquainted with the Fisheries on our coasts for the nust twenty-four years, during twenty-one years of which I was eu- giiged in the Ashing business, and for the past four years I have been Kilfector of customs at this port. ■j. During the Iteciprocity Treaty I have known as high as eight hun- ,1ml sail of American mackerel and codlisherineu go in the Gulf of Stint Lawrence in one season. Of late years about half that number. For the last two years there have been about three hundred sail each rear, including cod, mackerel, and herring. These vessels average rtliont fourteen men each. They tish all around the shores of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. During the Keciprocity Treaty the mackerelers averaged about eight hundred barrels per vessel each season ; of late years only about half that quantity. I have known eighteen hundred iliiintals to be landed in one year by an American cod-tishing vessel. Tlie average catch of codlish I estimate to be about nine hundred quiii tals per vessel each season. ;. The Americans catch the codfish with trawls, and the mackerel with seines, and with hook and line. 4. I consider that the fishery arouud our coasts is much injured by the Americans throwing overboard offal and garbage. I have b -en in- ttrmedon the best of authority that tlie codrtshing at Binquereau has witliin the last two or three years been totally destroyed by this prac- tiie. On the Grand Bank, as I have been informed, the tishermeu viint'tinies draw tiieir trawls through "gurry" (that is the entrails and iifiise parts of codfish) and bring it up on their lines. Wherever this irictiee is carried on, the fishermt'n say that the fish are driven away. ."), I have understood American fishermen to say that the greater jiirt of the mackerel are caught within the three-mile limit, and at the I nseiit day a greater portion of the mackerel than formerly is caught inshore. •i. The value of the inshore fishery, so far as the mackerel and herring are concerned, is of much greater value than that outside. ~. The inshore boat fishery is much injured by the Americans running inainonu the boats and throwing bait in larger ([uantities and of better 'laality tiian our fishermen, and by this means enticing away the fish anay Iron) the boats. The S(;hooner Alice, Capt. II. B. .Joyce, took one linndred and twenty " wash barrels" of mackerel on Sunday, the '.".M of July last, close inshore. S. Tlie American fishermen are beginning to use purse seines on our tnasts extensively during the last two or three years. These seines are Very injurious to the fishery, as they uselessly destroy great quantities oflierriug and small mackerel, which are thrown away. They ilso tend to break up the schools of mackerel and drive them away. The Ameri- can codtishermen generally buy herring and mackerel from oar fisher- men for bait, and catch squid for the same pur|)ose themselves. 1'. Halibut are caught to some extent by Americau fishermen in our waters, close inshore. 10. The mackerel caught of late years in Canadian waters are larger than those caught in United States waters, but being generally longer in pickle than the Americau mackerel, do not bring so high a price 'lifn imt in the market. 11. The principal feeding and breeding places of the mackerel are >Toimd the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island and iu the Bay ofChaleur, and in all cases inshore. 1382 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1'^ 12. The privilege of transshipping cargoes on our coasts is of great value to the American mackerelers. It enables them to make a greater number of trips and catch more fish than they otherwise could ; and by this means they save about three weeks on each trip they make. I have known an American mackereler to catch a fare of fish in thetiiiie that another vessel was going to the United States and retuniinj,'. 1 consider it a very great privilege to the American codtislu'iiuin n, be allowed to jjrocnre bait on our shores, either by purchase or by catching it themselves. Tliey consider it more profitable to luiy bair than to spend time in catching it; for this reason, that their ice wmild melt and their bait already obtained would turn sour while they wcie fishing for more. They, therefore, obtain almost all their bait In pur chase from our fishermen. The Americans cannot profitably cany du the deep-sea fishery withoi t obtaining bait on the shores of the DDiniuiou or Newfoundland. Indeed, 1 do not see how they can carry tm tlietlee|i sea flsherj' at all without obtaining bait in Canatb day of Julv, A. D. 1877, before me. WM. s. Mckenzie, J. p. for the LoHHty of GuyHhovoHijh. No. 2.>(K In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under tlie Treaty of Washington. I, Michael Kobertson, of Port JolIie,in the county of Queeirs, lish- erman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in fishing for upwards of thirty years. I have fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around Cape Ureton, ou tbe eastern side of New Brunswick, around Prince Edwanl's Island, around the Magdalenes, and on tho Labrador coast, both on the Caua dian and Newfoundland coast. I am well acquainted with the inshore fisheries in Queen's County. 2. When fishing in the North Bay I have often seen from two to three hundred American vessels engaged iu fishing at one time. These ves- sels were engaged in taking mackerel, and took the most of them inshore within three miles of the shore, and it would not pay to send a vessel to the North Bay unless she could catch mackerel within three miles of the AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1385 coast. I W'ls in the yortb Bay when the fisherieH were protected by cutters, and saw the Americans kept oft" bcyoml tliree miles, anil tliey took scarcely any mackerel while our vessels within t ireo miles of the gbore were (loins well. 3. In tliis harbor lar^e qnantities of clams are got for bait. About tiitv sail of vessels are supplied every year with this bait. These vea- <('ls take from twenty-live to thirty barrels each. These vessels thus snitplied are Canadian. They say the clams got here are Just as good as tlie American. These vessels use these clams for bait in taking iiiiU'kerol and codfish. Tiie codlish taken by clam bait is with hook and line. MICUAEL KOBEKTriON. Sworn to before me this 17th day of August, 187' Port Jollie, 1877. S.T.X.S ELLON,./. P. No. 2ol. Ill the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I. liEOFi'BEY W. PuBLicovER, of Getsou's Cove, in the county of Lniieiiburg, master mariner, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for twelve years down to the fill ot'lS7.'} inclusive. 1 fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, aroiind Cape Breton, on the eastern side of New Brunswick, around rriiice Edward's Island, around the Magdalenes, on the (Janadian coast fil Labrador, and am well accjuainted with theinsliore fisheries in Lunen- iMir;; County. I have taken all the kinds of fish found on the above- uifiitioned coasts. 1 1 have seen in Port Hood Harbor at one time fimr hundred sail of inarkerel vessels, of which upwards of three hundred were Americans. I liiive seen in the fall of 1873 one hundred and eighteen vessels engaged iiitak'iig mackerel, of whom one hundred at least were American ves- sels, These vessels were all in sight. There were many which we did Hilt see. I have often made calculations with Nova Scotia and Ameri- can skippers, and during the falls of 1871, 1872, ami 1873, we put the Aiiimcan vessels engaged in taking mackerel at over four hundred sail oiiaii average for the three years. These vessels take the most of their iimckerel inshore, and in my opinion it would not pay to fish m.ackerel iutlie North Bay unless they can be taken inshore. 3, These American mackerel men carry from fifteen to twenty-two liaiiils. These vessels take from two to six hundred barrels on each trip, ami make from three to four trips. In the falls of seventy one and two many of them made four trips and took as many as two thousand barrels ot mackerel in the year. 4. 1 have seen many American vessels engaged in taking codfish in tlie North Bay. These vessels carrj' about twelve men each and take troin about ten to twelve hundred quintals of codfish during the season. These vessels take fish inshore within three miles of the shore, and I haveseen them take codfish by trawling close into the shore at Scaterie. Iliey take flsh wherever they can get them. 0. 1 have frequently seen the Americans take herring around the Magdalenes. These vessels carry about from eight to ten bauds, and take from one thousand to two thousand barrels each. I have seen the Ainericaus take herring and codfish on the Canadian coast of Labrador. 1386 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. > h These flsb they take by seining on the shore. These vessels take about two thousand barrels of herring each. The codtlsh vessels take abuut two thousand quintals each. 6. ]\IackereI, in my experience, have varied ; in the falls of seventy- one and seventy-two the catch of mackerel was more plentiful tlian I have ever seen it for over ten years. In tlie fall of seven ty-tliree my vessel, with a crew of sixteen hands, took in a few weeks two ImiMlnil barrels of mackerel. CodUsh, in my ex|>erience, has remained about tbe same. The herring fishery has always been good. 7. Tlie Americans formerly took mackerel with hook and line tbiriii;' a few of the last years I was there. I saw the Americans use i)ur>«- seins. These purse seins I consider very bad for the tisher.v. Tlicy take both large and small mackerel ; they break up the schools of mackerel and frighten them away. I have never seen nor heard of any Candaian vessel using a purse-seine. I am acquainted with over two hundred Nova Scotian vessels. The Americans take codfish in tlie by mostly all by trawling. Many of the Canadian vessels take codlisli with hand lines. 8. In my experience the Americans fished inshore whenever tbey could, whatever the terms of the treaty were. I have seen two Aiueii- can vessels taken by the cutter Sweepstake in one day. 9. I think it would be a great benefit to Canadian fishermen if tlie Americans were excluded from our inshore waters, and I know of no benefit that we derive from American fishermen whatever. GEOFFREY W. PUBLICOVER. Sworn to at Getson's Cove, in the county of Lunenburg, this 10th day of August, A. D. 1677, betore me. JOSEPH W. LOCK! ART. No. 252. Id the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, James S. Seaboyer, of Kose Bay, in the county of Luueubiirg. merchant, make oath and say as follows : 1. I was engaged in the fisheries for twelve years, down as late as 1869. I fished along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, around Cape Breton, the eastern side of New Brunswick, around Prince Edward's Island, around the Magdaleues, and on the Labrador. I took prin- cipally mackerel, and I have fished also codfish. I have flsbed for one season in an American vessel, Charles P. Thompson, of Glouces- ter. We took all mackerel, and took them mostly all inshore within three miles of the shore ; and in my opinion it would not pay to go to the North Bay to catch mackerel unless they can fish inshore ; uor do I think it would pay to fit out a vessel for the North Bay if she bad to fish outside of the three-mile limits. The American vessel that I was in was from the latter part of August till the latter part of Oc^^ober in the North Bay, and took in that time three hundred barrels of mackerel. The men's share averaged about one hundred dollars apiece. Tbe Amer- icans get bait around here at Moser's Island, and have got it iu cou:iid- erable quantities during the past six years. 2. When I was in the b-ay, the bulk of the Americans trausshipiwl their cargoes at Canso, and by doing this they save time, expense, aad take more fish. JAS. S. SEABOYER. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1387 Sworn to at Rose Bay, in the county of Lanenbnrg, this 8th day of Auea.st, A. D. 1877, before me. * JAS. H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 253. In tbe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Ualifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, Thomas Ritcey, Sr., of Lower La Have, in the county of Lunen- burg, tislierman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I iiave been engaged in the fisheries for thirty-three jears, and have ,1 vessel now engaged in the fisheries. I have fished along the southern coiwt of >'ova Scotia, around Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, the eastern side of New Brunswick, and around the Magdalen Islands ivnd I>ower St. Lawrence. I have fished mackerel, herring, and codfish, and all the fish taken in Canadian waters. 2. I liave seen in one day, in the North Bay, npwards of one hundred and fifty sail engaged in taking mackerel. All those vessels were Amer- ican. We often made calculations among ourselves, and put the Amer- ican vessels '"riou8 to the fisheries. I never saw any Canadian vessels using purse- semes. Tbe Americans take codfish mostly by trawling inshore and ofl^" shore, and wherever they can catch them. Trawling, in my opinion, ^111 be the ruination of the codfish, as by it the mother fish are taken. In trawling, the bait lies still upon the bottom ; in hand lining the bait is moving, and very few fish are taken. Upwards of twenty five years ago I have seen Americans trawling. Nova Scotians never made a practice of trawling until the last four or five years, when they werecom- |*llellowerri)(>n because by using Atnerican vessels they are able to avoiector of llsh I lutppeu tu know. 9. A largo portion of the American fl.shing Hvet is now gniiifr (.vorv year up to the eaMtein side ot Cape Breton and Hshing in the vieitiitv of Scatarie, Cape North, and tlie section around there. I uiHior.stniKl that these grounds are very ricli in tish. 10. The value of the privih-jres acquire«l by Anierl<'i\n nshenncii uinW the Treaty of Washington cannot be estimated accurately by tln' money value to each vessel engagiMl. It is worth nearly as much as their eiitite fisheries on this const, for if deprived of all these privileges thty wiiiiM scarcely he able to carry on their ll.slu'ries oti this coasu with iiiiy prolit without violating the law. 11. I am not aware of any advantages which Canadian flsln'rindidc rive from the privilege of fishing in Ainericun waters, nor do I ktiuwui any of our fishermen who have availed themselves of this privilege. 12. It would be a great advantage to our shore tlshernjcn tu Lave exclusive use of our Hshing grounds. They would preserve them and derive greater profits from them than they possibly can when tlip Americans are using them in common. I consider the privile^fe ut sending our fish into American markets no kind of an equivalent fortliti privileges given to Americans under the Treaty of Washiiiyidu; iu fact, it is only a trifling benefit to us at all. If we had excliisivt- use of our own grounds it would be better for us, even though the Aiaeiiiau Government imposed the highest duties on our Osh. A. B. SKINXEH. Sworn to at Port Hastings, in the county of Inverness, this 25tb dav of July, A. D. 1877, before me. PETER GRANT, J. P. No. 25(1. In the n atterof the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, William ^Iunroe, of Whitehaven, in the county of Giiysboro", fisherman, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries during the last forty yeais, and have a i)ersonal knowledge of the matter hereinafter deposed to. 2. The Americans in large numbers fish iu the North Bay for uiacit- erel, and frequent the Canadian coast for bait and other necessarien. I have known a hundred and fifty American sail come into Whitehaven Harbor during a single season for bait. The cod-fishing vessels average from ten to twelve men, the mackerel- vessels will average fifteea uitu. The tonnage will range from sixty to a hundred tons. 3. The present condition of the fishery on the coast of Nova Scotia is not as prosperous as formerly. Cod-fishing particularly has declined. I consider trawl-fishiug the principal cause of this decline, as it kills tbe mother fish. 4. The principal portion of the American mackerel fishermen fish with hook and line. A small portion with seines known as purse-seines. The American cod-fishers fish with trawls or set-lines. Herring are principally taken by them with seines, and a few with nets. Halibut are fished in the same way as cod. They throw away all the small cod, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1303 Hometiini'rt in ah large qaantities m three hundred ponnies Bushen, of Port Mouton, in the county of Queen's, fisher- man, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 have fished for eighteen years, every season down to the present I induded, principally inshore, in Queen's County, and on the banks off ' is coast. I have also fished in an American schooner for two years 1 on the Western Bank. 1398 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2. Daring the past six years from twenty to thirty American vessels ran into this harbor for bait, and without this bait they could not carry on the cod-flshery, and they only get this bait around the Canadian coast. If they caunot get it in one phice they run to another. Tliey buy this bait because it pays them better than to catch it, an it would take too much time to do so, and it would be too mucli expense. These American vessels take from about eighteen to twenty-five barrels of bait each. 3. The codfiisli vessels run here about every three weeks, and do sofoi about three times before they make a full fare. They make a trip iu from six to nine weeks. These vessels take from seven to fifteen bun dred quintals each when they make a full fare. They catch their fish from fifteen to twenty miles off this coast, and principally by trawling, which I consider a very injurious method of taking fish. 4. I have been fishing on the banks off the coast of Nova Scotia for eighteen years, and I have never seen so many American vessels tisbing on these said banks as I have seen during tbe present summer. JAMES BUSHE>'. Sworn to at Port Mouton, in the county of Queen's, this 17tb clay of August, A. D. 1877, before me. S. T. N. SELLON, J. P. Xo. 264. In the matter of tbe Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, John P. Gardiner, of Cape Sable Island, in the county of Shel burne, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in fishing for thirty-eight years ; mostly in the inshore fisheries on the cape ott" here. We catch large quantities of codfish within three miles of the shore, and all the mackerel taken arouml here are within three miles of the shore and in large quantities. Last summer and this present summer I have seen American vessels trawling within three miles of the shore around here. The Americans get bait in this harbor, which is a great advantage to them, as it enables tbeni to carry on the trawling on the Banks off shore. This trawling iu my opin- ion is spoiling the grounds. JOHN P. GAPtDlNER. Sworn to at Cape Sable Island, in the county of Shelburue, tbis2iili day of August, A. J). 1877, before me. D. G. DALEY, J. P. No. 205. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under tbe Treaty of Washington. I, Alexander Gillies, of Port Hood, in the county of Inveruess, justice of the peace, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have lived in this place and been familiar with the fishing busi ness here for fifty years. I have fished some myself and have had gootl opportunities of observing and knowing the general character and coo- dition of the fisheries in these parts during the past half century. AWAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 139^ 2. I recollect well that previous to the Reciprocity Treaty in 1854 the few American vessels that used to come and fish iu these waters on the coast of Cape Breton, complained all the time of the disadvantage of uot being able to flsh inshore, and f'e men used to say that they could not carry on a protitable business without it. As soon as the Recipro- city Treaty came into operation the number of vessels from American iwrts increased at once, until there was soon a larjcfe fleet. I am safe in saving tiiat I have seen over fonr hundred American fishing-vessels in Port Hood Harbor at one time during the Reciprocity Treaty. 3. After the Reciprocity Treaty terminated, there was at once a great tailing in the American fishing fleet on these coasts, and their business was not nearly as lucrative and profitable, aiid I believe if they had not violated the law they would scarcely have been able to carry on fishing with profit at all. 4. The American fishermen catch all kinds of fish in our waters. The larfier par^ they take is mackerel and codfish ; but they also take her- ring, halibut, hake, and haddock. Their average cargo is about four hundred barrels of mackerel, and when they take codfish they do not average less than from six hundred to a thousand quintals each vessel. They will average three trips per season. 5. There has been something of a falling off in the mackerel catch in these parts during the past year or two ; but I would not say that there had been any diminution in the number of mackerel in our waters. I regard the falling off as merely temporary, and I believe it will be as good mackerel- fishing here if the grounds are not injured by the Amer- ican fishermen during the coming eight yjars as heretofore. [ believe the falling off in the catch of late has been largely due to the mode in which Americans carry on the fishing, G. The inshore fisheries are much more valuable than the outside, and more fish are caught within three miles of the shore than outside. More than half of all the flsh which the Americans take from our waters are talveu inshore. (. American fishermen aro doing great damage to our boat-fishing by coining up near our boats and throwing bait overboard to entice the fish away, and they leave at once, and thus seriously interfere with the profit of our own shore-fishermen. S. Our herring-fisheries are the most important and valuable we have, and [)robably our fishermen derive more profit therefrom than from any other. All herring are caught inshore and nearly all taken within one- half mile of the shore. If the American fishermen should go into the herringtishing along our shores they would be almost certain to ruin the grounds and would do great damage to our own fishermen. 9, It is undoubtedly a great advantage to American fishermen to be allowed to land and dry their nets and cure their fish. It is also greatly to their advantage to be able to transship cargoes, and it enables them tomake more trips and take more fish each season. li>. It is also the greatest advantage to American fishermen to be allowed to catch bait and procure it by purchase on our shores. All bait is taken inshore, and upon the privilege of getting bait at our ports aud in our waters the very existence of the American cod fishing de- [lends, for it would be utterly impossible for the Americans to carry on tlie cod fishery in these waters if they were compelled to get all their bait from American ports and waters. Bait for cod fishing will only last three weeks on ice, and the ice used to preserve it is procured by the Araericans from our own traders. U. From a pretty careful estimate of the matter from its various 1400 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. points, according to the best of my knowledge and experience, I would say that the privilege derived by the American fishermen from the use of our fishinggroands and the privilege of getting bait, outlit, and sup- plies at our [torts was worth at least half as much as the entire Atueri can fishing business on the coast of British North America every yeai. If all the privileges given by the Washington Treaty to Arnericainisb ermen were taken away, they could only make fishing protitiil)Ie here by violating the law. 12. I know of no advantage which Canadian fishermen derive from the use of American waters. Our own fishing grounds are well kuowu to be more productive than the American. I have never heard of auy Canadian vessel going to American waters for the purpose of tukiuj.' fish. 13. The presence of American fishing-fleets on our shores is nndoubt edly very injurious to our own fishermen, who would be able to take larger quantities of fish and carry on a better business if they enjoyed exclusive rights. They would also take better care of the grounds ami preserve them better. ALEXANDER GILLIES. Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 21st day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. ALEXK. McDonald, J. P. No. 200. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at llalifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Henry Hemlow, senior, of Liscomb, in the county of Giiysborti. fisherman, make oath and say as follows : I have been engaged in the fisheries during the last sixty years, 1. The principal fishing at Liscomb is cod and herring fishing. At times I have seen as many as forty or fifty American vessels going in and out at once. Each American vessel would catch, on au average, between six and seven hundred quintals per trip. They would make two trips each season, and afterwards fish on their own coast or on tlie coast of Newfoundland. 2. The cod fishing has improved lately; so has the herring fishing, but they are not so good as formerly. The Americans do not fish for bait in Liscomb Harbor, and this, in my opinion, accounts for the better state of the Liscomb fishery. When the American fishermen used to come in, they threw the fish guts, heads, &c., overboard and destroyed the eggs or young fish. This practice also drove out the fish from the harbor. 3. ^ if'ter the value of the outshore fishery much less than theiu- Miu lialibut are principally caught outside, while all other .i»aUy caught inshore. Formerly the Americans caught f> :iOok and line; now they are caught by them with seiues pfv Fishing with seines and purse-nets is injurious to the fisheries. 4. Haddock, codfish, and other fish caught inshore are fished by the Americans in the inshore waters. Canadian fishermen use the iusboie fishery to a large extent, and it is of the greatest value to them. Very few herring are caught outside. 5. The food of tho mackerel is found inshore. The privilege of land and pi\f lu the niat'ei AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1401 iiig diving their lish, &c., I consider of great importance, as is also the onportiiiiity of transshipping. This enables them to make more trips ill the season, and also enables them to watch the best chances to fish. Without the i)rivileges granted by the Washington Treaty, I am of opinion that the American fishermen could not tish with any profit to tbeiiiselves. (J. I never heard of i»ny Canadian fishermen frequenting American waters, but the American fishermen interfere with the Canadian rtsher- uieu bv disturbing their seines and in other ways injuring the fisheries. it woiild be much better for the Canadians to have the sole right of the inshore fisheries, and no right to sell fish free in the United States tban the rights they enjoy under the Washington Treaty. 7. Since 1871 an American lobster factory has been opened in Lis- (dinb, .ind the lobster fif-hery has largely decreased. The canned lob- sters are principally sold in England. IJENKY + DEMLOW, Sr. mark. Sworn to at Liscomb, in the county of Guysboro', this 19th day of Jiilv, A. D. 1877, before me, first having been read and explained. JAMES A. TORY, J. P. for the County of Guyshoro\ No. 207. lu the mat'er of the Fisheries Cotnmission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1. William Watts, of Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, fisher- imiu, make oath and say as f'^Uows : 1. I have been for eight years past engaged in fishing, and during two seasons I made trips in American fishing-vessels, and made trips and caught tish in the gulf and on various parts of the coast of Nova Scritia, Cape Breton, and the Magdalen Islands, and have had pretty gooil op- [lortuuities of judging of the fishing business done on this coast. 1 I have seen since the Treaty of Washingttm as many as four or five liiimlred Anierican fishing-vessels in the harbor of Port Hood, and I siiould say that the whole number engaged in fishing in the gulf and around the shore has been as high as six or seven hundred in a season. Tbese vessels were engaged principally in catching codfish and herring, altlioiifrh they take small quantities of herring, hake, haddock, antl hali- lint. The vessels I'ate from 50 to 80 tons and are manned by from twelve totweutyof a crew. They usually average about three trips during ilie season, and in the codfish sea.son take from five to seven hundred (juiutals at a trip, worth from 84 to 85 per quintal. Their average cargo of mackerel would be about three hundred barrels, worth formerly alioutSloper barrel. 3. 1 do not know as there has been any great increase or decrease in tbecod-flsbiug in these parts of late. It is about as good this season as nsaal. There has been something of a falling off in the catch of mack- ne! within the past year or two ; but I don't think there has been any falling oft iu the numbers of the mackerel. They would not bite so well; tliat is all. I cannot tell why this should be, unless it is on account of the American fishermen using seines and throwing bait overboard and offal, tvhicb makes the mackerel less free to bite. 1402 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. jiH-i ■hi 1 1! 4. Within the last two or three years I have seen American fishermen using the purse seines in the mackerel fisheries, and I consider that this practice is very injurious to our fishing-grounds. Sometimes as mauy as a thousand barrels of mackerel are taken in one haul, which cannot be cured or saved, and part of them have to be let out ami many are killed. This must be destructive to the fishery. I have never known Canadian fishermen to take this course, and most of them catch mack erel in boats. 5. American fishermen to my knowledge have caught niacJicrel since the Treaty of Washington within one mile of the shore and even less. Within two or three years 1 have seen them catching in this harbor. It is always considered that the best fishing is within three miles of the shore. When I was on board of American fishing-vessels we took neaiiv all the cargo inshore. 6. I have seen Americans catching bait within three miles of the shore — in fact, all bait is caught inshore, being smaller flsli, which only live in shoal water. Now the Americans buy most of their bait, because it is mote convenient and profitable for them to do so, and our tisher men catch it with greater facility than they do. Not less than titty or sixty American vessels have baited here this present season already, chipfly herring and squid. 7. The American practice of throwing bait to entice mackerel away i< very injurious to our boat-fishing. Iheir vessels otteu come along where we are fishing, and throw bait overboard, and the fish leave us and go in the direction of their bait, which is very damaging to our catch. 8. Our herring fishery is one of the most important and valuable we have. Large quantities of tliis fisii are taken by our shore fisher- men now. I have known as many as one hundred anil fifty bar- rels of herring to be taken by one boat in two days. If the Americans should enter into this branch of fishing under the Washington Treaty, and they do somewhat now, and use their seines, it would injure our business very seriously and damage the grounds very much. 9. To the best of my observation and experience as a fisherman, I say that the main body of the mackerel feed around the shore in shoal water. Their food being small fish, they must necessarily be obtfiineil near the shore, and in the fall season especially the mackerel cluster near the shore, and it is there chiefly that they are caught. 10. I consider it a great advantage for American fishermen to be allowed to land in our ports and dry their nets and cure their fish, and still more to be allowed to transship their cargoes. There can be uo doubt about this. They do it continually, and say themselves that it is a great advantage, as it enables them to fit out for new voyages and ship men without going back to American ports. They can catch more fish in a season by means of this privilege and take more trips. 11. 1 regard the privilege of being able to catch and buy bait in Can- adian waters as one of the greatest advantages the American flshermeu get from the treaty. If they had not this privilege they would have to abandon cod-fishing in our waters and on our coast altogether. They begin the cod-fishing about the first of May, and get bait continually all the season. When preserved in ice, which they get from our traders, the bait is allowed to last about three weeks. If they could not get it from us, and ice to keep it, the only way they could preserve it would be to salt it, and this injures the quality of the bait. If the Americans had to go back to their own waters and ports to get bait every three AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1403 week.H ttiey could do Dotbinp^ with their cod-flshing, and it would be im- iwssible to carry it on profitably. 12. I could not tell in figures just what the money-value is to each American fishing-vessel to be allowed to fish in our waters and get bait aud supplies, but I do not think it is too much to say that it is worth nearly as much as their entire fisheries at present on these grounds, for without these privileges they would find it very difficult, without violating the law, to carry on fishing of any kind profitably in the gulf or around the British-American coast. They could not possibly take as many trips, nor could they carry on their business with any facility. 13. I know of no advantage of any kind which our Canadian fisher- men gain from being able to fish in American waters. I have heard American fishermen admit that our grounds were the richest and best. I have never heard of any Canadian or British vessel going to Ameri- can waters for the purpose of fishing, nor can I imagine any reason to induce them to do so. 14. If our fishermen had the exclusive right to fish in our own waters CD tbe British- American coast, and no American fishermen were allowed to compete, I am certain we would be able to catch more fish every year aud make more profit;? out of the business. Our fishing grounds would also be better preserved, because our fishermen carry on their fishing with much greater care and do not destroy the grounds as the American fishermen do, by throwing oftal overboard and using purse seines. WILLIAM WATTS. Sworn to at Port Hood, in the county of Inverness, this 21st day of July, A. 1). 1877, before me. JOHN McKAY, J. P. No. 268. In the matter of the Fisheries Coininissiou at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, JosnuA Smith, of Port Hood Island, in the county of Inverness, Cape Breton, fisherman and trader, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 am a member of the firm of J. «& H. Smith, which has been ac- tively engaged in the occupation of fishing and supplying fishermen for tbe past fifteen or twenty years, and I have had ample 0|)portunities ot becoming familiar with the general business done on the coast of Cape Breton. Our firm has dealt in mackerel, codtish, haddock, hake, and berring to the value of over $3,000 annually. 2. 1 have known as many as five hundred sail of United States fish- ing-vessels engaged in the fisheries around the Island of Cape Breton. This was during the Iteciprocity Treaty from 1851 to 1804. After that treaty terminated the number of American vessels very much decreased. t\im have fished around the coast of Cape Breton, Antigonish Bay, Prince Edward Island, Magdalen Islands, and the coasts of Nova Scotia proper. They take mackerel chiefly. Also codfish in large quantities and herring and halibut in smaller quantites. 3. The average tonnage of United States fishing-vessels is 70 tons, awl each of them has a crew of about fifteen men. During the Recip- rocity Treaty each vessel averaged about three hundred barrels of mackerel per trip and made from two to three trips per season from this coast. This average was much reduced after the Reciprocity Treaty. I If I mm ■ 1- ^^:-f.| 1404 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 4. During the past two or three years the catch of mackerel lias h'm somewhat less than formerly on the coast of Cai)e Breton. But I ro^ninl this diminution as merely accidental and temporary. These Kiounds are exceedingly rich in fish, and I have no hesitation in giviiihed the mackerel mostly all inshore, within three miles of the shore. If I had not been allowed to fish inshore in the Bay of Chaleur for muck- frel, it would not pay me to go there, and I took more than three-fourths of my cargo inshore. 3. 1 have seen the Americans take codfish inshore in the Bay of Cha- leur. The Americans fished inshore in boats for codfish, and wherever there was fish. The Americans made the fish scarce for us inshore, and they took large quantities. 4. In fishing mackerel the Americans often lee-bowed us, and threw ili^i > J 1 y* - 1406 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. over bait to take the fish away from inshore. I have orteu Hceii the Americaas ruuiiing into Nova Scotiau vessels, and being su inutiy we were often afraid of them. 5. The Americans Ut out their vessels to take from throe to ci^ht hundred barrels per vesnel, and take on an average of from three, hun- dred to four hundred barrels to each vessel on each trip, and muke about three trips. Some years the Americans do better than tliis and some not so well. Our vessels are not so large as the Americans, and I have taken three hundred barrels of mackerel in one trip. About four years ago I took codfish in the Bay of Chaleur, and took in my vessel eight hundred and twenty live quintals, mostly all inshore. 6. The Americans carry on the Ashing by trawling, and I think this kind of fishing should not be allowed. 7. The Amerif ms fished inshore when the fishery was protected by the cutters, and used to run off shore when the cutters were around, anil used to come in when tbey disappeared. It would not pay the Ameii cans to fish unless the> could catch fish inshore. 8. The Americans get bait here year after jear, and this spring have got bait at Mosher's Island, in this harbor, and have, during the past five or six years, got ice in this harbor in which to pack their bait. MARTIN WENTZEL. Sworn to at Lower Lallave, in the county of Lunenburg, this Tth day of August, A. D. 1877, belore me. JAMES H. WENTZEL, J. P. No. 271. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, William B. Christian, of Prospect, in the county of Halifax, and Province of Nova Scotia, at present of the city of Halifax, make oath and say as follows : I keep a general store and do a general mercantile business at Pros- pect, supplying our fishermen and others with goods and supplies. I also supply ice and bait to American cod and halibut fishermen, and advertise in the Gloucester Advertiser to that effect. Several others at Prospect tried this last business, but could not do it with success. Another person at Prospect doing that business to the extent that I do it would render the thing of little or no profit or advantage. I purchase goods in Boston every year, personally visting that city; but the trade of the American fishermen with me, except for bait and ice, is very trifling. When in Boston, I usually each year go on to Gloucester to settle up with those who buy ice and bait, and arrange for further business in those things, and I am thus in frequent communica- tion with American capitalists, whose vessels fish in our water. T am aware that it would be useless for the Americans to attempt to carry on the cod or halibut fishery in our waters without the liberty no^v enjoyed since the Washington Treaty, of procuring ice and fresh bait ou our shores. This year an American halibut-fishing vessel came into Prospect, the William Thompson, a new vessel, belonging to the well-known firm of Cunningham & Thompson, of Gloucester, and had sixty-five thousand pounds of halibut on board, which required immediately four or five lu lilt' matter o ' ." -^ AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1407 tons of ice to save it from being ilestroyed. This ice could not bave been snpplii'd anywbere nearer tijan Cape Sable or Liverpool, and there woaltl biivt^ been great risk of losing the iish in attempting to reach that place. I was the only one who could supply this at Trospect, and siiippetl it at the usual rate of 82.50 per ton, and this whole fare of hali- l)iit was tin. save*! and $3,700 at Gloucester. Two fares of halibut were saved in the same way by my supplying ice at Prospect last year. I never carried on the mackerel fishery iu the waters of the (rulf of St. Lawrence, but I am aware, from the United States tlsherinen them- selves, that they catch their nmckerel within the three mile limit, a.s tiiey term it, on our coasts. I never heard anything to the contrary from any mackerel fishermen. About 100 American cod-fishormen on an average are supplied at Prospect with bait and ice, and very often they run in from the cod- lishiiiff ground on our coast in eight or nine hours for a fresh supply, and usually run in three or four times, on an average, from the Western Bunk, and about twice, on an average, from the IJrand Bank of New- louiullaiul. Many of the American cod fishermen fishing on the latter IJaiik are supplied with fresh bait and ice at (Janso, which is more (!on- vHiieut thai) the Newfoundland coast in May and June for that pur- jiose. W. li. CHRISTIAN. ,Svvorn to at Halifiix, in the couuty of Ilalifix, this 31st day of August, A, 1). 1877, before uiu. JOUN DOULL, J. P. No. 272. luilit' matter Iff' 1,.'"' !.:«' 1, I* 1,50" 1,"'"' 1. .•'■'.' 1. ;") !,■•> 1.1'.',' 1,IW LOD' 214, 600 44 1» AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1411 No. 275. s 1u In tlie ma ter of tbe FisUeries Commission, at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I John Bethell, of West Barcrow, in tbe county of Sbelburne, fish'ermau, make oatb and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in taking fish for tbe last seven years inshore, by meiiiis of a trap set one hundred and fifty fathoms from the shore, low- water mark. We take in this trap .all kinds of fish, principally mackerel, pollock and herring. Last year we took one hundred quintals of had- dock. We take in each year about five hundred barrels of both mack- Piel and herring. Out of this, on an average each year, there would be one bundred and fifty barrels of mackerel. 2. Last year I supplied thirty-three Canadian schooners with bait and ice, besides supplying seventy-eight boats engaged in the inshore fish- eries, The Canadiau vessels took on an average of twelve dollars' worth of bait to each vessel. Theboatstakeon an averageofthree dollars' worth of bait. Last year we supplied about forty tons of ice to Canadian ves- sels; this year about the same. Last year is about an average year's supply to Canadian vessels and inshore boats. This year we would bave sold double of this supply to Canadian vessels if we had the bait. During the past four years I have supplied on an average ten American vessels. Tbey took on an average between twenty and thirty dollars' worth of bractical fisherman for the past twenty years. Diiiiug ten years of that time I have been employed in American ves- sels from the port of Gloucester principally, and I have had large ex- perience iu and have a very perfect knowledge of seine-fishing. I have fished both on the American coast and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, ami on the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador. |i 2. 1 am well acquainted with the cod fishery as carried on by the American fishermen in our waters, and I believe the practice of trawl- ing, followed by the Americans fishing for codfish, tends to destroy the mother flsh when they are spawning, and otherwise is injurious to the fishery. 0. 1 estimate that there has been an average of three hundred mack- erel-catching vessels from United States ports in our waters during each of the last twenty years. I myself have known of four hundred sail of United States fishing-vessels in our waters in a single season, and there would be a great many of which I would have no knowledge. It is im- possible for any one person to know of all the American vessels fishing ill our waters in any one season. The average catch of mackerel each season is about three hundred and fifty barrels per vessel. Last spring there were abjut one hundred vessels fishing for herring at the Magda- leus. and they caught their usual catch of from seven hundred to one thousand barrels per vessel. I have known one American vessel iu the Giilf of Saint Lawrence to get fourteen hundred barrels of mackerel iu a siugle season. i I have been seine master of American fishing vessels, and have I nsed seines in catching mackerel both in American and Canadian waters, and I perfectly understand fishing with seines. In American j waters I have used seines two hundred and twenty-five fathoms long I and thirty fathoms deep, and in our shallower waters I have fished, I ^liile employed in American vessels, with seines one hundred and eighty I fathoms long and twenty fathoms or less iu depth. The American mackerel fishery has been almost destroyed by using these seines, and it will not take long to ruin our fltueries if the Americans are permitted to use them here. It is only during the last two or three years that ttese" purse-seines," as they are called, have been used in our waters. 1414 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Fish are uselessly destroyed and the schools broken up aud driven awav by this practice. 5. From 1871 to 1874 the mackerel fishery in the gulf was fair. Tbeir scarcity in 1875 aud 187G was owiug to the variableness of the lisli, which are sometimes scarce for a year or two, aud then come in again as thick as ever. The prospect this year is very good, and quite a fleet of xVuieri- can vessels is already in the bay, and in all probability there will be three hundred or four hundred of them here this season, as there are no mackerel on their own coasts. I saw an American vessel, called the Eastern Queen, take from their seine at one catch what I was afterwards informed by the crew amouticed to one hundred barrels of mackerel. Uii Sunday last four American mackerelers got very good catches ; two of them got one hundred barrels each, and the other two got eigiity and fifty barrels, respectively. 6. The inshore mackerel fishery is, tc a large extent, within 3 miles of the shore, and I estimate 'h t ivfo-tLirds of the mackerel cannht bv American fishermen on . 'i ' is taken within 3 miles of the shore: and 1 have no hesitatiou '\i , • ? that the inshore fishery is of far greater value than the outf- n', so nr as the mackerel are coucerued, and the herring fishery is almost altogether ir shore. 7. Our boat fishery is n' jh hindered by the Americans runiiiugiu among the boats and drawi.i; t fisi ' shore by means of tbrowin;; bait, and the bait they use is macb hi ov 'ban what our fisiiErmeii have; thus they are enabled to entice avray the fish, as the mackerel will follow the best bait. I think it would be better tor our fishermen to have the inshore fisheries to themselves, even if the Americans put a heavy duty on fish. 8. The Americans cannot profitably carry on the cod and other deep sea fisheries without resorting to our shores for bait, of which they buy a large quantity from our fishermen and merchants. 9. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no advantage whatever to Canadian fishermen, aud I have never heard of Canadians availing themselves of it. 10. The spawning and breeding places of the mackerel are principally in shoal water and inshore. I am of opiuiou that the great gale of 1873 may to some extent have caused the scarcity of mackerel in the gulf daring the years 1875 and 1876, by driving oat and destroying the small fish on which the mackerel feed. 11. Of late years the Americans are getting a good many halibut on the shores of Auticosti and near the Seven Islands, in the Lower Saint Lawrence. ROBERT DEAGLE. The said Robert Deagle was sworn to the truth of this aflidavit at Harbor aa Bouche, in the county of Antigouishe, this 28th day oi July, A. D. 1877, before me. ED^YARD CORBET, A Justice of the Pawe. No. 280. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, James Carey, of Port Mulgrave, in the county of Guysborougb | and Province of Nova Scotia, fisherman and trader, make oath aud say as follows : AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1415 1, Ibavebeen a practical flsberman for twenty five years of my life, and fishing was my sole employment up to the year 1871, since which time I liave been both fishing and trading. I have fished for mackerel nil around the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in Chedabucto i;av. I li«'vve been herring fishing at the Magdaleiis, and on the shores ot Labrador and Newfoundland. I have fished for codfish in the Straits of Xortbumberland. Duriug about ten years of the twenty-five, I was employed iu American fishing-vesseis. U. I am of opinion that the American mackerel-fishing.fleet up to the rear 1874 would average four hundred sails at least each season. In isi.j and 1870 they were not quite so numerous. These vessels carried a crew of about fifteen men each, and the tonnage ranged from fifty to one hundred tons. The American herring fleet has averaged about thirty or forty sails each season. These mackerelers fish all around the Half of St. Lawrence, and the herring fishers go principally to the Magdalen Islands. 3. The average catch of mackerel per vessel during the whole twenty- live years that 1 have been acquainted with the fishery has been about five hundred barrels each season, worth from ten to twelve dollars per barrel. The herring fleet catch each season between eight and nine hundred barrels per vessel. 4. 1 consider the herring fishery about as good as ever it was. The mackerel are a variable flsh, and in some years they are scarce, and tlien become plenty again after a year or two. In 1875 and 1870 they were somewhat scarce, but it is my opinion that they will come in again as plenty as ever they were. 5. The herring are caught almost altogether with seines. The mack- erel are caught principally with hooks and lines, but of late years the American fishermen are using seines also to some extent. 6. During the Keciprocity Treaty the American fishermen fished for mackerel to a large extent within three miles of the shore. The herring fishery at the Magdalens is altogether inshore. ). Iu my opinion, at least one-half the mackerel are caught within three miles of the shore, and almost all the herring are caught within that distance. 8. The principal breeding-places of the mackerel are, in my opinion, inshore iu shoal water. Their coming inshore in the spring is, I believe, tor the purpose of spawning. 9. It is an advantage to the American fishermen who supply the mar* ket with fresh fish to be allowed to procure bait on our shores. It is also very advantageous to them to procure ice on our shores to preserve their bait, and also to procure other supplies on our coasts. The foregeing statements, according to the best of my knowledge and Wief, are true in substance and fact. his JAMES -f CxVREY. mark. The said James Carey was sworn to the truth of this affidavit, the Mine having been first read over and explained to him, at Port Mul- ?fave, in the county of Guysborough, this 30th day of July, A. D. In", before me. JAMES PURGE LL, A Justice of the Peace. 1416 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 281. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treatv of AVashington. I, Thomas Pinkham, of Booth Bay, in the State of Maine, master mariner, malte oath and say as follows : 1. 1 have been engaged in fishing for thirty-four years. I have fislied along the American coast down to Cape Harrison in Labrador, and have taken mackerel, codfish, and the fish found on the abovenieutioued coasts. I have fished on the Banks along the above-mentioned coast. God fish on the Banks is taken principally by trawling, which I consider a bad method of taking fish, as the mother fish are destroyed, which is not the case in hand-lining. 2. In taking mackerel, purse-seining is employed to a very large ex- tent, which I also consider a bad way of taking mackerel. Large quau titles arc wasted, the schools of fish are broken up and frightened away. This year scarcely any mackerel are taken on the American coast. This I attribute to the large amount of purse-seining that has been done on that shore. 3. We get bait and ice in the Canadian ports to carry on the Bank fishing, which benefits the inhabitants, and enables us to carry (lu the Bank fishery. THOMAS PINKHAM. Sworn to at Sand Point, in the county of Shelburne, this 24th day of August, A. D., 1877, before me. JOHN PUENEY,J.P. No. 282. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Keuben Harlow, of Shelburne, in the county of Shelburne, mer- chant, make oath and say as follows: 1. I am the proprietor of an ice-honse situated at East Point, lu the above-named county. I sold two hundred and fifty tons of ice this year and last — one hundred tons to Canadian vessels and one hundred and fifty to American vessels. About fifteen American vessels have been supplied each year during the two now past. About one hundred have called which have not been supplied. The Americans say it is a very valuable privilege to be allowed to obtain this ice in our ports. REUBEN HARLOW. Sworn to at Shelburne, in the county of Shelburne, this 21th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN BOWER, J. P. No. 283. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I. JuDAH C. Smith, of Barrington, at present at Lockeport, in tbe county of Shelburne, master mariner, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged since the first of May now past in the taking In the matter AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1417 of fish by a trap, for the purpose of taking deep-sea fish. At this trap large nnmbcrs of vessels are supplied with bait, most of whom are Cana- dian. During the past live days, six American vessels have run here for bait, none of whom we were able to supply. If the Americans do not get bait here they run to other Canadian ports for this bait, for ffitbont it they could catch no fish. Since the first of May I have baited eight American vessels, which took, on an average, twenty-five barrels of bait each. Twenty Canadian vessels have been supplied with bait, ami have taken on an average fifteen barrels each. JDDAH C. SMITH. Sworn to at Lockeport, in the county of Sbelburue, this 24th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. AUSTEN LOCKE, J. P. No. 284. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I. Amos H. Outhouse, of Tiverton, in the county of Digby, make oath and say as follows : 1. Have been engaged in the fishing business for thirty years. L'. At least five hundred American vessels from all ports of the United S;ates annually fish for mackerel, codfish, and halibut, in the Bay de Cbaleur, and on the shores of Nova Scotia ; this is within my knowledge k the past thirty years. 3. The average quantity of mackerel taken by each American fishing- vessel in the Bay de Cbaleur is about three hundred barrels, and seveu biiudred quintcals of codfish. 4. The present condition of the fishery is not as good as in the past, lor mackerel, codfish, halibut, herring, hake, and pollock. j. The Americans use trawls chiefly for codfish and halibut ; mackerel liy book and line and seins. C. Great injury is done to the fishing grounds by the American flsh- eruieu throwing overboard ofial; it drives the fish from tbe fishing grounds. i. American fishermen usually fish close to the shore, and have before amlduring the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, and before and during tbe Treaty of Washington, at tbe Bay de Cbaleur and Bay of Fundy. 5. The value of inshore fisheries are more valuable than outside. 0. American fishermen catch bait within three miles from tbe shores and in the bays, with nets, on the shores of Nova Scotia, to a great extent. 111. Halibut, codfish, haddock, hake, and pollock are caught by tbe American fishermen in the insliore waters of Canada, and tbe same kiDils of fish are also caught inshore b,y Canadian fishermen. 11. Since tbe Treaty of "Washington of 1871, tbe fish have decreased wv much in the Bay of Fundy, for tbe last five years, as much as twenty per cent., which is caused by using trawls. 1-. American fishermen have caused great injury to the fisheries in tlieBay of Fundy, by the use of trawls, since the Treaty of Washington. 13. The herring fishery in Canadian waters is greater inshore than out- siile. and American fishermen catch herring for bait and for sale in the Bayde Cbaleur, Bay of Fundy, and St. Mary's Bay. U. Mackerel caught in Canadian waters are as good, if not better, 1418 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. than those caught in American waters ; take one year with another, the price would be about the same in the United States marl^et. 15. The opportunity of transshipping cargoes enjoyed by Amoiican fishermen since the Treaty of Washington is a great advantage to them. I have linown American vessels to make three trips in one seuMoii, by trat)sshippiiig their cargoes at the Bay de Chaleur. 10. It is a great advantage to American fishermen to procure Iniit in the Canadian inshores, and it is more profitable and causes them less delay to buy it than to catch it. 17. The American fishermen cannot carry on the cod and other fish- eries of the deep sea around our coasts, without the privilege of resort- ing to our inshores to procure bait, and would have to abanilou the business to a great extent if they were deprived of the privilege. 18. It is a great advantage to American fishermen to resort to Cana- dian inshores for ice and other supplies required in their fishery business. 19. The privilege of fishing in American waters is of no practical ad- vantage to Canadian fisherman. I never have known any of our Cana- dian fishermen to make any use of their fishing-grounds. 20. The privilege to each American vessel of procuring bait and trans- shipping cargoes in Canadian inshores, would be at the least one thou sand dollars. 21. The Americans having free access to our Canadian inshore fisher- ies, and the large quantities of all kinds of fish taken by them, hinders the Canadians from getting as good a market as they would if they bad the exclusive right of the inshore fisheries. The foregoing statement is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Captain A. H. OUTHOUSE. Sworn before me at Tiverton, in the county of Digby, this 13th Au- gust, A. D. 1877. JOHN A. SMITH, J. F. No. 285. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, John Merchant, of Hardwicke, in the county of Northumberland, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been fifteen seasons, or years, engaged in business as a tish- erman in Bay Chaleur, Miramichi Bay, Oispd, all through the Gulf ot Saint Lawrence, and all along the shore of Kent County ; and was also five years as master on board of various American fishing-vessels— say three years in the Oak Grove, two years in King Fisher, both belonging to the port of Belfast, United States. The balance of the fifteen years I was chiefly engaged in small and large vessels of Miramichi Bay and Prince Edward Island, and in dili'erent places around our coast. 2. During the years I was master of Oak Grove and King Fisher, the number of sail would average about 500 sail, would average about fifteen men each, and tonnage about 75; and the places fished were Prince Edward Island, Bay Chaleur, Miramichi Bay, Gaspe ; the iiinJ of fish caught, mackerel. 3. I would say the average catch during the five years I was fishing was about 400 barrels each vessel, valued about $12 per barrel. 4. Mackerel are as plentiful now as when I fished. AWARD OP TOE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1419 5. Modes chiefly used in capturing mackerel were seining and jigging. 6. I consider tlie fishing water injured by tlirowing overboard ottal froiii mackerel; but ottiil from codli.sh is very injurious, as the bones swallowed by the mackerel penetrate the fish, causing a large quantity 0. I would say, two-thirds of the mackerel, during the time I have tislied, were caught within the three-mile limit. 7. I consider the inshore fishery of great value to the American fish- ermen, and, in fact, could not do without it. S, American fishermen still use the seine for taking mackerel. The manner used is: The seine is stretched out and around the school of mackerel, then hauled in together, then scooped out into the boats. I do not think the manner any way injurious, as when they find more than can be cared for, the seine is tripped and the mackerel let go. The seines are used inside the limit the same as other places — in fact, any place where mackerel is seen. 9. Mackerel have not decreased since 1871, as in some places. They are plentiful. The winds and feed is the cause of their scarcity in differ- ent localities. 10. Ilerring are caught entirely inshore. 11. Mackerel caught in Canadian waters are fully one-third better than caught in American, and bring prices one-third more than Ameri- can mackerel caught in American waters. 12. The food of mackerel is about equally divided within the limit and outside. They feed on shrimps, smelt, fry, and smaller fishes. Their breeding places are aronnd the sheltered bays and estuaries, dur- ing the months of May and June. 13. 1 consider the privilege to land by American fishermen very great. If deprived of this privilege they could not carry on their business. 14. It is a great advantage to be allowed to transship cargoes. It saves great loss of time and expense to owners. It enables them to make two trips during the season, sometimes three; and once I knew of five shipments of two hundred and fifty barrels each. 15. 1 consider it a great advantage to be enabled to buy bait from Canadian fishermen, and much easier and more profitable than fishing for it, as the bait is not procurable always when wanted. IG. It is considered impossible to carry on deep-sea fishing in Cana- dian waters without being enabled either to catch or buy the bait in- shore. 17. 1 consider the privilege of fishing in American waters of no value to Canadian fishermen. I never knew of a Canadian fisherman resort- ing to American waters to fish. 18. 1 have known instances where United States citizens have car- ried on considerable trade with the inhabitants of the localities where tiiey fish. 19. Do not consider that it hinders the operation of Canadian fisher- men. J. S. MERCHANT. Sworn to before me, at Hardwicke, this 14th day of August, 1877. ALEXANDER MILLS, J. P. 1420 AWARD OP THE FISHERY C0MMI8SI0N. No. 286. lu tlio matter of the Fisheries Commission at Ualifax, under tiio Treuty of Washington. I, Wallace Trask, of Little River, in the county of Digby, fisber man, make oath and say as follows: 1. I have been engaged in fishing for twelve years now past, and am still so engaged, altogether on the inshore grounds in this countv. I lislj from close inshore to off six miles, and catch most of the flsli I take within three miles of the sLore. I fish every year on the north and south side of Digby Neck, and take codfish, haddock, hake, pollock, halibut, and herring, the latter principally for bait. 2. On the nortli side of Digby Neck, the place at which we fish is called Whale Cove; on the south side the port is called Little lliver. 3. At Whale Cove I have counted forty sail of fishing-vesaels atone time, in the latter part of June; most of these vessels were American, from the State of Maine. These American vessels are from five to forty tons each, and carry from five to twelve men on each vessel. They take fish altogether by trawling, and do so close inshore among our boats, within three miles of the shore. 4. These American vessels set their nets for bait inshore, close in to the shore, and so many of them take up the grounds and carr^ away the bait from us. 5. These American vessels take from two to six hundred quintals of fish to each vessel. They throw their gurry o\ 3rboard ou our inshore boat grounds, and sometimes among our nets. 6. Our fishermen all bring their gurry inshore, in order to protect tiie grounds. 7. At Little Eiver, on the south side of Digby Neck, from fifteen to twenty American vessels have fished inshore for the same kinds offish as we take. They set their nets for bait, and throw "gurry" oveiboaril ou the inshore grounds. 8. Since 1871 the Americans have come upon our inshore grounds and interfered with our fishing. 9. American vessels come around here with purse seines for mackerel. WALLACE TKASK. Sworn to at Little River, in the county of Digby, this 1st day of Sep- tember, A. D. 1877, before me. J. W. DENTON, J. P. No. 287. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, George E. Mosley, of Tiverton, in the county of Digby, fisher- man, make oath and say as follows : 1. I liave been engaged in fishing for twenty years now past, and am still so engaged. I fish from inshore to offshore three miles, and take codfish, haddock, hake, pollock, halibut, and herring, the latter princi- pally for bait. 2. From eight to ten American vessels come here on our inshore grounds ou which we fish, and trawl for the same kind of fish that we j do. They have come on our inshore grounds since 1871. ▲WARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1421 3. These American vessels arc from uitie to sixty tons eauh, and carry from eiglit to ten men eacb. These American vessels carry ii way lour huuilred quintals of tish each. 4. Tboy 80t their nets for bait on our inshore grounds, which interferes verv much with the setting of our nets, as they take up the ground and taiie tlio bait away from us. They keep their nets set both day and night, a wbolo we"i< at a time. ,'), They v overboard their oSal from their fish on our inshore gi'oumb, . .^u is very injurious to our grounds. Our fishermen, of which thee are about two hundred out of this place, bring their gurry insliore on the gurry-grounds set apart for this purpose — both boats and vessels. There are from eight to ten vessels, from fifteen to twenty five tons, engaged in fishing out of this port, besides a large number of bouts. The vessels bring their gurry ashore, having kids on board to keep the giirry. 0. Large numbers of Americans cotne into St. Mary's Bay every spring tor fish. Thirty at least come and trawl around here for all the kiuls of fish found in St. Mary's Bay. American vessels also come with purse seines on board for mackerel. GEORGE E.MOSLEY. Sworn to at Tiverton, in the county of Digby, this Ist day of Septem- ber, A. 1). 1877, before me. JOHN A. SMITH, J. P. 2fo. 288. lathe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, Charles H. Payson, of Westport, in the county of Digby, mer- chant, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 have during three years now past supplied American vessels with ice— about thirty tons each year, and about twenty tons to Canadian vessels. These vessels use this to preserve their (? bait); and with this ice and bait they fish on the coast along here. C. H. PAYSON. Sworn to at Westport, in the county of Digby, this 31st day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. H. E. PAYSON, J. P., County of Digby. No. 289. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, Eleazar Crowell, of Clarke's Harbor, in the county of Shei- bame, merchant, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 have been engaged in the buying and selling of fish for twenty years. I have gone fishing for seventeen years, mostly in the inshore iiheries in this county. 2. Large numbers of American vessels run in here for bait. They wme and go here every week. With the bait the Americans get here % trawl for codfish and halibut. "H^ 1422 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. • 3. Around this harbor large quantities of mackerel are taken, princi. pally in traps, and the Americans purchase them for bait. The sellinw of these mackerel to Americans is of no advantage to us, as we can sefl them in other markets. Thousands of barrels of mackerel are taken around in this vicinity; as many as six thousand barrels at least last year were taken. The mackerel taken in here bring better prices in American markets than the mackarel taken in American waters. I have been informed of Americans being interested in traps for mackerel around here. The Americans purchase the most of their bait here, be cause by so doing they save time. All the American vessels which run here carry nets to catch bait. 4. American vessels run in here and sell their small fish ; by so doing they are enabled to purchase bait and supplies, and carry home a cargo of large and valuable flsh. The Americans run in here for supplies when they run short, sometimes for salt; by so doing they are greatly benefited. 5. The trawling carried on by the Americans on the Banks off the shore is, in my opinion, very injurious to the fisheries. Trawliug ba,s been carried on to a couriderable extent lately by our fishermen. They have bi^en compelled to do so, in order to compete with the Americans 6. The Americans also get large quantities of herring here for bait. These herring are all taken inshore within three miles of the shore. On this isl ind there is a population of over two thousand, and there are upwards of four hundred boats engaged in fishing around this island, Many of these boats take one hundred and seventy-five quintals of tisL each. ELEAZAR CROWELL, Merchant, Sworn to before me this 27th day of August, 1877. D. G. DALEY, J. P. No. 290. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Dantel V. Kenny, of Cape Sable Island, in the County of Sbel burue, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for twenty years now past, mostly in the inshore fisheries in Shelburne County, and have been en- gaged in American vessels in Bank fishing from 1870 to 1S74. We got our bait in Canadian ports, and we could not have carried on the Bank fishing successfully unless we got this bait in Canadian ports inshore. When fishing in the American vessels we took codfish on the Banks by trawling, which I consider vtr^ injurious to the fisheries, as it dt^troys the spawn fish. When fishing in the American vessels we trawleil in- shore around Cape Breton, on Anticosti, and around Newfoundland within three miles of the shore. In getting bait our supply is interfered Avith by American vessels, as they often gobble up the bait from us and make it dearer. DANIEL V. KENNY. Sworn to at Cape Sable Island, in the county of Shelburne, this 27th day of August, A. D. 1877, before me. D. G. DALEY, J. P. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1423 No. 291. In tbe matter of tlie Fisheries Commission .at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I Gilbert Merbitt, of Sandy Cove, in the county of Digbj-,^fish- eriuan> make oath and say as follows : 1. I have for seven years now i)ast been engaged in fishing in this county all inshore, off to six miles from the shore. The most of the fisb I take is within three miles of the shore. I take codfish, haddock, bake, pollock, halibut, and herring; the latter principally for bait. 2. Since 1871, large numbers of American vessels come round here to flsb, and fish upon our inshore grounds, within three miles of the shore, lu this harbor many American vessels come. I have seen here this last spring from eight to ten American fishing vessels at one time. Tbey bny and catch bait. They catch more than they buy by setting their nets inshore, within three miles of the shore. 0. These American vessels which come here are from ten up to sixty touseacb, and carry from six to twelve men, and are fitted out to take liora one hundred to four hundred quintals each. They generally take tiill tares. 4. The American vessels which get bait here fish in this bay (St. Mary's), which is here only five miles across. .). Last summer and this American purse-seiners were here for mack- erel, and have hove their seines and taken them here. ti. Out of this port there are twenty-seven boats engaged in fishing inshore, and three vessels which fish part of the time off shore. These boats and vessels carry seventy-four men, and bring their gurry inshore ;iud use it on their farms for manure. The Americans who fish around here on our inshore grounds throw their gurry overboard, which is very iiijnrious to the grounds. 7. Inside Sandy Cove and the outside Sandy Cove, the latter being uuthe Bay of Fundy, from eight to ten American vessels fish ou our insliore grounds every year. These vessels are of the description already stated. GILBERT MERRITT. Sworn to, at Sandy Cove, in the county of Digby, this 1st day of Sep- timber, A. D. 1877, before me. SAMUEL SAUNDERS, J. P. No. 292. lu tbe matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1. Charles W. Denton, of Little River, in the county of Digby, fislienui'u, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 bave been engaged in fishing on the inshore grounds in Digby Comity for seven years, and am still so engaged. I have always taken tlieinost of my fish within three miles of the shore, and have taken codfish, haddock, hake, pollock, and halibut — herring we take princi- Itally for bait. -• On the north side of Digby Neck, the place at which we fish is called " Whale Cove " : ou the south side of Digby Neck the port is called "Little River." 1424 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3. At Whale Oo\re I have counted forty sail of vessels in June last the most of whom were American, all engaged in fishing inshore, witbiu three miles of the shore. These American vessels are mostly from the State of Maine. They are from five to forty tons each. They carry from five to twelve men on eash vessel. They take fish altogether by trawl- ing, and do so close inshore among our boats within three miles of the shore. At Whale Cove there are upwards of sixty Digby tisberineo engaged in fishing, and there would be more if the Americans were uot allowed to fish on our inshore grounds. These American vessels set their nets for bait inshore, close in to the shore, and so many of tlieui take up the grounds and carry away the bait from us. 4. These American vessels take from two to six hundred quintals of fish to each vessel. They throw their gurry overboard on our iuslioie grounds and sometimes among our nets. 5. Our fishermen bring their gurry all inshore in order to protect the grounds. 6. At Little River, on the south side of Digby Neck, where we com- mence fishing in April and fish until June, then going to Whale Cove, from fifteen to twenty American vessels fish insho'^e for the same kinds of fish as we do. They set their nets for bait, a'ld throw gurry over board on the inshore grounds within three miles of the shore. 7. American vessels come around here with purse-seines for mackerel, and 1 have heard they took two hundred barrels in one dav. CHARLES W. DENTO>. Sworn to at Little River, in the county of Digby, this 1st day ot September, A. D. 1877, before me. J. W. DENTON, J. P. No. 293. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Joseph E. Denton, of Little River, in the county of Digby, li! the grounds so that we find it difficult to get a place for our nets, and take away the bait from us. They set their nets Saturday, and keep tlicm set on Sunday, which the inhabitants here do not. They keep tbeii nets set during the day-time, which is injurious to the herring tisiiery. 3. The Americans here throw their "gurry" overboard, wliicli our small vessels and boats do not do. We have a gurry ground here laid out, where our fishermen throw their " gurry." 4. There are eight vessels owned here which fish off to four or five miles from the shore, and from that into the shore. These vessels are from fifteen to twenty-five tons each, and carry from six to ten meii. These vessels take on an average each year eight hundred quintals of fish each, and bring all their gurry inshore. 0. Every spring, from 1871, American vessels, at least thirty sail, come into St. Mary's Bay, and around here, and trawl tor fish, which is a great injury to us fishermen. These vessels come mostly from East- j)ort. Me. Every summer American vessels come here with seines— purse-seines — for mackerel. WHITEFIELD OUTHOUSE. Sworii to at Tiverton, in the county of Digby, this 1st day of Septem- ber, A. D. 1877, before me. JOHN A. SMITH, J. P. No. 296. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. 1, John W. Snow, of Digby, in the county of Digby, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been engaged in the fisheries for thirteen years now pasr, and am still so engaged. I fish in Annapolis Basin and in the Bay of Fundy. J take fish within three miles of the shore ; codfish, haddock. pollock, hake, halibut, and herring, the latter principally for bait, ami get this herring all inshore, within three miles of the shore. 2. Since 1871 1 have seen in this harbor at one time from eight to ten American vessels. These vessels come here to harbor and for bait. They set their nets here in Annapolis Basin and along the Bay of Fiuuly. They all set their nets for bait iushore, the same as our own fishermen. With this bait they trawl for fish both inshore and offshore around the coast in this vicinity. 3. These American vessels which fish around here throw all their " gurry" overboard, which is a great injury to our fisheries. 4. Since 1871 American purse-seiners come around our inshore grounds for mackerel. There were two American purse seiners iu this harbor this summer. 5. The American vessels which come around here nearly all trawl, In the matter AWARD OP THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. 1427 which is a very injarious way of taking fish. Oar fishermen have only coinmenceil trawling to any considerable extent within the two yeara now past, aiul have been compelled to do so in order to compete with the Auiericaus. JOHN W. SNOW. &worn to at Digby, in the county of Digby, this 3d day of September, A. D. 1877, before me, JOHN DAKIN, J. P. No. 297. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, James Patterson Foster, of Port Williams, in the county of Annapolis, merchant and dealer in fish, make oath and say as follows : 1. 1 have been acquainted with the lishories along the coast of this county tor twenty-five years now past, and am at present acquainted with them. 2. 1 liave dealt in codfish, hake, and herrings. 3. Since 1871, about half a dozen American vessels come in here, principiilly for bait, which they get by setting their nets inshore within three miles of the shore, mostly within a mile of the shore. This num- ber have come here every year since 1871. Some of them take cargoes of herring. 4 Some of these American vessels take from four to five hunrescrve bait and other supiilies to carry on their fish- ery business. 13. The privilege of fishing in American waters is no practical value or advantage to Canadian fishermen ; do not believe our fishermen make any attempt to fish in the American waters. 14. 1 know that it must be very much to the advantage of American iishermen to procure bait and transship cargoes in Canadian inshores, but cannot give an estimate of the value. 15. American fishermen in their operations do not hinder Canadian fishermen, but the large quantities of fish caught by them would cer- tainly make a lower market for Canadian fish than if they were ex- cluded from our inshores. The foregoing statement is true and correct, to the best of my knowl- edge and belief. ABRAM THURSTON. Sfforti before me at Sanford, in the county of Yarmouth, this 8th day of September, A. D. 1877. ENOS GARDNER, J. P. No. 300. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Samuel M. Ryeeson, of Yarmouth, in the county of Yarmouth, mtrchaut, make oath and say as follows : 1- 1 have been engaged since ISfil in outfitting fishermen for cod, 1430 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Wi it 1 1 r "I* mackerel, and berring fishery, and am at present engaged in that basi- cess as one of the firm of Kyerson & Moses to a small extent. 2. I know that there are several hundred American vessels yearly en- gaged in fishing in Canadian waters; they average from ten to tittoen men per vessel. They fish in the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary's Buy for eodfish, halibut, and mackerel. 3. They take from 800 to 1,500 quintals codflsh per trip. Halibut is taken to their market in ice in small quantities ; cannot give estimate of mackerel trip, as their fares are generally carried to their ports with- out stopping here. 4. The American fishermen use trawls mostly for codflsh, halibut, and haddock ; mackerel on the Nova Scotia shores are mostly takeu by seines by them. 6. Most of the mackerel caught on the Canadian inshores are catigbt close inshore, from half a mile to three miles from shore. Tbe Ameri- cans catch large quantities of halibut inshore, from one to tbree milesi from the shore. 6. The value of tbe inshore fisheries are as valuable as the outside ; for bait they would be more valuable. 7. I know that American fishermen use purse-seines for taking mauk- erel, and have taken large quantities in that way, and they are very in- jurious to the fishery wherever they are used. 8. 1 know that American fishermen set their nets along our shores for the purpose of catching bait, and get all they require. 9. Large quantities of halibut, codfish, pollack, haddock, hake, and mackerel are caught by American fishermen in the inshore waters of Canada; the same are caught inshore by Canadian fishermen. 10. There has been a large increase in the cod fishery since 1871. Mackerel has also increased in the county of Yarmouth tbe past few years. 11. I American fishermen had been prohibited from fivshing in Cnna dian waters, the Canadian fishermen would have probably caugbt double the quantity. 12. The herring fishery in Canadian waters is nearly all inshore. American fisberinen catch herring for bait ; they bny theiu for sale. 13. I do not think there is any difference in the quality of the uiatii- erel caught in the Canadian or American waters, and the value in their markets would be about the same. 14. The mackerel follow the shores and feed. 15. It is a great advantage to American fishermen to transship tiieir cargoes at Canso; it enables them to catch two fares during tbe Ushing season. 10. American fishermen could not carry on their fisheries, or malie profitable voyages, without the privilege of buying and civtcbiug bait from the Canadian inshores. 17. It is a great advantajge to Americans to have the privilege of pur- chasing ice to preserve their bait from Canadian inshores, lartje quanti- ties of which is furnished to American fishermen during tbe fisliing season. They also employ large numbers of our men for crews, which they also find is greatly to their advantage. 18. Do not think Canadian fishermen use American waters for fishing purposes; it is of no practical use, our own fishery being so much better. 19. Should think the privilege to American fishermen procnring bait and being allowed to transship their cargoes in Canadian inshores would be at least from six to eight hundred dollars per vessel yearly. lu the nutter AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1431 20. I 5 to 187G. 2. The extent of American fisheries in Canadian waters during the (11) eleven .years from 1805 to 1876 was very great; I should say from 1,000 to 1,500 vessels from all ports of the New England States fished in Ciuiadian waters, averaging about twelve men to each vessel, duringyears 18G5 to 1870. 3. The quantity of fish usually average, if codfish, two thousand quin- tals; if part of year codfish, fourteen hundred quintals; balance year luackerel, three hundred barrels for trip. 4. As far as my knowledge goes, the American vessels usually trawl tbeircodtish, halibut, and haddock partly in our waters and partly out- side. The mackerel are principally caught in seines, purse seines, dressed on board the vessels, the otfal being thrown overboactl. 0, For mackerel, in Bay de Chaleur they always fish with hook and line, or used to, during the years I named, and always inshore, quite close to the land, near Magdalen Islands, Prince Eiward Island, Cape Breton, aud Nova Scotia. (i. I should say the value of the shore fisheries was much greater than outside, more especially for mackerel fishing. ". The American fishermen use purse seines, by menus of large boats sweep it around a school of mackerel, draw in the bottom, and have the fish in a sort of large bag, from which they are taken on board the vessel and dressed at leisure. 8. American fishermen yearly citch more or less fish insl. ^re in our water, such as halibut, codfish, and haddock, besides mackerel, which arealomst entirely caught inshore. !). Do uot think the Americans trouble themselves much about catch- ing herrings; they buy them when they can from our people for bait. 10. VVe formerly considered our Bay do Chaleur mackerel the best in America, but for some years past the quality has not been so good as tiTiuerly. I have known our mackerel to sell by the cargo in the United States at $26 per barrel gold in the years 1859 and 1860. ll> I am of the opinion that the mackerel feed principally inshore. 1432 AWAHD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Ri::! 12. It is considered a great advantage to American fisliermen tlint they are allowed to fish, land and dry tbeir nets, and cure and trunssbii) tbeir tlsb in tlie Canadian insbores. 13. Tlie transsbipping of cargoes by Americans has been carried on for mHiiy years and much to their advantiige, as it allows them to make wore trips for the flsb during the season. This I think is principally douu in the mackerel- tisbery department. 14. The AmericanM, while cod tishing, buy large quantities of bait from the Canadians. They only take time to catcb bait when tliey can- not buy it to advantage. 15. It would seriously injure the American fisheries if they were pre- vented from using our shores to buy bait and catcb it. 10. It is considered a great benefit to the American fisberinen that they have the privilege of procuring ice to preserve their fisli, and to procure supplies such as trawl lines and books, which they ufteu lose; also to procure other articles and salt. 17. I never knew of an instance where onr people fish in waters of tbe United States. 18. Could not say what value would accrue to American vessels by being allowed to procure bait and transnbip fish, but it must be very considerable, perhaps from $400 to $SOO to every vessel makiug use of these privileges. 19. Cannot say that Americans being allowed to fish in our waters ])revents our fishermen in their general operations, except that it atlbnls larger and more valuable cargoes to be taken by the Americans than they would get were they deprived of our fisheries ; and the catch beinj; by them lari*e, generally reduces the price of fish, which, of course, in jures our fisheruien indirectly. The foregoing statement is true and correct to the best of my knowl- edge and belie t. ROBERT S. EAKINS, Je. Sworn before me, at Yarmouth, in the county of Yarmouth, this lltli day of September, A. D. 1877. ENOS GARDNER, J. P. Fo. 302. Dominion of Canada, Province of Prince Edward Island, Queen's County, to icit: I, Daniel Ross, of North Rustico, in the said island and Dominion, fish- mere bant, make oath and say: 1. That I reside at North Rustico, in Prince Edward Island, and have resided and carried on the fishery business there for the past eleven years, previously to which I had, for about six years, been engaged iu the fishery business as an employ^ of Captain Marshall and others. 2. That my knowledge of the fishing business, as carried on at and near Rustico, covers a period of about twenty years. 3. That, during the past eleven years, while carrying on business for myself, I have owned each year four or five boats, and employed about thirty men each season. 4. That the average catch per season of my boats has been about one hundred barrels of mackerel each, and each boat takes a crew of about five men. 6. That 1 myself am a practical fisherman, and engage persoually in the catching and curiug as well as in the sale of the fish. AWARD OF THE FISHERT COMMISSION. 1433 6. That the best mackerelflshiiig is about one mile or one mile and a liiilf from thecoastliue of tlio shore, and very frequently the best catches are made inuuh closer to tlie shore than that. 7. Tliat the mackerel-fishing prosecuted in boats from the shore is cbietlv within the limits of two miles. At times the schools of mackerel tjofiirtlier out, extending as tar as three miles and and beyond that; but I iiave no hesitation in positively swearing that at least nine-tenths (Ollltlis) of the mackerel caught by the boat-tishermeu are taken within ibe three mile limit. 8. I bave known good catches to be taken as much as five miles from shore in the fall of the year, but that is a very rare occurrence. 9. llie American tishing- fleet are frequently, during the season, fish- ing oil Kustico shore. The fleet follow the schools of mackerel, and con- soniieiitly fish within the limits of three miles, but I have never fished oil boiini any of them. When out fishing in my boats, however, I have foiiiul the rteet frequently all rounh all the time and drawing the fish off shore to sea. Sometimes they would drift away from the school, and then beat up to windward ami again drift over the school. This practice is adopted within the tliret'inile limits, and it is with reference to these limits alone I am now spea liiilf. 111. My experience has been that the presence of the fishing fleet tends to break up the schools of mackerel, and our fishing is consequently in- jured. I mean the boat-fishing. The boat-fishers all look upon the ar- rival of the fleet among them as the signal for good fishing to cease. One cause is that too much bait is thrown from the vessels ; and the boats which are anchored have to make way for the vessels which are ilritting. It's universally looked upon among the shore-fishermen as a great injury and loss when the fleet arrives to fish among them. 11. Ill the mouth of May, from the opening of navigation till about the 10th of June, I prosecute with dories the herring-fishery. These her- rings are all taken within about half a mile from the shore. My aver- agecatuh of herrings per season would be a little over one hundred bar- rels. These herring are use That I have been engaged in fishing since the year 1867, both in I vessels aud boats, and know the fishing grounds from Booue Bay, New- 1434 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. « '!"\ iiii \l\ ii..:tti foun(Uan<1, round this iHlaiKl, Cnpe Breton, New Brunswick Hlinres, and np the St. Lawrence to Seven Islands Bay, and the Labrador Hhore Newfoundland from Boone Ba> to Cape Kay. 2. Tliat, at the present tiino and for live years past, I have lu'cn enga{;ed in fishing at New London Harbor, and tliere are about oik; limi. dred and fifty boats engaged in fishing out of that harbor and round tho sand hills and beach, and tlie number is increasing fast and has doiiltled within the last year; and three years ago there were not more thmi thirty boats where the hundred and fifty are now. The boats aro now larger, better built, and equipped, and, in fact, superior in every way to what they were three years ago. I should say, from my own actual kiiiiwl- edge as an owner and employer of boats, that the capital invested in the boat fishing has itutreased from fifteen to twenty fold in New Lomloti and neighborhood during the last three years. Where three years a;;o I could sell one hundred bushels of salt for curing fish, I can now w\\ five thousand bushels, and where I bad five hundred dollars invested then I have ten thousand invested now. Three years ago there was only one fishing stage doing business on New London beach— doiii<( business with three boats —and now there are eleven stages doin^ biisi ness on the beach, giving employment to about fifty boats and about two hundred and fifty men. 3. That the causes of the increase in the boat-fishing is that men found it paid, and that they could make money easier in that tliaii in any other way; it also gives employment to the men at home, as there is a surplus population growing up who have no lands for farming^, and who are able to find remunerative employment in boat-fishing, while they would not be able to get employment in other ways without leaving the country. 4. That the average crews of Ihe boats, taking one with anotlier, are about four men to each boat, clear of the stage and shore men. Tliere is generally one stageman employed for every boat. Besitles tliese, there are also coopers, cooks, and clerks, and sometimes inspectors em- ployed, the number of whom vary, and it would be difiioult to give an estimate of their number, although they are a good number. 5. That the boats, as a rule, catch about ten quintals of codQsb before the mackerel come, and when the mackerel strike, the boats, taking small and large together, catch, on an average, one hundred barrels of mackerel each during the season, worth about $1,000. 6. That nine-tenths of our mackerel are caught within one and one- half miles from the shore, and I may say the whole of them are caught within three miles of the shore. There may be an odd catch of mack- erel got more than three miles from shore, but that does not often happen. The greater part of the codfish caught by hand-line are caught at from two to five miles from the shore, and all the codfish caught by the trawl or set lines are caught within three miles from the shore. There are no mackerel or codfish at all caught by the boats outside of the three-mile limit — that is, outside of a line drawn from points three miles oft' the headlands ; while the herring are all caught close inshore, witbiu two miles of the shore. 7. That I have fished about five years in the bay, in schooners. I fished in five British vessels in the bay, and in one Anierican. I was master of four of the British vessels, and I was master of the American vessel after we cleared from Boston. An American had to clear her out of Boston. 8. That in the British vessels I have taken, on au average, three hundred barrels of mackerel each year. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1435 9. TImt in the year 1870 [ flHhed in the American schooner Ida E. Davis, of Harwich, in the United States, a scliooner of about Hfty tons liiinlcii, and carrying thirteen hands. In her we were out about two mouths, or about half or two-thirds of the mackerel season, and caui;ht two liuiidred and thirty barrels of mackerel. Ninetenthaof these mack- erel were caught within two miles of the shores of the Magdalen Ishiuds mid of tliis island. The Dominion cutters were round that year, and we risked the vessel and outfit iu order to llsh near the shore. The outfit belonged to me. 10. That it would not be worth while for vessels to fit out for the bay tisliitij; if she could not flsh within three miles of the shore. During the live years that I was Ashing in schooners I never saw a schooner get a good cateh more than three miles from the shore. 11. That I should put the average catch of the Arn'rican schooners in the bay during the last ten years, at the least, at from three to four biiiKlred barrels of mackerel each. L'. That the American schooners do harm to our boat tLshing, be- cause, when they see the boats getting fish, they come in and drift tlowu iipuii aud lee-bow the boats, taking the tish away. They come inshore ami tlritt down on the boats, and oti the shore, throwing bait and carry- iiifj the fl«h off with them. The boats have often to get under way to iivoid being run down by the schooners drifting. When the American tieet comes, fishermen lock upon their arrival as the end of the good Ushini;. They break u|» the boat-fishing : they also do harm by clean- iiii; their fish on the fishing grounds and throwing the offal overboard. Fish will not stay on the grounds wheu the offal has been thrown over. 13. That I have beeu engaged for seven years herring-fishing at the Magdalen Islands, Atiticosti, Labrador, aud Newfoundland, and the her- ring are ail cuught within one mile of the shore. That there is a large tleet of American fishing vessels getting herring at Magdalen Islands every year. They seine the herring and ship them off to the States and West Indies. At the Magdalen Islands and at Anticosti the Americans do a h»t of trawling for halibut near the shore. At L ibrador aud New- toimdiaiiil the Americans have from one hundred aud fifty to two hun- dred vessels fishing herring every year. These herring are all taken iu tlie rivers and bays, aud are sent to the States, to Sweden and to the West Indies. They use these herring for baiting their Georges and Bauk fleets. U. That we find thiit the mackerel strike iu here from the northward and work \i[> i .is the south and along the shore, and towards the end ' Hic ^ ison they work back. The Americans, aud all experienced fish- . low about the way the fish go, and are able to follow them up. I'hat the rip^' of transshipment is a very valuable privilege to the iwricauH, as thi.y save thereby about a fortnight each trip, which. 'J beiiij; kept on board, and do not bring such good prices. JOHN A. McLEOD. 1436 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sworn to at Kensington, in Prince County, Prince Edward Islund. this I4tb day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. ' THOMAS n. snrs. Justice of the Feace for Prince Countti. No. 304. f'\ T, Jambs McDonald, of Cheps^iw, in King', County, Prince Elwanl Island, master-mariner, make oatli and say : 1. Tliat I have been engaged in Ashing in one way or another ever Bince I was old enough to tisli, in both boats and schooners; some of tlui schooners belonged to this Island, and the rest of them belonged to tbo United States. That I have been fishing in schooners for seventeen years, and have fished all round tliis island, from North Cape to Knst Point, and from Scliimenac to St. A.nnes, on the Canada shore, ami then to Seven Islands, the Labrador shore, up Bay Chaleur, Gaspo Bay, ami all round the Magdalen Islands. 2. That, taking one year with another, since 1860, the average lleet of American fishermen in the bay would be fully five hundred sail; there w^ere not so many last year, but this year they are coming down again. This year they are coming down seining. I was on board one this year, and they had seines for botb deep water and for shallow. 3. That in the American schooners, in which I fished, we nsed toeatch on an average five hundred barrels of mackerel each year. I have tisliel on both this shore and the American shore, and this is much betti^r tiiau the American fishing. That two-thirds of the fish caught in Aiiiricau and other schooners are caught within a mile and otie-haK troin the shore; the best fishing is generally' closeinto the shore. I was inastei' of an American vessel about five years ago, and have sailed in Ameri- cans as tisherman at other times. I have been part of three seasons Bsli- ing on the American shores, and the other part fishing in the gulf, and there are more mackerel in the gulf round our shores than there aru round the American shores. 4. That in the spring of the year vessels from all parts go to the Mag- dalen Islands to catch herring. I have been there often. It is the besf, herring fishery in the gulf. There are Americans, Nova Scotiaiis, and others. There are, on an average, about two hundred sail of American vessels getting herring down there every year. The herring are all caught right close in on the beach. There are large catches made there. The Americans send a great part of these herrings to Sweden now, that being their market. 5. That in the fall of the year there are large numbers of vessels down in Newfoundland, at Boone Bay and other places, getting herring. There are about one hundred sail of American herriug-ttshermeu whicli go down to the northward of Newfoundland every fall. In the winter about two hundred sail of Ainericans go down to Bay Foriuue to get herring to freeze for the New York and other markets. 6. That the right of transshipment was of considerable advantap;e to the Americans, as they could send their fish on in the steamer.*, without having to go home in tl' Jr own vessels with their fish, and they could in this way save much time. They save about tour weeks in this way, which would be equal to a trip saved. They can also fit out here as cheap, or cheaper, than they can at home. The great advantage is however, that it enables fishermen to watch and take advantage of the markets; they can find out what the prices are, and sell their hsh "to arrive." In the schooners in which I fished, we several times trans- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1437 sbipped in Charlottetown, and sent the mackerel on bv tlie Alharabra and other steamers. We never lost anything by sending the flsh on in this way, and we made money by catching good i)rice8. JAMES Mcdonald. Sworn to at Souiis, King's County, Prince Edward Island, this 2l8t (lay of July, A. D. 1877, before me, the words opposite my initials being first iuterliued or erased. JAMES E. McLEAN, J. P. No. 305. ip Nnmber Forty - I'man, make oath I, Daniel MoCormack, of Black Bush, in Townshif five, ill King's County, I'rince Edward Island, flsher iind siiy : 1. That I have been engaged in fishing in schooners for ten or eleven vears, ill lioth Island aiul American schooners, and have fished all down this gulf, and for three years mackerel and cod fishing ou the American coast, and 1 know the fishing-grounds well. 2. That tlio first live years 1 was down here in Americans we used to opt from seven to nine hundred barrels of mackerel each season. 1 was in ii small vessel. In 1871, or the year the cutters were around, I was down in tlie Annie Lewis, from Maine, and we only got one hundred and forty barrels ; the reason wo got so few was that the cutters kept us invay from the shore, and the mackerel were ou shore so we could not ict jjood CMtt'hes. 3. In the year 1874, I was down here part of the year on board the Clytie, and tliat season she got five hundred and forty barrels of mack- m\. These fish were caught right in as close as we could get to the shore. 4. That r fished for some time on the American coiisf, and the seining thiMe has destroyed the fishing. The seines both tViguteu the fish, ainl kill larijfi quantities of them. This year and last there have been no lish to be had there, they having been frightened away or destroyed by the seiiu's. Tue seuies take a large l)ody of fish, both large and small, ami they can only cure a small quantity of them, aiul the rest, including all the small lish, are tiirown overboard and sink to the botton). These hsh rot at the bottom and poison the other lish or drive them away, Ilielieve, and all practical fishermen believe, that this seining has been tilt) cause of the breaking up and destroying of the American fisheries. Tlii'ir tislieries are not now worth mucli for tliat reason. They are only iiiMv bcfriuning to seine ronnd here now. When we left their shores ou thefoiuch of this month, the Americans were intending to come down liwe witii their whole fleet, as they could not get any mackerel ou their own ^'rounds. "i. That the right to transship here is of great advantage to the Americans, as they save nearly three we>*ks, as a rule, by being able to land and transship here instead of having to take their fish honm in tlu'ir own vessels. This would be equal to another trip in the summer. Thtycaii also refit here chea|)er than they can at home. I have known mtaoH theiu come down here and fit out instead of doing so at home, Kii awouiit of its being cheaper. ^ That, judging from my own experience of the two coasts, I am of <|i'iiiioii that it would not pay the island or Canadian vessels to fit out fof tishiug ou the American shores. DANIEL McCOKMACK. 1438 AWARD OF THE FISHERT COMMISSION. Sworn to at Souria, in King's County, Prince Eiward Island, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES B. Maclean, Justice of the Peace for King's County. No. 306. f.'h *'K, If ti Pif)"' (bil P I, Angus B. McDonald, of Souris. in King's County, in Prince Ed- ward Island, fisherman and trader, make oath and say : 1. That I have been engaged in fisliing out of the United States, off and on, for the last twelve years. I fished one summer in an island schooner, and traded one summer in an island vessel. The rest of the time I was in United States vessels. 1 have not much acqnaintniiee with the boat-flshing. In the schooners I have fished around this island principally; also at the Magdalen Islands, and for herring at New- foundland, and also up Bay Chaleur, and on the New Brunswick and Quebec coasts. 2. That there are large fleets of Americans, numbering from eight hun- dred to one thousand sail, engaged in the different coil flshinj; waters, and these all get their bait along the shores of the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland, and without the bait got on these shores they could not go cod-fishing. They can only get bait on their own shores for a couple of months in the year, and that bait won't suit the cod-fishin;; on the Banks, as it consists of pogies, and they get spoilt before they get down to the Banks, so that now they must get herring for bait on our shores, or they cannot get codfish. From Gloucester, and other places ia the United States, there are about four hnndred sail in the winter season en- gaged in fishing herring at different parts of the Dominion and New- foundland shores. They freeze these herring for bait and also for their city and country markets. From Bay of Islands and other parts of New- foundland there are about fifty American vessels engaged in earning herring in bulk. The vessels engaged in cod fishing use about four hun- dred barrels of herring each, during the run of a year, and these have all to come from our shores. These herring are all caught ri«,'ht in on the shore, all of them within a mile of the laud. They are seined and netted. Large quantities of the herring are also sent away by the Americans from those shores to the Swedish and other foreign markets. 1 have been engaged myself for two winters in Boston, putting up New- foundland herring for California and other States. At the present time and for years past the Bank cod fishing is entirely dependent on the herring fishery. I have fished a great deal on the Banks ; at one time 1 fished on the Banks of Nevefoundland and Nova Scotia for three years in succession, winter and summer, and as soon as our herring were done we had at once to start for the British Possessions for more, or our voy- age would have been at an end. 3. That on an average each cod-fisherman takes 3,500 quintals of cod- fish in the year, or 350,000 pounds weight of pickled fish, all of which are caught with the herring, caught as mentioned in the last section. Even the codfish caught on the George's Banks are taken with herring caught on the British shores, as also the haddock caught for the Boston and otlier markets. I have been engaged at that business a great deal. 4. Tliat I lived in both Boston and Gloucester, and fished out of lioth places, and boarded many of the American fishermen, and my own per- sonal experience, and what I learnt from other practical flshernuMi with whom I came in contact, all pointed to just what I have said about the herring and cod fishing. r M AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1439 5. That many of the Britiah fish are better than the American, such IS tbe Strait salmon, and help to sell the American fish. G. Tliiit I was engaged in mackerel fishing in American vessels ft>r four years in tbe gulf; tbe first year 1 was out mackerel fishing was in 1805 on board the B. D. Haskius, of Gloucester, of about 60 tons, and carrying 15 men. We got within a few barrels of 800 barrels of mack- erel in ber tbat year. The greater part of these, I Bhould say three- ntiarters at tbe least, were carnal within two and three miles of the sbore. Near tbe shore is always tbe best mackerel fishing. 7. That in 186G I was out in the Helen M. Woodward, of Gloucester, of about 80 tons burden, and carrying about 18 hands. We caught 600 barrels of mackerel in her. These were all caugbt in close to shore ; half of tbeiH were caught when we were sprung up to anchor at the Majrtlnleu Islands, not having room to drift. 8. That in 1871 I was fishing in the gulf in theAdele, a Cbarlottetowu vessel chartered by Americans. Sbe was about 70 tons burden, and tarried 10 bands. We took 700 barrels of mackerel in her, all of which were caugbt inshore ; after the mackerel flshitjg was over she went to >'e\vfoun(lland for the herring fishery. 9. That I was out part of tbe season of 1872 in the j*acbt Rambler, for two months and a half; she was an American, and carried nineteen hands. We caught four hundred and seventy barrels of mackerel in ber. They were all caugbt right round the shore of this island and close inshore. We used to have to watch the cutters close that year. 10. That I was out in the River Dale, the fourth American vessel, in tliegulf for about a month and one-half, after tbe 5th of September. We caught three hundred and twenty barrels of mackerel in her. Sbe was about sixty-five tons burden and carried fifteen hands. Before coming in ber that season 1 bad made two trips to t e Banks in tbe Yoseuiite, and in her we took over three hundred tbousaud pounds weight of codfish. 11. That when I was in the gulf there used to be a fleet of five hun- dred sail of American schooners fisbing down bere in tbe gulf, and nearly all tbeir mackerel were caugbt close to tbe shore. It would not have been worth while to come down to the gulf at all for fish if they were not allowed to fish close to shore. VI, That tbe cutters interfered a great deal with the American fisbing when I was out, as at sight of tbe cutter's smoke tbe schooners had to leave the tisbing-grounds and clear out, sometimes losing the fish for a week on that account. Tbe sailing-cutters were better than the steam- ers, as the suioke of tbe latter could be seen a long way off, and we could either salt our fish or throw them overboard before tbe cutters reached us. 13. That the American seiners are now seining down here already ; they have left tbeir own sbore because tbe fish on tbeir own coast have heen destroyed or driven away by the seines. Tbe seiners take a school of mackerel or other fish in their purse-semes and scoop as many of them onloard as tbey can, and then tlie rest of tbe mackerel get smothered in the purse of tbe seine and sink, and tbe seiners h ive to let go their lines and empty tbe fish out, or lose their seines. These dead fish sink totiie bottom and rot, and poison or drive away the other fish, whether mackerel or codfish. There are large quantities of herring killed in tbe sauie way. Tbe opinion of fishermen, even the seiners tben^selves, is that the seining destroys the fishery. U. Ihe Americans clean their fish on board and throw the blood and gurry overboard, and that poisons and kills the fish. That kills tbe 1440 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. boat-fishing altogether; it does not hart the schooners much, as they can run somewhere else for another school. 15. That the right of transshipment is a very valaable privile;;e to the Americans, as they can refit here as cheap or cheaper than they can at home, and they save on an average at least two weeks the tii|» In- not having to run home, which would amount to another trip during the season. They also gain a great deal by being enabled to get their fish down quick to market, and being thereby able to watch and take advantage of good prices. When there is a large quantity of mackerel on board, the barrels get knocked about and get damaged so as to lose the pickle, and then the fish get rusted and spoiled so that they lose their quality and are sometimes entirely destroyed. The rigiit of trans shipment prevents this, as the fish can be taken out of the holds of the vesselo ar: J shipped away without getting damaged. ANGUS B. McDOXALD. Sworn to at Souris, in King's County, in Prince Edward Island, this 24th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, the words ot>posite my initials Laving been first interlined. JAMES R. Maclean, Justice of the Peace for King's Countij, No. 307. r, Peter IMcDonald, of Souris, in King's County, in Prince Edward Island, master mariner, make oath and say : 1. That I have been four seasons fishing in British vessels, and four seasons in American schooners; always mackerel-fishing. 2. That I fished in tlie Mary Ellen, of this port, for part of one sea- son, or about four weeks. We got about one hundred and eighty bar- rels (if mackerel. She carried sixteen or seventeen hands. 3. That 1 fished about eight weeks one season in the Comus, of this ])ort, and we got two hundred barrels of mackerel. She was about flfiy tons burden, and carried fifteen hands. 4. That I fished in the Dominion, and was master of her one season, until August the 24th. We had then landed two hundred banelsot mackerel. She was sixty nine tons burden and carried sixteeii iiaitiis. 5. That I fished in the Florence Silver, of Charlottetown, the rest of the season that I was out in the Dominioa. Wo got over two hundred barrels while I was in her. She was sixty tons. G. That the first American vessel I fished in was the Abbie M. Heatii. I fished about half the season in her. We got three hundred and twenty barrels of mackerel in her in that time. She was about sixty tons and carried sixteen hands. 7. That the next American schooner I fisln d in was the Oriental, ii schooner of about fifty-five tons and carrying fourteen hands. We were out from September till the end of October in her in the same year that I was in the Abbie M. Heath, and iu her iu that time we caught three hundred and fifty barrels of mackerel. 8. That 1 sailed two seasons in the John Smith, and the first summer we got six huiulred and fifty barrels, and the next season we got four bundrc'i and fifty. We only made one trip the second season, and t«n the first, taking our fish home ourselves. She was about sixty tons and carried fifteen hands. 9. That I was out in 1871 in the Cadet, an American schooner, and got six hundred and fifty barrels. That was the year the cutters wore round. Part of the time I was master of this schooner. Wetraus shipped at Causo, and were iu that way enabled to make three trips. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1441 10. That tUree-quarters of all the fish caught by ns ia any of these vessels were caught within three miles of the shore. In the Cadet they were all caught close into shore ; in fact, two of her trips were almost entirely caught while she was sprung up to anchor off Nail Pond and other places along the shore. The cutters disturbed us a great deal, otherwise we would have caught more fish. We had to watch the cut- ters close, and had continually to hoist sail and leave the grounds on their account. 11. That for my own part I would not fit out a vessel for fishing if I had not tbe privilege of fishing within three miles of the shore. 12. That the American schooners, to my own knowledge, interfere considerably with the boat-fishing, as when they see the boats getting tish they make up anf' loe-low them, taking away the fish. I have often seen that done, and have been in vessels myself th.at used to do that. That of course spoils the fishing for the boats. 13. That the Americans clean their mackerel on board their vessels and throw their gurry overboard. That spoils the boat fishing, as the mackerel will not bite when there is any blood or gurry about. It does not hurt the schooners, as they work away from the gurry. U. That the seining breaks up the schools of mackerel and frightens tlitnu off. That, in seining fish, large quantities of fish are taken that cannot be cured, or are too small for use, and these are lost entirely. I have seen large quantities of herring destroyed in this way. Seining is the destruction of the fisheries. This bay is now beginning to be full of seiners. Seven seiners have come into this harbor (Souris) this even- iug. They destroy the boat-tisliing entirely. 15. That the right of transshipment is of considerable value to the Americans, as tliey can fit out here and in Canso, except for bait, cheaper and just as well as tbey can at home. They also save enough time in tbe summer when the fishing is good to make another trip. They can save about a fortnight each trip. 16. That there are considerable numbers of American vessels engaged every season at the Magdalen Islands seining herring. They get as many herring there, as a rule, as they want. These herring are salted or smoked, and numbers of them sent to the .Vest Indian market. 1". That 1 have been on the Newfoundland coast when the American cod-flsheruien came in to get bait and ice. Tbey get large quantities of berring and ice there for the cod-fishing. At that season they could not get bait tor the codfish anywhere except on the Newfoundland or Nova Scotiau shores, so that the cod-fishing is dependent on the berring fishery. If tbe cod-fishermen could not get bait on the British coasts they couid uotgetit anywhere else, and consequently could not get any codfish. IS. That in tbe spring of the year the codfish and mackerel come into tbe bay from tbe southward and strike the Magdalens, and then the mackerel go toward the Bay Ohaleur, and then tbey strike up toward Bank Bradley and North Cape, and toward the middle of the summer tbey begin to work back again. The American fishermen understand tbe routes and customs of the fish, and know where to strike them at tbe different parts of the season. Tbe mackerel season lasts from about Ibebeginuing of July till about the middle of October, here. PETER Mcdonald. Sworn to at Souris, in King's County, in Prince Edward Island, this 24tbday of July, A. 1). 1877, before me, the words opposite my initials having been first interlined. JAMES R. MoLEAN, Justice of the Peace for Kirn/s County. 91 F 1442 :*'i ' ii I if '!'■■ m HI.,, AWAPn OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 308. I, John McIntyre, of Fairfield, Township No. 47, in King's Couuty, Prince Edward Island, master mariner, make oath and say: 1. That I have had experience in the mackerel-fishing for tlie lust thirty-five years, and also in the cod-fishing, in both boats and scliuouers, in both island and American schooners, having fished all round the galf fishing grounds, and also on the United States coasts, and I know the fishing grounds well. 2. That from East Point to Black Bush there are about one hundred boats, besides dories, engaged in fishing, that is in a distance of fifteen miles. The number is increasing fast. The number has doubled iu the last year, and are still increasing; there are not yet enough boats for the crews. 3. The reason T give for the increase in the boat-fishing is, tbat fish ing pays better than anything else, and it affords employment to ])eo|)Ie who can get no other employment. It is a ready-money business, aud pats a lot of money into circulation. 4. That these boats take, on an average, crews of three men to a boat. The boats along here are small, as we liave to beach the bouts. 5. That the boats get as many herring on this shore as are required for bait through the season, and .also for home use. They do not try tor more than that. They might take quantities to export, if attention were given to the business. There are any quantities of them along the shore. These boats for the whole season, taking one season with another, take, on an average, one hundred quintals of codfish aud bake to a boat; some years more and some years less. They also average fifty barrels of mackerel in the season to each boat. The herring are taken right inshore, within a couple of hundred yards of the sbore; in the summer season they are taken as far as a mile and a half from the shore. The codfish are all taken at from half a mile to three miles from shore. All the mackerel here are taken inshore, within a mile of land. 6. That I was fishing round this island shores in the island schooners ^neas McIntyre and in the Emerald. In the former of these I fished two years, and was master of her. We packed out the first year three hundred barrels of mackerel — we were only out six weeks that season. The second year we were also out six weeks, and got two hundred barrels. She was a schooner of sixty-two tons burden, and carried fourteen hands. In the Emerald we were out not more than live or six weeks, and we got about two hundred and sixty barrels of mackerel. These fish were all caught inshore, none of them more than three miles off. 7. That I fished for seven or eight seasons in American vessels, among which were the Isabella, Robert D. Rhodes, the P. H. Corliss, the Horatio Babson, Albert Clarence, B. S. Young, the Luciuda, and the Native. 8. That I was on board the Isabella the same year that I was in the Emerald, for ten days, and iu that time we took two hundred aud sixty barrels of mackerel. She carried thirteen men. 9. That I was in the Robert D. Rhodes for three weeks, and in that time v^e took two hundred and seventy barrels of mackerel. She was about sixty tons burden and carried thirteen hands. 10. That I was three weeks in the P. H. Corless, during which time we took two hundred and sixty barrels of mackerel. She was about fifty tons burden and carried twelve hands. She fished round this island, between here and North Cape. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1443 11. That I was fisbing in the Horatio Babson about four weeks, dur- \ne wbicb time we took two hundred barrels of mackerel. She was atK)nt seventy tons burden and carried fourteen or fifteen hands. 12. Tbat in the Albert Clarence we fished about the Magdalen Islands. I was in ber for five weeks. We took two hundred and eighty barrels of mackerel. She was a vessel of one hundred and ten tons burden and carried nineteen hands. 13. Tbat I was out in 1873, the year of the big August storm, in the B. S. YoHiig, for four weeks. We did very little in her, only taking one baiulred barrels of mackerel. She was a vessel of eighty tons burden and carried seventeen hands. U. Tbat in the Lucinda and Native we fished principally on the American shore. We fished principally out ten or twelve miles from the coast and on the Banks. VVe did pretty well in the Native but not in the Lncinda. lo. That in all the vessels in which I fished in the gulf, we fished along the shore of the bend of this island, and at the Magdalens right inshore. From one to three miles oft" is the best fishing-ground. 1(5. Tbat, including the whole gulf, the American fishing fleet for the past ten years has averaged good six hundred sail. I have counted over three bundred sail of them within sight at one time. They begin to come down here about the middle of June and stop till November, mak- ing two or three trips each season. 17. Tbat the American fishermen, both cod and herring fishermen, (lean their fish on the fishing-grounds and throw the offal overboard. That hurts the fish. It sickens and poisons the fish, and drives them awy from the grounds. 18. Tbat the Americans are now coming down on our shore seining. Some of them have already caught large quantities of fish by seining. Seining destroys the fisheries, as it scares the fish and kills a great many. Tbat is what has injured the fishing on the American shores. 19. Tbat, from what I know of both shores, it would not be worth while for Canadian or island fishermen to fit out for the American shores. It would not pay them to do so. :;0. That the privilege of landing their fish, transshipping, and refitt- ing is a great advantage to the Americans, as they lose so much time, I should say, on an average, three weeks each trip, by having to go home with their fish. They can also refit here as cheap as they can at home. The time saved during the season would be at least equal to a trip saved during the year. It is also a great advantage, as enabling them to watch and take advantage of the fish markets, which are very changeable. I'l. That I believe the fish come into the gulf through Canso and by Cape Xorth, and then strike for the Magdalen Islands, and from there they strike up towards the North Cape of this island, and towards the north shore generally. The American fishermen understand all about the routes of the fish and follow them up. JOHN McINTYEE. . Sworn to at Fairfield, in King's County, Prince Edward Island, this 'M\ day of July, A. D. 1877, before me, the words opposite my initials having been first interlined or erased. JAMES McDonald, Justice of the Peace for Kings County. 1444 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 309. ml jfitr; %r 1 m I, Michael McDonald, of French River, in New London, iti Queen's County, Piinue Eilward Island, fisherman, make oath and say : 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for about twenty-flv« years in both boats and schooners. I have been in island, New Brunswick, and American schooners, and I know the fishing grounds well, havJDg fished np the Bay Chaleur, round this island, Cape Breton, the Magdalen Islands, and elsewhere. 2. That there are about one hundred and fifty boats fishing out of New London, the harbor and beach, and the number is increasing fast; it is only about six years since the boats began to go in for fishing to any extent. 3. That the boats take on an average crews of four men each, besides the men employed at the stages, of whom there are a good number. 4. That the boats are now better built, better modeled, and better fitted out than they used to be ; people are paying more attention to the business than they did a few years ago ; they find that the fishing pays, and that is why people go in for it. There is a class of men now coming on who give their whole attention to fishing and attend to nothing else. 5. That I have been fishing in island vessels for the last eleven years. On board these vessels we used to get from two hundred and fifty to three hundred barrels of mackerel a trip, and we used to make on an average two trips a summer, making for the whole summer average catches of from five to six hundred barrels of mackerel. 6. That we caught about three-quarters of our fish close to shore, within three miles from land. The best fishing is from one mile and one-half to three miles from shore. We used to catch our fish up the Bay Chaleur, round the island coast, and Cape Breton. 7. That I sailed out of Portsmouth in New Hampshire, in the United States, for two years, one year on board the schooner Commonwealth, and the other year on board another schooner, both of which fished down in the bay. They did not do very well, as they did not get more than sixty barrels of mackerel each year. The reason for the smallness of their catch was that they were not well acquainted round the bay and fished too far from the land, catching most of their fish about nine miles oft" the shore. They would have done better in closer to the shore. At that time the cutters were about and the Americans were afraid of them ; some of their schooners were taken by the cutters those years. 8. That I was out one season in the schooner Water Lily, of Carlton, New Brunswick, and on board of her we did pretty well, getting over six hundred barrels of mackerel. She was of about seventy tons bur- den, and carried seventeen or eighteen hands. These six hundred bar- rels were nearly all caught around the island shore, mostly all at from one and one-half to three miles from shore. 9. That there have been large fleets of American vessels down in the gulf fishing every year ; I have seen as many as two hundred at one time in Port Hood, and that would be only a part of their fieet. 10. That the right to refit and transship the fish is a great advantage to the American fishermen down here in the gulf. They are able to land their fish, send them away in the steamers, and take in aimtlier outfit without losing much time. By being able to transship here and refit instead of going home with their fish, they sive a fortnight each trip, and that right in the fishing season. That would amount to another trip in the course of the season as a general thing. 11. I do not think it would be worth while for the Americans to fit AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1445 out and come down here to flah unless they were allowed to fish within three miles of the shore. MICHAEL Mcdonald. Sffoni to at French River, in New London, Queen's County, Prince Fdwanl K»>l .. V 11. Ti«' 'I 4'r- H ^f^;- ll-' ■"0™ [c^H : Islf^" ft 'f'J:^- ~;M i |!'- V *U^ jS «2^' ' ■.■■■af- JKir ; •> :l!l^. ^'jiiin S'.:;«y" j*.,i"i 1450 AWARD or THE FISHERY COMMISSION. that are killed iu t lis way are thrown out ami rot in the water, and that goes still further to ruin the flshinfj. Fishermen believe, by what thev Bee, that this seining will destroy the fishing iu a short time. CHAS. McEACHAX Sworn to at Souria, in Kings County, in Prince Edward Island, this 24th day ol" July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES R. MACLEAX, Justice of the Peace for Kings Countij. No. 314. I, Daniel C. IMcLean, of Black Bush, Townshij) Number Forty five. in King's County, in Prince Edward Island, fisherman, make oathaud say: 1. That I have been engaged in fishing in both boats and schooners; in both island and American schooners. I have fished iu both iu the gulf and on the American shoie. 2. That this year there are more boats in the fishing on our side than there were ever before, and the number is increasing very fast. The reason for the increase is that the fish are becoming more valuable, aud it is a better business than anything else to engage iu. 3. The boats along our side take crews, on an average, of three men each. These boats get in the spring all the herring they want for bail in the other fisheries during the season. These boats last year averaged fully forty quintal of codfish each, but they were only at codfish for three weeks last season. They also get large quantities of mackerel, This year promises to be a good year. 1 have not seen as many mackerel in the bay for the last twenty years as there are now. 4. That three quarters of the fisb caught by the boats are taken within three miles of the laud- Along the shore is the be.^t fishing. In the fall of the year they are farther off. 5. That I was out one trip in the island schooner E. ITodgsoi!. ATe did vv^ry well ia her, but I forget the exact amount. The flsli were all taken within throe miles of the shore. C. That I was out one trip one seasoL, at the end of the season, in the Queen of the Cape, an American schooner. We got about one hundred and eighty bar.'els in her. We were only out in her a short time. 7. That I was out part of one season, in fact for a trip of ten days, in the Ida I). Spoford, in the gulf. We got over two hundred barrels iu that time. She carried fourteen hands. 8. That I fished all the early part of one season in the Queen of the Cape cu the American shore. The fish there were small and not worth catching. The fishing was so bad that we left and came down to tl)e gulf, wheie we did well. y. That the American s'jhooners are now going in for seining here, and that destroys the fishing on tiie coast. It scares and kills the tish. They purse the mackcel up in the seines and the fish smother there, and quantities of tl> jm are destroyed in this way that cannot bf t '..red; and are throw; 'ato the water again. This is the ruin of the ftiiheries. There are a lot of seiners down here now. DANIEL C. McLEA>. Sworn to at Souria, in King's County, Prince Edward Islam', this2."ith day of July, A. I). 1877, before me. JAMES R. MCLEAN, Justice of the Peace for Kiiufs Countn. :i :,. AWARD OF TflE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1451 No. 315. here, ami , the lisli. lor there, be I'lircd; 3 fisheries. :LEA^. '.thi3 2.)tli A5, Couiiiy. I, Danikl McIntyrk, of Black Bush, Township Number Forty-four, ill King's County, Priuce Edward Islaud, master mariuer, make oatli and say : 1, Thiit I liave been engaged ia fisliing since 1859 ; in vessels all the time except two years. Five years i lished in American schooners, and the rest of the time in island vessels. I fished all around the Gulf of i^aint Lawrence, in the herring-fishery, on the Newfoundland shores, and one tall on the American coast mackerel-lishing. L'. That there are now about seventy-live boats engaged in fishing be- tween tins and the East Point, a distance of about eighteen miles. The iiiiinber has increased very much this year ; last year there were about torfy or fifty boats. Tliese boats take crew? of from three to five men ciidi. Tliey get a large qnantity of both codfish and mackerel, and what herring they want for bait. 3. Tliat the mackerel are caught by the boats at within two and two and one-half miles from the shore ; the codfish are farther off. I That I have fished in schooners belonging to this island for twelve years. In the P. ^Eneas Mclntyre I fished one season after August, iiiid we caught three hundred and forty barrels of mackerel. She car- ried sixteen hands. The next year I was in her for four weeks, when ve cot one hundred and sixty barrels. The same year I was in the Jane toi five days, when we got one hundred and ten barrels. The year fol- lowing 1 was in the Mary Pollen for about six weeks; Me took one hundred and seventy barrels ; she carried sixteen bands. After that I was in ilie Amateur for about six weeks in one season; we took a hundred aud thirty barrels ; that was a bad year. After her I was in the Willie, audwe took one hundred and seventy barrels. The next year I was one of the crovv of the Dominion ; in her we brought in about four hun- dred and fifty barrels of mackerel. She was a schooner of sixty-fouv tons bun'eu. The year folio ving I was in the Tyro, and we got four buiulred and seven barrels. She was forty -one tons burden, and carried lourteeu hands ; that was six years ago. After that I was in the Flor- ence Silver, aud we took four hundred and twenty barrels of mackerel. She was sixty-eight tons burden, and carried sixteen hands. After her 1 fished in the Lion; in her we got four hundred and thirty barrels of mackerel. She was thirty eight tons burden, and carried fifteen hands. 0. That these fish, caught in the island vessels, were caught along the island shore, the Bay Chaleur, at the Magdaleus, and in the gulf i."aerally. Ihe greater part of the fish were taken within three milea U the shore. Along shore is the best fishing ground. 0. That I fished one season in the Alfaretta, an American vessel — wo took two hundred and fifty barrels of mackerel ; that was in 1851). After her, I was in the Daniel McPhee, another American, and we got one hundred and ninety barrels. After hei , I was in the Daniel Webster for one trip of five weeks ; we caught two hundred ar\d fifty barrels of mack- erel; she was seventy-four tons, and carried fifteen hands. After her, l^asiu the Nanadaha one .season, and we got two hundred and fifty l'»rrels; she carried fifteen hands, After her, I was in the Grape Shot for the season, when we took in eiglit hundred .ind fortv barrels of mackerel ; she was about sixty-five tons, and carried sixteen hands ; she iiiatle three trips, landing twice in the Gut of Canso. '. The most of these mackerel were caught within three miles of the shore, a good many up the Bay Chaleur and at the Magdaleus. I do m )> 1452 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. t?:'^- «jrli Kit;; f;:[l not believe that it would be worth while to fit out for fisjhiug in the gulf if fishermen were not allowed to fish near the shore. 8. That oue fall I fished iu the Isaac Walter, on the Americau coast bat we did nothing. 9. That the Americans hurt the shore fishing ; as they come in, beave a lot of bait, and drift oif, dragging the fish after them. They also clean their fish on the grounds, and throw the gurry overboard, and that in- jures the fishing; that frightens the fish away from the grounds, and they won't bite while the gurry is about ; it sickens the fish and poisons them. 10. That the right to land here, transship, and refit is a great advan- tage to the American schooners, as they can save about two weeks ami a half each trip right in the heart of the season, which I should think equal to a trip saved iu the summer. They refit here just as cheap as they can at home. 11. That I was two falls down at Boone Bay and Bay of Islands lier ring fishing; the fish are netted there. Tlie Americans go down theie for herring, which they send out to tlie southward. The Fortune Bay herring they freezie for bait and for market. The bulk of the bait im their cod-fishing vessels comes from the shores of these provinces ; in fact, their cod fishery is dependent on the herring fisheries of these provinces. 12. That the Americans are now beginning to seine iu this bay, and that destroys the fishing. The seiners frighten the fish and break ny the schools, so that line-fishermen cannot get fish. Large quantities of fish are also killed by the seines. Large quantities of herring are taken in the seines, and these are killed and all thrown away. Besides her- ring, they kill large quantities of other flsh and mackerel, which cannot be cured and are thrown away. These flsh, sinking to the bottom, rot there, and further injure the fishing. There are, 1 should say, fifteen or twenty seiners dowu bare already, and they are only just begiin,iu, to arrive. 13. That there is a large fleet of American flshing-vessels down here every year. Last year there were not more than one hundred sail ; tlii;' year a large fleet is reported to be coming. 14. That the mackerel, iu the spring, come into the gulf from the southward, and work from the south towards the north. Skillful Usher men know about the courses the flsh take and follow them. DANIEL McINTYRE. Sworn to at Black Bush, in King's County, iu Prince Edward Island) this 26th day of July, A. D. 1877, before me. JAMES MACDONALD, Justice of the Fence for Kimfs Couniij. No. 310. In the matter of the Fisheries Commission at Halifax, under the Treaty of Washington. I, Thomas Milner, of Parker's Cove, in the county of Annapolis, fisherman, make oath and say as follows : 1. I have been acquainted with the fisheries on the shore of this county for forty years. I have taken pollaok, hake, and haddock, and large quantities of herring; about 2,000 barrels of herring beiug taken in this vicinity every year. 2. Twenty-five American vessels come along the coast of this county AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1453 for the same kinds of fish as we take. They get their bate iushore withiu a half a mile of the shore by setting nets iu which they take her- ring. With this bait they tish off to twenty miles and take codfish, haddock, bake, and pollack, and early iu the spring large quantities of halibut by trawling, wJiich is injurious to our fisheries.. 3. These American vessels average from sixty to sixty-five tons regis- tered tonnage, and carry from eight to fifteen men each. They take cod- fish, haddock, bake, pollack, halibut, and herring, and fish all along the coast of this county. They take from four to twelve hundred quintals each. Tbey take about 100 barrels of herring to each vessel for bait. i. These Americans get all their herring withiu half a mile of the shore for bait, and without this bait they could not carry on the fishing in this vicinity. The most of them bring their ice with them in which they preserve bait 5. Thes" \ iicau vessels come here in April to trawl halibut, «nd rpmiiiii 01. EN^DIX H. OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM TSB YEARS 1S27 TO 1S7'> IXCLU8IVB, SHOWINO THE ENCROACHMENTS OP UNITED STATES FISHERMEN IN BRITISH NORTH AxMERI- ('\V WATERS SINCE THE CONCLUSION OF THE CON- VENTUJN OF 1818. No. 1. fEstiactof (lisjiatch from tht* Ki|iht Hon. E;irl of Dallmiisip to the Ri;;ht Ilmi. Earl ' Batliurst, dated Quebec, June 6, lr"i7. ] '•Tlie nomination of tlie superintendent of the fisheries in Oaspe, oblij^es me to a.'e«/i6'r of the Assemhh/. 1460 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 4. TO THE queen's MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. The buQiblo address of the lejiislative council and house of assemlily ot iiova, fScotia in Provincial Parliament. May it please Your Majesty: The council and house of assembly of your loyal Province of Nova Scotia humbly approach Your Majesty with their complaints against the citizens of the United States of America, who violnte witli impii Tiity the provisions of treaties existing between the two nations, tu the injury and detriment of the inhabitants of this colony. Your council and assembly humbly refer Your Majesty to the cniivcii- tion made in the year lhl8, vvliereby the American Government ohtaiiuMi for the citizens of that country privileges not ceded to tlieiii Ity tlie treaty of 1783, antl under the ellW-t of wuich these provinces have laii. guished ever since, and the operation of which is fully explained in tbe annexed rei>ort and documents. The commercial eagerness which characterizes the people of the Uiiitwl States of America, aided by the spirit of their government, has for years caused them to transgress the bounds defined by treaty, and exer(;i>e rights over the fisheries of these colonies not ceded even by the iiulor tuuate convention alluded to. Their fishermen, in violation of that cou- vention, enter the gulfs, bays, harbors, creeks, narrow seas, and wafcis of these colonies; they land on the shores of Prince Edward and tlieMiij,'. dalen Islands, and by force, and aided by superior numbers, drive But' ish fishermen from Banks and fishing grounds solely and exclusivtly British, and by carrying on an unlawful intercourse with needy and un- protected fishermen, induce them to violate all the laws of trade, and introduce feelings and opinions destructive to the principles of a well- intentioned but secluded and uninformed portion of Your Majesty's sub- jects, thus demoralizing and contaminating the ignorant but loyal iu- habitauts along our extensive shores, and most essentially injuring the manufacturers of the United Kingdom, the merchants and ship-owuers of the empire, and the revenue of this and the other provinces. Your council and assembly solicit your royal attention to the address of this province to His late Majesty George the Fourth (hereto annexed) as prophetic of the ettects of the Convention of 1818, and urge Your Majesty to mark the fulfillment of its anticipations in the report of 18;>i. Aware of the solicitude of Your Majesty for the happiness and welfare of your faithful North American subjects, your council and assembly humbly pray encouragement and protection of their commerce and fisb- ery, and that Your Majesty will order small armed vessels to cruise on the coasts of these colonies to prevent such encroachments, or direct two steamboats to be added to the fleet on this station, to resort to tbe various fishing-grounds during the season. And the legislature will cause depots of fuel to be provided for them at the provincial expense. Confident that Your Majesty, considering the foregoing facts, and luiirk- ing the character of tlie times, will adhere to the enlightened policy which has distinguished your illustrious house, and extend to your faithful and loyal subjects of Nova Scotia that protection of their inter- ests which they ask as Britons, and which may prove consistent with the claims of other portions of Your Majesty's extensive dominions. In council, 2lid March, 1838. J. B. ROBIE, President of the Leyislative Council AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1461 In the house of assembly, 20th March, 1838. S. G. VV. ARCniBALD, Speaker of the AnHemhUj, Xo. 5. I'meeilmjH of the peneral asuembl}/ of Nora Scotia upon the ronrenflon cimc1ii(M between His Majesty ami the United States of A nicriva, pub- lished hy order of both houses in general session, at Halifax, in April, 1811). IlALlFAX, SH: Hobert Mollesou Cutler, ot Gnysborongh, in the county of Guy.sborough, es(|iiirp, a member of Her Majesty's legislative council for the Province ol Nova Scotia, maketh oath ami sayeth : That he had been enga{;ed upward of thirty years in commerce and the tisheries of Canso, Fox Island, and Crow Harbor, in Chedabucto Bay, where, until within the last fotuor five years, immense quantities of maclferel were annually ftiught and taken in seines and nets by persons resorting thither from viirious parts of this and the neighboring provinces ; that siu"'^ the citi- ztMisofthe United States have prosecuted the mackerel fisheries to any exrcnt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, those of Chedabucto Bay, aforesaid, liave every year gradually decreased, and are now so seriously injured that they are no longer considered by merchant or flsherniau an object of lirotitiibie pursuit; that being apprehensive the almost entire failure of the tisheries in the said bay would compel many of the fishermen, resident oa its shores, to abandon in utter despair an occupation no longer likely to yield them adequate support, and cause them to remove with their families to a foreign land ; and being desirous of ascertaining the inaetiuahility of prosecuting from the bay the mackerel fisheries upon the system on which they are now carried on by American subjects in British waters, this deponent, by way of experiment and to stimulate others to follow his example, sailed from Guysborough, aforesaid, in the month of Ai\|;ustla8t, in a vessel equipped and manned by him for the purpose, on a inacikerel voyage to the Gulf of St. Lawrence aforesaid, wliere he re- mained about five weeks fishing, sometimes on the sliores of Capo Bre- tnn and Prince Edward Island, within the distance of three miles, and at other times within a half a mile of the shore ; that he frequently observed Ainericaa vessels in numbers of from fifty to seventy along tli3 shores of Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island, many of which were Ashing within the divstance of three miles therefrom; that it is the almost in- varialtle practice of the American fishermen to make a harbor every ^atnrday night and remain at anchor until the Monday morning foUow- iiij;; tlintdiuing hissaid voyage thisdeponent frequently an ihored in the harbors of Prince Edward Island And under Marguerite Island, distant alxnit four miles from the shore, and at Port Hood, in the Island of Cape BiPton, in company with froni forty to sixty Anjerican fishing vessels, whieh seemed to enter the said harbors as freely and with as little re- *;traint as the vessels of British subjects; that this deponent is now per- twtly sitished from actual observation that the manner and system on ^hieh the citizens of the United States prosecute the niackerel fishery on the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in numl)ers almost incredible, "li'stbein the highest degree injurious to the net and seine fishery ear- ned on by British fishermen on the eastern shores of Nova Scotia ; and he ,:,>j.v i m m ■<*^ : •!«'!' ul .(lA 4" n '* '^':f. ' * ■a I ' '" '•'1 ''^'m^ /a V /A IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 !r"- I H IIIII2.5 V 1" I.I m 1122 IS ilio 1.25 1.4 1.8 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO (716) •72-4503 1462 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. hesitates nc. to declare it as bis deliberate opinion that if prompt aud effectaal measures be not soon adopted to prevent encroiicliincntK upon oar coasts, aad the open violation of existing treaties by the tisbenueD uf the United States, the hitherto important and valuable net and s«iiie fishery of Chedabucto Bay, and of Nova 8cotia generally, already so much diminiiihed, will ere lung be eut'rely destroyed. K. M. CUTLEH. Sworn to at Dalifax this 23d March, 1S3S. JOUN LIDDELL, .1. I'. No. 6. Government IIorsK, Fredericton, Janunry UT, l.S.;S. SiB: With reference to the subject of your excellency's coinniumca tion of the luth instant, and the document by which it was afcoinpanietl, 1 have the honor herewith to transmit a copy of information u|hiii <)a;b from two most resi>ectable individuals of this province, detailing; in very clear and forcible terms the unwarrantable proceedings ot Amehcaii fishing-ve^^els within our waters on the northeast coast of this proviu^e. The^e informations, resting on no equivocal authority, 1 should M obliged by your excellency taking an opportunity of comniuniratint: v, his excefleui-y the vice admiral commanding in chief Uer .MajesU> naval forces on the North American station. I have, &c., J. IlAHVEY. His Excellency Maj. Gen. Sir Colin Campbell, K, C. IJ., d"c., iicv. 1,1-.' .• ?.'i''f [luoloHure in No, (i. | New Bki N^wick : Ddhcsd Hay. of Carraimette, in the louiity of Gloiicfster, in tlie I'mx im •• of NVw BruDftirick. brili^b North America, yeouiau, and Charles Coii};hlau, ol the same jiUr. yeoman, make tiath and 8tat« a« follows: First, the jsaid Daniau Hay deposed and saith that he has live«l in Carra/juettf . in the Bay of Cfaaleur, in the Gulf of 8aiut Lawrence, for three years la^t |)u»t. andib.ployed in carryiu-: cu the fishery at Point Miscou, being the outermost point of the island of Mix on. a tith- ing station very mnch resorted to by the inhubituuts on both sides the Hay lit^lLa- lenrs a» weli as other British settlements both in this Province of New BrniiMwii k f ■well as Nova JK-otia, embracing a line of coast of nearly 100 miles; that for the wbnie of the period of rime above mentioned the said tishing-grounds have been diiriug iLi- fishing-T«-aMin frequented by gieat numbers of American tishermen, who ate in the con»tant habit of coming within the line marked out by the treaty subsistinjr betw«ti the British aud American Governments, and in so doing interfering with the Hriii>!i fisbermen. to their very great detriment and the prevention of their takiiij: tish. ttt destrnction in a great measure of the beneticial use of the said fisherj- by Britisli^ol- jects. and dif i>eisiug the shoals of fish. That this deponent has witnessed everj- uar. from the cunmeueement and during the continuance of the fishing seaH)n. iu 'W months of Jane and July, American fishing-vessels, varying in nuiulKjrs from :W. >^'■ 50, and MMnetimes UH) at a time, actively employed in taking fish, and, not content wita BO doing in ibe deep waters, they approach within the small bays and rl»w in wiih the shore. a» well fur catching fish tis for the purpose of taking bait, without ^hi<;'> latter the fi^^bing cannot be carried on, and in so doing frequently directly interii-re with the inhabitants and British fishermen, and, in some instances, bein^ the luo^j nnmcroiu. and. therefore, nut to he restiained or prevented, take such bait oiitii the nets and ^t-ines used by the said inhabitants for taking such bait, and aU> l>y <» nnmhrrof vetKiels extended in continnous lines in iMsitions that break up aii vuiii); NtHtenient as relates to the interference of the American tlshermen in taking ti»li, au(( tlif ntlier interrnptioiiH mentioned by the deponent, Duncan Hay, are correct and tnic, aiul that he iK-rfcctly uoinci«les with hiui an to the means of preventing the sauif. DirXCAN HAY. CHAS. COUCJHLAN. V.irk Sworn tbiB ii4th day of Januiiiy, IrtW, before meat I'redorictou, in the county of THOMAS C. LEK, J. P. Piinran Hay and CliailcK CouKlilan, tlie deponents named in the nccom|tatiying nflB- (LivilH, fiirtbt-r by way of jjcniTal obnervations relating to the subject of the interfer- rDci- ot llif Anifiican liNhernicn, would particulaily mention the mode in which they (arry on tbcir iiohing, wliicli they, thebe infoimant:*, consider to have a vt^ry injurious trt jt im tlic tishery in general. lU the liiMt place, they, the naid .\!nerican fi8hermen. are in the constant habit, after catiliinn till- Hsb, of bringing their vcsKels in very near to the shore, fre<|uently as near :i>iii«'Y will ride, and in that situation clean their tihh and throw overboard the gar- \'A^t. wbicli at that HeaMUi of the year shortly becomes putrid, and has a direct tendency to drive away the shoals of tish there resorting. !«Koiidly, tbej are in the habit, when their vessels are surrounded by a shoal or »lioalH of mackerel, of cutting n|t with machines calculated for that purpose, (|uantities ot liiiU into small pieces, and then scattering the same about to kee]t the shoals about llirir VfKM-ls, and at the sanu* time throwing into the water i|uantitie8 of dry salt, nhicb the tisb seize together with the email cut up bait, which is supposed to stujiefy iir bave siicli eti'ect as to detain them, and thereby the tishermen are enabled to take ii>h ill Kieat i|uantities and break up the shoals. They also tlirow into the water, t()!ttht-r with the said small bait and dry salt, quantities of Indian meal, which ren- iWr:< the surface turbid. This course being pursued by a large number of vessels sta- iioiifd generally across the entrance of the bays and other places into which the mack- rrt'larc in the habit of resorting, necessarily turns their course and ]irevents the Brit- i«li ti'-btrnun fmin taking the saiui; :'..to those bays, coves, and inlets, where they have ahva\>. Ik tore the American fibhermen were in the liabit of fretjuentiug the said tish- iui.'-groiiii(ls, been accustomed to take linh. DUNCAN HAY. fllA.S. COlUillLAN. Fkki'KI!ICT()X. Janiianj 24, IHIW. No. 7. iExtrait Innii the Royal Gazette, vol. 8, dated (.'harlottetowii, Prince Edward Island Tuesday, June 2(1, IKl-.] On tlie evening of Sunday, the 17th iii.stiint. the bark Sir Archibahl Caiii|)bell, Tait, t'loin Maramichi for SniKlerland, in a thick fog, and the sea niuiiiiig high, struck on the reef otV the North Cape of this ishind, anil is A couiplete wreck. The crew got on siiore tiie .same night. Next iiioriiing u boat put ott" for the wreck for the purpo.se of saving what iliey could. An Aniericau tlshing vessel was seen h'aving the wreck; and on the boat's crew arriving on board, they found that the cabin had Wn ruinniaged by the Americans, the lockers broken open, and that all the provisions, and every article they could lay their hands upon in tlie cahin, carried ott', except two flag.s. Not contented with this, they bad also cairieil ott tlie hawsers, two new sails, part of the rigging, and tiie jolly boat. Another boat had in the mean time put ott' from the sbore after the American, and demanded the bark's jolly-boat, which 1464 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION they observed her to have in tow. Ou tbcir demaiidiug it, they were told to be off or tbey would sink tbem. The shore boat was clow enough to discern the name of the schooner, and the port sbe belonged to. Captain Tait and bis crew were busily etk ployed landing all tlioy ooiiM from the wreck, but as there were no less than forty-eight sail ot Ainir ican fishermen close in upon the reef, be ^nas under continual uppreben sion that some of their crews would land and plunder what be bad Maved. It is certainly high time that some means were sidopted to put an cihI to such depredations on our coasts, and for the protection of the tisher ies from the Americans. A few days ago there were a number ot them in the harbor of Kicbmond Bay carrying on their avocation. No. 8. Copy of a dinpatvh from Lieutenant- Qortrnor Sir J. llarrey to lurd Gleuely. Government House, Fredericton, March lt», is.{!). My Lord: I have the' honor herewith to transmit to your lordNliip copy of a report of the House of Assembly of this province, relsitive to the encroachments which continue to be made on the fishing giounds of this province. A copy of this report will also be transmitted by ni»Mo the naval commander-iu chief upon this station, and to Her ^MHJestv's minister at VVasbington. 1 have, &c., J. HAHVIiY. The Right Hon. Lord Glenelg, dr., dr., dr. #: I' «'.. [Incliisuro lu No. 8.) Hoi'SK oi' Assi:miii.v, j;. m% The soleet coimiiittee. to whniu was referrt'd tliat part of tlie petition of W'lKdnl Fisher, .lames ChalVey, J. Siihll, esiiiiires, ami IHI othi-rs, of the parishi-s of (iiainl M;in;in, West Isles, and Cainpo Uello, in tlu- county of Charlotte, rclatinj; to the fn(,'roafliiiit'Ut> which continue to be nia4 province by vessols of the noighboring states, report: 'riiat the afliduvits often credible persons, residents of Grand Mannn, sundry certiii- cates of the overseers of 'he fisheries of the same island, with a uia^sof ollmr ex idciicT, have been laid before your committee, and had most deliberate consider.ttion Iroiu tln'iu. That it muniiVstly appears that the a^K''*''*-'^'*^"'* ^** often complained of, and wi Ire- (Hiently brought under the notice of the lejjislatnre of t!us province, not only liavc imr ceased, but have actually increased, to a de^rree which calls loudly for the iinuiediate interposition of f{overnment. It distinctly appears, from the attidavits and certificates, that from ten to twenty wil of American fishing-vessels are almost ci»ntinually to bt; found at anchor, rattliliiKli»li within one mile ot the shores of (irand Manan, in audncioiis violation of the ii$(ht!ti>f the people of this |)rovincp, and in open and avowed defiance of any force wliicli the inhabitants could possibly l>ring against them. That tho.se persons, resfranied liy im tishery rfgnlations, either Mrilish or American, carry on their lawless j>ractic(s in niimsi reckless nninner, to the great and lasting injury of the fisheries; and that they du unt liesitate to have recourse to viidence in repelling the (isliermeu of Grand Minaii I'niin their own fishing-grounds, by means of which, and of many other <»utrages, this valua- ble source of provincial wealth is almost wholly wrested fr<»m its natural pos.si'ssors. It hiw been satislactorily shown to your committee thar, the overseers of the lislu-rii's of Grand Manan, in the duo execution of their public duty, have froiiuently uiuUavured ;•' -iij .1 W ' AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1465 to prevent tlmsi! proceeilines, but in vain; Imt tln»y liiivf h-wn tlirottfitcil with cor- iKiral rioleiiRH )>>' tbi* A'liHncaii lishMriiieti, wbo ou Hevonil occasioiiit bavo utttiiuitlud to c lutiire iiihI <;nrry tb«iii oft" to tbc StiiteH. Kruiii iiii(1(iuI)(*mI iiiforiiiittiuti luiil before your cnnimittAn it \n inutiifttNt tliat Amerl- C4II uirtcri'iMioiiH of tbiH iiutiiro aru not cotitiiiiMl to tbe Hoiitborii HhontH of tlio |trovinc«. Tli*> Kov of <.'l>uli*iir anil tbn adjacunt liarl>ori« are annually inf<>Ht«Nl l>y Ainnrican liitb- iiii; vmim-Ih, curryiiiK "" >>" illicit tra«lo witli tlii^ inliabitantManil uoniinittiuKMUob d«|t- ri(ii»ti<>ii» npim the tisluiriwH as oa^bt no longer to l>« oiiiluruil. Your Kiiniiiittue oariittHtly Hiiliiiiit tin* Hiilijcct to the ^ravu coiiMidi'ration of the honfto, aiii) ciiiiiKit forlH'iir expresniiiK tlu*ir liopt* that tb« wimloni of tbe houH<> may xiiKgfHt tirh iiriiiiii>t iiieasnri'!* as will iininciliatciv rcinovt' the i;riuvanc«!« uoinplaineil of. ' \V. F. W. OWKN. JAMKS HKOWX, .Irs. W. EVKT. CoMMMTK-KooM, Miinh U), I-;KI. This n'piirt l>t'iii}» acceptml by tlu" honwi — Umhtd. Tiutt an hiiiiiUb- atlUntH!* b<« preMoiiti**! to his ttxuolli'ncy th<> liiMit<«nant-KOV- etiior, ciiiiiiininiciitintf tli)> fort'^oiiiif report ami reiitieMtiii;; that Mh exuelluncy will bo iileati'il to take !4uch nieaiiires theruoii as to him rtliall seem expedient. ' CI I AS. 1'. WIlMi niV., rierk. Ho. 9. TO THE (iUKEN's MOST EX<"ELLF.NT MA.IKSTV. Most (liwioitu Sorereign : We, Your Mnji'sfy'.s «lutiful ami loyal ,sul)jpct.s, tlio k*;;islafive coiniuil and assembly of I'riiice Ktlward Lsland, in }r»Mienil nssi'iiibly coiivtMied, Iminlily a|iproach the Tliroiic, witli siMitiiiuMits of tiio most siiiccru aiul aftt'r the purpose of cruising round our coast to protect the tislieries, is iiuffi'ctive, inasmuch as it crui.ses to visit the several tishing stations iironnti tlie siiores of the Gulf of St. hawi-ence, for which tliey are better ailajitiMJ than for the shallow waters around this island, and the Ameri- tan tislieriiien take advantage of the ab.seiu!e of the shi[> of war to cou- tiiiiic their encroachments. That an armed steamer, drawing but little water, would, in the opin- iitii of the council and as.sembly, be much more ettective in protecting ('111' tislieries fiorn the encroarhmonts of the Aineiicans than a ship of «ar, astlie steamer could take advantage of the light winds and calms !<'Hrei|iient during the fishing season, ami could run into the smaller liays, iiver,>«. and <*reeks of our shores, and seize American vessels, if the tit'ws thereof are acting contrary to and in violation of all the terms of ; tlic <'onvention. ^V, therefore, humbly pray that Your M ijesty will be graciously 1466 AWABD OF TU£ FISHERY COMMISSION. pleased to order that an armiul steamer, drawing but little wiUcr, he |tlat*eon tbis station every season, to i>rotect our UwUerieH i'ruiu the encroach mentN of the Americans. An«l, as in duty bound, we shall ever pray. Council chamber, l'4th March, 1843. K. IIOUSOX, rn>,i,lent. Douse ot asseinblv, L'4th March, 1S4.3. .JOSKPII POPK. Simhr. No. 1(>. Kr 1 ilt ' '^ m^l l^ r • ♦ If': ^-.i ■ Pfj- '^4 / |*-a. P|. Zkv i fi f»^ *■ $T '^^•^4 M [Kxtiaci iiiiiiiiii'i« !1.] I have the honor to inform you tliat on leavin;; Pictou I procofiled to visit, in acrordanre with your orders, the uortii shore of Piiiici* Kiiwani Island. Oil' the eastern shore and about Kast Point, from titty to sixty schmmers were catrliinn maclierel. Five of tliesc were Kii^jlisii. tlu' rest Americans. One ot these, bein^ within the limits, 1 (iniered nil. Sf. I'eteiM. — A small sehooner named tlie Kxperiment, titted oii^ '.y Sir Alexander Itannerman to test the value of the cod tislieries to iln' northward ot the islami, was at an(;lior in the l>ay. She liad not Ikmmi very suecesstui, beiiij; too small to ride on the {{rounds in hlowiiij; weather. Warned oil" four American schooners hove to within the limits, tlioiigb not actually hsiiiuj;. Passed thirty sail of schooners at ni^^lit. Bivfntioml llaibor. — Pour schoojieis were absent, engajfcd in tlic fisheries. AVir LotuJon. — Two schooners engaged in the mackerel fislieries. i'liMumprqiie. — Two schooners belong here, engaged in tishlii^'. aiitlu few boats. Ptirty Knglish and 120 American schooners have been seen at anchor in this harbor at one tinu*, engaged in mackerel lisliin^. Mim'uu hUtiul. — The <»nly firms residing are those of Mr. Botiilieraml Mr. Alexander. They have caught 2,(MK) quintals of cod, wliicii is cmi sidereil a gd average. The firm of Mr. lioutiilier think of ahaiiilnii- ing the island, as the fishing is falling oti'very much. This island, once famous for the quantity of bait that used to strike in, is now eoinpara- lively desert e tons The catch of fish ha sail of American schooners timi it very remunerative to pursue the herring and mackerel fisheries (III the sliores of our northern provinces, while the inhabitants scarcely taiieany, does ini!i<>ed appear strange, and apparently is to be accounted tor Ity the fact that the colonists are wanting in capital and energy. Tlie Jers»\v niest'liants, who may be said to possess the whole labor iiiark«'t, do not turn their attention to these branches. The business of iht'.h'iscy h<»uses is generally, I believe, with one exception, carried on liy agents; these persons receive instructions from their employers to (h'Vdte their whole time antl energy to the catching and curing of cod. Siirh constant attention to one sultject appears at least to engender a Iit'rfect apathy respe»!ting other branches of their trade. They are all aware, I believe fully aware, of the advantages to be derived from cati'iiinj; the herring and mackerel, when these come in shoals within a few yards of their doors, but still nothing is done. Commercial relatmns of long standing, never having engaged in the trade Itcfore, possible want of the kn()wledge of the markets, and the alh'gcd want of skill among the fishermen of the method of catching ami curing these tish, together with the twenty per cent, duty on Kug- hsb hsb in America, may tend to induce the .lersey houses not to enter into these branches. Added to all these reasons the capital of the prin- I'lmlNis, I iun informed, in most instances small. It will probably be iliffictilt to tliul about the Bay of Chaleurs and (iaspe any fishermen not 'iigaged by some one of the numerous .Tersey houses; and it may be said that a new branch of industry would much interfere with the cod fishery, but ao lucrative a trade as the herring and mackerel one would prove would enable higher wages to be given than are done for cod. In tai't I bidieve that very small, if any, wages are given at all, the money <)Q)^totbe fisherman for his sununer labor iH'ing absorlu'd in food and cluthing for himself and family, repairs of boats and fishing-gear, almost 1468 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. always deeply in debt io the spring, or at any rate sufHcieiitly ho to insure his labor for the ensuing summer, and so more i)ersonH would be induced to resort here the summer season. The want of knowledge of the method of catching and curing co'Vid bo easily remeilietl. A little practice, with the aid of some (^overnnifnt inspectors well conversant with the whole o|)eration, together with the moth04l of curing herrings in the Dutch fashion, who should in.s])ec>t and brand the barrels, woulil soon remedy the evil complained of, and give a character and value to their fish. The fishermen, when asked wlir they do not catch mackerel, replied that they have not the ineans, anil that the Americans have some secret of catching the fish, which con sists, I am told, in throwing overboard chop|)ed and crushed bait.thereltv attracting the fitih around their vessel, when they are rea4ly with plenty of hands and good gear to take advantage of the opportunity. The American schooners engaged in fishing during the summer in tlif gulf are, I am told, in the winter employed in the coasting trade, and some fish oft' the Banks near New York. This employment during the winter is an advantage which the vessels of our colonies wouM not have, but this is counterbalanced by having the fish so abundant along the shores at all points as to render the necessity of employment ut' vesseb devoted to that puriiose almost unnecessary. About GOO Amf>rican schooners passed through the Giit of Cansothis year in the prosecution of the mackerel fishing, many of wbi<;h have returned with two or three cargoes. There are three qualitien of mack erel — those taken in the spring are of an inftrior quality, called No. 3; later in the year No. 2, and in the fall No. 1. It is said that from 60 to 70 more sehooiior.s this year than la.st, many of them new, are in the gulf this seu.son. No. 11. (Extract of a tliMputcL from 8ir A. Biuineriiiaii to Knrl Ciroy, tinted Prince Ktlwanl Iiilauil, Noveiubur 15, l';'ol.] 6. To the Unitetl States Government the fisheries are of vast iin portance, an»l they will become more so in tl.sis part of North America when the New Brunswick Railway runs, as is pro|)Osed, near toSliediac, within a few hours' sail of the harbor of Bedoque in this island, from which the produce of the fisheries would be sent to Boston in a very short space of time, leaving the fishing-vessels to prosecute their occu- pation, instead of carrying home their cargoes, as they frequently do,and returning to the fishing-grouuds in the same season, pertormin},' a voy- age of l,liOO to l,50t) miles. 7. Your lordship will have some idea of the magnitude of the Ameri can fleet of fishermen when 1 inform you that about the latter end of September 250 United Staffs schooners came into Malpeque, ou the north side of this island. They are beautifully eqnijjpeil, averaginj: from 60 to 110 tons, and their crews consist of from ten to twelve men each. About 1,"»00 of them landed at Prince Town and attended an agricultural show there. They behaved as well and peaceal)ly as so many sailors congregated together could be expected to do ; but this will not always l^ the case where brandy and rum are to be had cheap. They are under no control, and, as they daily infringe the treaty by fish- ing close to the shore, the LTnited States Government canr.ot be ex- AWARD OF THE F1.«HKKY COMMISSION. 1469 nefUKl to send one of their cruiRerH to euForco it, and othorwiHe to keep tbc ve»<^ amonK tbem. Shoulil nny <1iNtnrb>ince hereafter take place, vliich, frnin mtiny acciilonttil uau8UH, is not improbable, tlie lieutenant- governor of thiH colony would be phiced in a delicate position with the subjects of a foreign yet friendly |M)\ver. No. 1L». TO THE l,»rKEN's MOST EXCELLENT MA.IESTV. We, Your Majt'sty's dutiful and loy^d «ubject«, the legiHlative council ;in(l »«weiiil»ly of I'rince Edward Island, in Colonial Parliament hh- sfiiihleil, iMuiibly beg leave to renew our asHurances of devoted loyalty ami attacLment to Your Majesty's ]>ersun and government; and we beg a;'leH the growth or production of this island into the United States «liity ire*^, in accordance with the act of the general assembly of this island \rMm\ in the twelfth year of Your Majesty's reign, entitled ** An act to aiitliorize free trade with the United States of America in certain eniuut>riite*l articles, including fish, also vessels built on this island to Aiuericaii registry." And us in duty bound we shall ever pray. Council Ciiambeu, February 9, 1852. House of Assembly, February 9, 1852. R. nOGDSON. VrvHidi'tit. ALEXANDER RAE, ISpeahr. No. 13. Cojty of a dispatch from Lieutenant-Governor Sir A. Bannerman to Eail Grey. Government House, February 12, 1852. My Lord : In reference to the accompanying dispatch, 1 beg leave to direct your lordship's attention to a colonial act, 6th Vict., cap. 14, page 698 of the volume of statutes which I recently forwarded to your lordship. The act to which I refer is one which received the royal as sent on the 3d September, 1844, and an order was on the same day made by Her Majesty in council, declaring *Hhat its clauses and provisions should be the rules, regulations, and restrictions, respecting the fisheries on the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of the Island of Prince Edwan^ 2. By the provisions of this act otUcers of customs and excise, slieritls, magistrates, and any person holding a commission i from the lieuteuant governor, are authorized to board, search, &c., vssels within three ma rine miles of the coast: "and if found fishing, preparing to fisli, orto have been fishing " within that distance, such vessels, with their cargoes, to be seized, and forfeited, &c., &c. 3. The provisions of this act have never yet been enforced, l»iit should the fishery question remain much longer unsettled, in all probability attempts will be made to seize American vessels and such attempts will be resisted, which may lead to collisions, the consequences ot which are not easily to be foreseen. 4. To guard against any such occurrences, I think it would be very desii-able for Her Majesty's Government to order a steamer to besta tioned here from the 1st June to the 1st October, the commander ut AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISHION. 1471 «bich, in addition to his instructioDH from the admiralty, would be fortified with a commission from tlie lieutenantgoveriior of this island enabling him, in terms of the act and order in council, to le|i;nlly enforce tbeir provisions within the limits prescribed by the act; for I consider that the powers which the statute vests in custom house otficers, iS:c., &c.. ill HO far HH the flnherics are concerned, to be very dan^ferous ones, ana siicii us ought only to be intrusted to those who have the means us well as tiie authority to enforce them. 5. I understand that there is nothing more likely to ur};e the Ameri- can Government to an amicable HettlenuMit of this long-vexed question tbau an enforcement of the treaty aroun tbey would n.iv Imt not till then. *' " 1 have, &c., Hon. J. Wafbubton, Colonial Secrttary WILLIAM H. MKAV. Jhnbor Maxter, No. Lj. COUIJT OF VICE-ADMIBALTV AT HALIFAX. A rfturn of (he n timber of Amerivou vmnflii »vizr \K\9 IKW |h:IU IKKI I Km lH:i!t iKnt I MO 1H40 IHU Condemnat'n or i-ealora- ttoii. Jan. 9H, 18:«» Jan. as. IM'i July K IKK> A lie. 5, IKiii A»g. 5, IKW Auk. .MK«t AllK. 5.1Ki!t .llllv H. IH.1!I July f. IK«l Jillv P.IB39 lii-a'torod. Jnlv in. IMO Julv 10, 1H4() Dec. e, 1840 Name of reaael. Dale of wiz- I lire. IHrectiir ' Sept. IH. 1h40 Ocean Oct. 1, 1'to IMoOMT Miiv B. l-jl Two Krienils ' May 80,1-41 Marn I Sept. 30. 1-tl K(riet ' Sept «). 1-tl Warrior (tot. i:i I'-ll Hope I Oct 13, 1-41 May Flower Oct. i:i, I'-ll Waithlinston May 7, l!>i:i llyaile* ' May 10, 1-4h I.eonidaa i May 1 1, 1- tit Harp Sept. 14. l-.V) Tiber Oct. ;W, 1851 , • '"inli-iiitiai u or rn>tur> ticiii. Dee. • \.f I»rc ■ 1-; A".: I-. i-(. X"v ■: I'll .\uv, i |.ii N'liv '• i-ii Kf'.ti'rKl Ii^c. : I'll .Viii;. 1 I'l! Sepi. .' l-i- •hiiiH -ii l.«. •Ian. •.- 1:;; Of the above vessels three were restored, the May Flower, Two Frieiii and the Hope. Dated July 30, 1852. SCOTT TltKMAlN, /.'.//. iii«'i No. 16. Her Majesty's Ship Devastation, Charlotte Toicn, September 1(», l."v)-. Sir : I liave the honor to iutimate to your excelleuuy that the Auieri can tishin^ vessels drivt'ii from other parts more easily protected are now flocking in vast numbers to the shores of this island, no le.s.s tliau 110 of them having been seen ott' the North Point alone on Tue-sday last. As, therefore, it will require the utmost exertion on the part ui Her Mjijesty's cruisers to keep the intruders in check, my hands would be much strengthened in the performance of this very iin|ioriaiit dutv if I could leave boats from time to time at places along the ^hure iuu»t frequented by the foreign fishermen. As the season, however, is now far advanced, the crews of sucb boats would require shelter; and I have to request that your excellency willl* pleased to authorize me to give orders for any trifling expense wbicb maj' be incurred for the housing of the men to the people pi-oridiu^ such accommodation. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1473 Pram wbat I bave seen, I feel sure that the mackerel fishing around fhlihoreg of thl8 island might be a mine of wealth to its inhabitants M well Mto those of the other British provinces, and I trust if we sue- \L\ in our efforts this will yet be found to be the case. The water close to the shore is now absolutely teeming with mackerel in the flneat condition, and this entirely within three miles of the laud, « that bv keeping the foreigners ai. that distance the shore becomes a vast and Valuable preserve for the fishermen of the British provinces. ' '•"""' *' ' COLIN Y. CAMPBELL, Commander. Ui9 Excellency Sir Alexander Bannerman, etc., \ SutM of Anierioa. i MkMWT Caroline KniKbt. of Sept. U, 1853 Ntvburrport, I'uited Statea of , Ai&tnca. Sept. 7, 1853 fDeUined by Her Mi^ieaty'a acboonef I TeleKrapo, Hon. U. Wevland CbeU Sept. 94, 1893 1 wyDd, comaaander, od the DonherD I coaat of Priooe Ktlwanl laUud. * Not yet ad- I)etaiued bv Her MiOeatv'* at«!am-filo,(iOO tons, assemble in early spring, moor and dismantle ; the crews are then dispersed amoDg these fishing-boats and curing establishments till the autumn, when they return to their vessels, load, fit them out, and proceetl to the Mediterranean and South Ameri- tan ports. The cod-fishing at Paspebiac has been as goml as in former years, and for the first time for many seasons the mackerel have appeared ; for although from the number of American schooners which infested their coasts formerly the people were aware the maclierel were there, they never were permitted to see them close to the shore. This change gives them great hope ror the future, far they attribute all their want ofsQccessof late years to the Americans taking the mackerel, and especially to their cleaning them in their waters. Few, however, of the intruders have entered the bay this seuson, and if they can be kept ont in fntiire great results aio expected. The next and by far the most important fishing establishments are at Perc^, Point St. Peter, and Gaspd Bay, chiefly connected with Jersey houses. They have been tlis year more successful with fewer men employed than for many years past, and ittiibnte it to the Americans having been kept oflf completely by a boat from this iloop, which for the whole season was stationed at Point St. Peter by your orders. Soeffectually was tbe dnty performed by this boat, that I am assured scarcely an Ametican vessel encroached within the limits between Perc6 and Cape Gaspd. To the attention, energy, and zeal of Mr. Jenkins, mate of this sloop, the service is iwne indebtefnboat8. . J~<"xl the shores of Anticosti, codfish are numerous, but from tbe want of har- witTen for boats, the pursuit oi them would be hazardous. 1478 AWARD OF THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. There is, however, at the aoathwest lisht-hoase, a fine harbor for boats, and a M. ery might be eetablished there without dimcnlty, and with great advantage. On two oooasions, while this sloop was hove-to oflf there, the ship's coiupaDv were most socoessfnl, catching great quantities of ood, even under the disadvantage of hav- ing no proper bait. Along the cost of Labrador, between the Bay of Seven Islands aud Cape Whittle there are no fishing establishments ; but in former years the Americans were in th habit of ftequenting Seven Islands very much ; they last year, mustering 100 gall of vessels, committed excesses in stealing and destroying wood, the property of the Hnd- Bon Bay Company's agent, the only European resident there. This year, however, onlr seven or eight vessels have appeared, and they only for a few days. The Arrow, hireil tender, was fortunately, there on their arrival, and on removing her to the Bay uf Chaleur I was enabled, in consequence of the cordial oo-operation of the Cauadian armed brigantiue Alliance, to keep that coast perfectly protected. Seven Islands is an excellent harbor, and as, during the early part of summer, mack- erel abound within the shelter of that beautiful bay, it will be a valuable rendrz- vous for the British fishing-vessels in future seasons, but they do not appear yet to fre- quent it. A boat's crew would be sufficient to prevent their being molested. The cod fishenr is good along the coast, but as the country is not inhabited it is only followed by a few small vessels from the neighboring provinces aud the Magdalen Islands. The harbor of Mingan is a very excellent one, and the fisheries in the neighborhood would, if followed up, be very valuable, while the great number of islunds would be . Mst advantageous for shelter. Round the Magdalen Islands the fisheries have been very productive in former years, and the people are quite dependent on tbeni. The herring and mackerel fishery commences here in June, and the Aniericans begin to arrive at this time. A considerable number of vessels also arrive from the British provinces, and as the fishing is all carried on by nets in sprint;, the number laid dovu 18 enormous, especially in Pleasant Bay. The fish at this time are making for the close neighborhood of the shore to spawn, and the people seem surprised that the fish- ing is less productive every year, but it is only wonderful that any escape, and that they are not exterminated. It would be greatly to the advantage of these islands, and to that of the fisheriea generally, if the spring fishing were confined by law to the ground-fish (cod, &c.). and if the mackerel were only pursued during the fall of the year ; by this means the fishery would revive, and a far greater quantity of fine fish would reward the labor than those ot an inferior kind, now decreasing every season. The herring would still be required for a supply of bait, but they are not nearly m important for commercial purposes as the mackerel, and would be well bestowed in that way. The people of the islands do not generally complain of the Americans; on the con- trary, they seem to receive them much more warmly than the people from the provinces. This is easily accounted for ; the Americans employ a number of them, and pay them well, while they buy their little farm produce aud also their fish, and bring them articles free of duty. The people from the provinces, on the contrary, leave nothing, and take much away. These islands seem much in want of some kind of government. At present there is no law, except that administered by a few magistrates, who are more acknowledged as such by sufferance than by right. If the^ require to enforce the law, they have n» one to carry it into effect by the apprehension of criminals (no one daring to act), while if they could arrest, there is no prison in the islands. It does not seem expedient, where several conflicting interests annually meet, that this state of things should continue. During the late season, the people came to an agreement against seining on the shores of the islands, but the magistrates appeared doubtful whether they could enforce even that very necessary regulation against the provincial and American vessels. In Saint George's Bay, Newfoundland, the principal fishery is the herring, which commences toward the end of April and lasts about three weeks, during which time. this spring, the vast quantity of 21,000 barrels were caught and cured. This great fishery has the effect of making the people careless as to any other ; and indeed, though the actual season lasts so short a time, the preparation for it is a work of considerable labor, for in many cases the people make their own barrels, aud are employed for a long time after the " catch " in curing. It is a very fortunate provision that this fishery is at a season while the weather u yet cold, for if it were not so, advantage could not be taken of the great quantity caught in so short a space of time. I am informed that by herring alone an industrious man may realize fromiJ50t» £70 sterling. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1479 The ood fishery is little followed here, and soaroely at all for exportation. A great many eels are oaaght for winter nae. The salmon-fishing bad not been good this season, and it is never very prodaotive. Tbe law is very loosuly administered, but on my visit everything was quiet and the people contented, in oonseqneuce, I presume, of a plentiful herring season. Aericultare is more followed here every year. The short duration of the lucrative diberr, as well as the season of tbe year at which it is followed, is favorable to this. Tbronghont the gnlf there is no fishery so valnable as that on the Cape Breton shore, especially between Wolf Island and Port Hood, from about the first of October to the eDoof tbe season. At this time the mackerel, being very numerous and of the finest ■laslity, draw to a point nearly all the fishing-vessels, both colonial and American. The'latter, this season, have been very persevering in their efforts to evade the treaty, and bare run great risks for that purpose. Iininediately on arriving there I saw the necessity of placing a boat at Wolf Island ; for, taking advantage of tbo liberal interpretation of the treaty of the British Oov- erament, the Americans were in the habit of anchoring, even in fine weather, for the the Dif(ht close to the island, 100 sail at a time, and weighing the next morning (if no criiiwr was near) ; of throwing their bait over and drifting off shore, keeping the fish attncted for a considerable distance, making the best of the opportunity that circnm- staDces would admit, renewing this scheme each morning. A boat, however, from this sloop, in charge of Mr. Jenkins, mate, at once put a stop to it, and shelter under this island was no longer sought, to any extent, by them. Finding themselves foiled by this and other boats, the American flag disappeared almost entirely about the 26th October, being at least a month earlier than in former seaaoos; anotuer proof that in order to succeed the treaty must be evaded. Fall BDU free possession would at this time have been secured to the British colonial lishermen, which could not have failed to have been very lucrative, had it not been that a syHteni of fraud and collusion was got up 'it some of the outports in Nova Sco- tia and Prince Edward Island, by which Ameru an vessels were supplied with the Britisb flag and papers, the latter in most instances disguised with an ingenuity worthy of a better cause. Having had so large a share in the execution of your orders in performing the duty of keeping tbe Americans off under the United States flag, I considered it at least as imperatively my duty to prevent their assuming the British flag to cover their depre- dations. Having observea .he number of vessels under British colors increase greatly in tbe coarse of a few days, and it being apparent, from this and other indications, that fraud to a great extent was going on, I took advantage of the 13th, 14th, and 15tli altimo, of a large number of vessels anchoring in Port Hood to examine their papers, Kenerally an easy matter, and one (especially where British vessels are concerned) re- qairing a very short space of time. On Warding the vessels, however, I found, from the lax state of the administration of the cnstoms laws in some of the provinces, that it was impossible to detect thoso reaily fraudulent among so many which were sailing (perhaps through carlessness) contrary to law, and the weather at the time being very stormy, aggravated my diffi- culty. Under such circumstances, when the weather cleared up, on the 20th, having taken the description of each vessel, and the particulars of her illegal papers, I considered it right to release all except tho Creole, now in the vice-admiralty court at Halifax, and two vessels without certificates of registry (afterward released). I beg to annex a summary of the defects of the papers of the vessels detained, which will show the amount of diffloalty I was involved in, and the canse of the length of the detention. I consider it my duty to call your attention, respectfully but earnestly, to thi>s ab- stract, which shows that fraud to an enormous extent is perpetrated, and that, from thealmost total disregard of the several acts of Parliament for regulating the mer- cantile marine of Great Britain and the Colonies, especially at the outports, it is car- ried on with comparative impunity, and that it must be so until tho correctness of the papers of vessels of real British ownership enables an otticer to detect fraud, which is impoesible nnder existing circumstances. I have also to represent how beneficial it would be for tbe service if the Colonial anned vessels employed for the protection of the fisheries were instructed to assist Her Majesty's ships in the execution of the duty, a provision which in the case of the Canadian brigantine was attended with such beneticial results. I cannot close this part of my report without mentioning my reasons for dwelling so much on tbe mackerel fishery. Firstly. That fishery is the only canse of foreign encroachment in the part of the gulf '1 which Her Majesty's sloop has lately been stationed. Secondly. The mackerel affords the best bait to our fisheries; and while the Ameri- cans havd encroached, not only have they been deprived of it, but the cod-fisheries nave h*en ruined by the offal thrown over on the ground. 1480 AWAHD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 10* 1'hirdly. The mackerel can alone be taken within the limit prescribeerience during the late season, and the extreme importance with which I view the question of protection to the British fisheries, will be lield to excuse iLy presuming to offer the remarks and suggestions contained in this letter. I have, &.C., C. Y. CAMPBELL, ComsMJirfff. Vice Admiral Sir G. F. Seymour, K. C. B., 4c, 4'c., 4c. AWARD OF THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. 1481 (Inolosure 9 in Xo. 90.] AMrofi of the »iate in which the paper$ of veueh wider the Prilinh flag were found at I'nrt flood, between the 13th and vM of Octolter, 1852, aa referred to in Commander CMt^lFi Report on the Fieheriet in Ou\f of St. Lawrence. VMsela with masters' names not indorsed on certificate of registry 22 VmmIh without any name on their stern 5 VeaaeU on tiie certilicate of registry of which owners' names do not ap|>ear 2 VmmIs having the name of master different on certitioatu of registry and clear- iDce.*'>-* ....•..••••••-••-•••••-•••-•••-•- 7 Yeasels without any fishing-certificate or clearance *J Scarcely in one instance was the tonnage marketl on main beam, in accordance with tlie act of Parliament. C. Y. CAMPBELL, L'ommander. No. 21. Vice-Admiralty Court of New Brunswick, St. John, N. B.J October 11, 1853. The followiDg is a list of vessels seized anil prosecuted in this court for infraction of that part of the convention of 1818 between Great liritain aud the United States of America, relating to the fisheries, dur- ing the period from the time of the convention to the present time : Name of vessel. MopL'Orient.... ScbMiHrlialHoD.... SchooDW William..., ScbooMr Escape.... 8(hcniier Rover Moaner Sea Flower Scboootr Coral Date of seiz- ure. Jane 96, 1829 July lei, 1894 July 18, i894 Got. 7, 1894 Oct. 7, 1894 Got. 7. 1894 June 16, 18S9 Condemnation or restitution, wiUi date. Condemned, Sept 14, I8S3. Condemned, Aux. 16, 1894. Condemned, Aug. 16, 1894. Condemned, Nov. 18, 1894. Condemned, Nct. 18, 1894. Condemned, Nov. 18, 1894. Condemned, July 98, 1859. J. M ROBTX80N, Regittrar and Scribe qf the Viee-Adtniralt]/ (hurt o/ yew Jtrunnriek. No. 22. TO THE queen's MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. The humble address of Your Majesty's legislative council and hoiise of assembly of the Province of New Brunswick. ^ny it please Your Majesty: We, Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects of the legislative coun- cil and assembly of New Brunswick, beg leave to approach your maj- esty vitu renewed sentiments of profound respect, and with unabated attachment to Your Majesty's person and government : We desire to express to Your Majesty the sincere and heartfelt grati- tndeof all classes of Your Majesty's faithful subjects in New Brunswick ■or the gracious attention given by Your M{^esty to their complaints ivspectiDg the encroachments by citizens of the United States upon the extensive and valuable fisheries adjacent to the coasts of this prov* U82 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Sk.: if ince, and for the efficient meaanres adopted by Your M^eHty*ii Uovern. ment to guard those flsheries daring the post season from WAuton aggression : The fishermen of the United States, stimulated by a large boantv and protected by a duty of twenty per cent, on British-caught fis'b' have been placed in the most favorable position both as regards their own and foreign markets, yet, not content with these ailvaiitages, tbev constantly encroach upon the coast fisheries of these North American colonies, any participation in which was expressly reliuquislied aud renounced by the Convention of 1818. In the commercial transactions between these provinces and tbe United States the latter possess other decided advantages. Their manufactures are admitted into tbe provinces at the same rates of duties as are charged on British merchandise. Thecolouial legislatures, contrary to their wishes and feelings, have been restricted from imposing discriminating duties^ While the merchandiseof the United States is admitted into this provincn at a duty of eight and a half per cent, ad valorem, the products of Nev Brunswick are subject, upon importation to tbe United States, to duties at an average of from twenty to thirty per cent. ; while American ships freely trade between colony and colony, and from England to her distaut possessions in Australasia and India, colonial vessels cannot pass from one American port to another, as from Boston to New York, or from the Atlantic ports of the United States to California or Oregon ; while colo- nial jtbips cannot be sold in the United States or obtain registers there, vessels and steamers built in those States are sold in these colonies, aud American-built steamers are at this moment plying on the inland waters of this province with British registers. The manifestations of an enlarged and liberal policy by Your Majesty's Government have not been met in the same spirit by the Goverument of the United States ; and we therefore earnestly entreat that Tour Maj- esty will preserve inviolate the rights and privileges of your attached subjects in these provinces, as secured to them by existing treaties, and will not concede any further or greater privileges to foreign fishermen than they now enjoy without first granting your loyal subjects a hear- ing thereupon. The protection granted by Your Majesty's vessels of war has this year enabled colonial fishermen to enjoy their shore fisheries undisturbed and in a profitable manner. We therefore humbly entreat that Your Majesty will be pleased to continue such protection as one of the greatest boons to the North American fisheries, because thereby they will be freed from foreign aggression, and may be prosecuted extensively with great bene- fit aud advantage to Your Majesty's devoted subjects. WILLIAM BLACK, • President of Legislative Council. WILLIAM CRANE, Speaker of the House ofAssmhIS' November 1, 1852. AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1483 No. 23. TO THE queen's MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. The bumble address of the bouse of assembly of the Province of Nova Scotia. May itpleoie Your Majesty : We, Tonr Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the representatives of voor Majesty's faithful people of Nova Scotia, beg leave to approach the throne with the renewal of the tender of affectionate support to Your Majesty's person and government. We have learned with deep interest that negotiations are pending between Your Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, involving not only questions of reciprocal trade between the two coautries, but the surrender of national and colonial rights of a very important character. Warned by the experience of the past, and the results of treaty stip- nlations, in which the interests of British America have been seriously compromised, without the provincial governments and legislatures being consulted, the house of assembly pray that no treaty may lie negotiated by Your Majesty which would surrender to foreigners the reserved fisheries on our sea-coasts, or any participation therein, with- out an opportunity being afforded to the government and legislature of Nova Scotia to consider and express our opinion upon its terms. W. YOUNG, Spealcer, House of Assembly, February 17, 1853. No. 24. TO THE queen's MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. The bumble address of the representatives of the people of Nova Scotia. ikv it please Your Majesty : We, Your Majesty's faithful and loyal subjects, the commons of Nova Scotia, with warm attachment to the government and person of Your Majesty, express our gratitude for the protection afforded to the fisheries offiritisb America, and the regard given to colonial interests, which bare enabled British subjects during the last year to enjoy their rights aud privileges free from foreign aggression. mniPI Inspired with confidence, we humbly solicit a continuance of such efficient protection as will maintain inviolate the exclusive enjoyment of those fisheries, the inherent right of the British people, an inexhaustil)le source of commerce, and a fostering nursery for the national marine of tlie British Empire. Your Majesty's subjects in this part of your dominions are of opinion that the commerce of their country is supported chiefly by the fisheries, which constitute a source of incalculable wealth, and ought not to be participated in by any foreign power on any consideration whatever. That notwithstanding the advantages conferred on the citizens of the I iiited States by the generous policy evinced by Your Majestj^, they 1484 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. II p li ii m still adhere to their illiberal and protective system, which they sustain with nnyieldiDg tenacity. Whilst the shipping of America, built, manned, and equipped in the United States, can be sold in the British colonial ports without daty, and obtain British registers, American citizens deny any corre- sponding privilege to Your Majesty's subjects. Whilst their vessels par- ticipate with British tonnage in the trade with Britain's colonics, siipplv- ing their productions and manufactures on the same terms as British, whilst they trade with the British North American colonies in the hi ands of the Pacific, a British vessel cannot load from New York or Bos- ton for the other States of the republic, or trade from any American port to California or Texas. Your Majesty's loyal subjects therefore pray Your Majesty to continue the protection which was extended to them last season, and by force to repel all foreign aggression on their reserved fishing-grounds— the exclu- sive enjoyment of which is solemnly renounced to the British by the Convention of 1818, between Your Majesty and the republican govern ment ; fully believing that the admission of foreigners to participation in that fishery would have a most disastrous effect, can be purchased br no equivalent, and would tend to weaken the confidence of Your Majesty's subjects in the policy of a government which does not protect your peo pie in the enjoyment of their inalienable rights. W. YOUNG, Speaker, House of Assembly, March 30, 1853. No. 25. TO THE queen's MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. Th9 humble address of the legislative council of Nova Scotia. May it please Your Majesty : The legislative council of Nova Scotia approach Your Majesty with sentiments of loyalty and attachment to your royal person and govern ment, and beg to express their grateful sense of the benefit conferred upon the people of this province by the protection aiforded to the fish- eries on their coasts during the past year. The legislative council assure Your Majesty that the exclusive right to the enjoyment of these fisheries is esteemed by them a source of great wealth to the province, upon which its commerce largely depends; and they regard preservation of them from the aggression of foreigners as another instance of the deep interest felt by Your Majesty in its welfare. Notwithstanding the recognition by treaty on the part of the United States of America of the exclusive right of Your Majesty's subjects to fish on the coast of the North American provinces, the citizens of that country have year after year encroached upon that right ; and though the most liberal commercial policy is evinced by Your Majesty toward the republic, all attempts to induce them to abandon their protective system have been resisted, and they not only take fish out of our waters ^ after having solemnly renounced the right to do so, but Your Majesty s subjects are met in the United States by almost prohibitory duties, while | large bouutiea are extended to their own people. AWABD CF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1485 The legislative council pray Your Majesty to continue to emplov such a force as will prevent any eucroachmeut on their fishing grounds, and secure to them the enjoyment of rights to which they are exclusively entitled. * MICHL. TOBIN, rreaiHent. Legislative Council Cbamder, April 4, 1853. No. 26. TO THE QUEEN'S 'ffOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. The huDible address of the inhabitants of the city and county of St. John, adopted at a public meeting regularly convened. Hay it please Your Majesty : We, Your Majesty's faithful and loyal subjects in the city and county of St. John, in the Province of New Brunswick, beg leave to approach Your Majesty with renewed assurances of our sincere devotion to Your Majesty's person and Government. Iq common with all Your Majesty's loyal subjects in the North American colonies, we are deeply impressed with the present and pro- spective value of our coast fisheries to the present and future inhabitants thereof. Viewing the inshore fisheries as the natural, inherent, and inalien- able right of Your Majesty's subjects in the provinces, not to be con- ceded, alienated, or affected withjut their consent, we have learned vith much anxiety, from the announcement in Your Majesty's speech to tbe Imperial Parliament, that negotiations are now pending between Year Majesty's Government and that of the United States upon the subject of the North American fisheries, the nature of which has not transpired. Believing, as we do, that ''as the value of a participation in our fish- eries by tbe citizens of the United States would greatly exceed any con- cession that tbe United States Government can offer to the inhabitants of the British colonies," we humbly, but earnestly, entreat Your Majesty to refuse to entertain any proposition for a modification or alteration of the Treaty of 1818, unless such proposition shall embrace the full and entire question of reciprocal intercourse in commerce and navigation between Your Majesty's North American colonies and tbe United States, up terms that will be just and reasonable ; and that, before any treaty is agreed upon. Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to afford your loyal and faithful subjects in the provinces an opportunity of becoming acqaaiuted with the terms proposed, and of laying their case before Your Majesty. And as in duty bound will ever pray. CHARLIES JOHNSTON, Chairman, January, 1853. i0i ii~ r k h 1486 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMI88ION. No. 27. TO THE queen's MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. The humble memorial of the iahabitaiita of the county of Nortlnimber land, in the Province of New Brunswick, in British North America. most humbly showeth : That your memorialists approach Your Majesty with renewed aHsur ance of their loyalty and attachment to Your Miuesty's person and Guv- ernment. Your memorialists observe with deep anxiety, from Your Majesty's royal speech at the opening of Parliament, and the late niessage of the President of the neighboring republic to Congress, that ne^otiation.s are now pending between Your Majesty's Government and that of the Uuited States, affecting the rights of fishery on these shores. The coast fisheries hitherto enjoyed by the people of this proriace. spared to them by the Convention of 1818, although long an uhject of jealousy to, and frequently intruded upon by, the people of tlie United States, your memorialists have ever considered to be their oxcIa.sire and unalienable right, in common with their fellow-subjects of Your Majesty's Crown ; and they appreciate them accordingly. That these fisheries have not heretofore been prosecuted to an extent commensurate with their itn])ortance, we pray Your Mcijesty not to ascribe to any distaste or unfitness on the part of the people of this province for the pursuit ; but rather to the sparseness of popolatioD and absence of capital incidental to a new country, as well as to the unhappy preference too long paid to the manufacture and export of timber. Bat as these obstacles have gradually disappeared, the prosecution of the fisheries has proportionally extended ; much capital is now embariced in it ; the people, at the cost of much time and labor, have just acquired the necessary skill and experience for its profitable conduct ; and already has it become an industrial pursuit of vital importance to the inhabitants of these shores. Your memorialists would further add their conviction that the time is not far distant when the inhabitants of this and the neighboring counties must look to the produce of these fisheries for their chief staple of export ; the question, therefore, of the alienation or pres- ervation of these fisheries becomes to them one seriously affecting their future progress or decline as a commercial people. Your memorialists would most humbly bring under Your Majesty's notice that the trade between this province and the United States of America has been conducted, for some years past, upon principles unfair and oppressive to your memorialists ; for while the produce and mana- factnres of that country have been admitted into this province at a mod- erate rate of duty, and in accordance with the policy of the Imperial Government upon equal term with those of the United Kingdom, oar commodities have been met there by a high protecting tariff'; and while the ships of the United States are here itermitted to be iutrodnced to receive a British register, and enter at once into competition with oar own, colonial ships are denied a market in the United States. In view of these evils, your memorialists would humbly submit to Your Majesty that such a mudification of the tariff and navigation laws of the United States as wouhl place the trade between that country and these colonies on a footing of equality should be cousideed merely as an equitable arrangement, mutually beneficial, but by no means aflbrd- ing an adequate compensation for yielding up interests of such magni- .Vewcastlb ▲WABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1487 tade and oational importance as the shore-fisheries of British America, which, wheu once alienated, may never be recovered. Yoar memorialists would therefore most earnestly pray Vour Mi^esty to consent to no alteration of the Oonvention of 1818 with the United Sutes of America which woald tend to deprive them of, or abridge t^brir rights to, the shore-fisheries on this coast, nntil the term^ npon vbifh snch alteration is proposed to be made be first submitted to this iirovince for their concurrence. And as in erial oar while sedto h oor y aud ely as flWd- lagni- Consulate of the United States, Provinbe of Nova Scotia^ Pictou, October 28, 1852. Sir: Since my return from Charlotte Town, where I bad the honor of an interview with your excellency, my time lias been so constantly em- riloyed in the discharge of otticinl 'Juties connected with the results of the late disastrous gale, so severely felt on the north side of Prince Ed- vard Island, that I Lave not found time to make my acknowledgments to your excellency for the kind aud courteous reception extended to me at the government-house, nor to furnish you with my views relative to .iome improvements which might be made by your excellency's govern- meot, thereby preventing a similar catastrophe to the one which has so I Utflv befallen many of my countrymen ; and at the same time on behalf of the Oovernment of the United States, which I have the honor to represent, to thank you most feelingly for the promptness and energy displayed by your excellency in issuing proclamations, whereby the property of the poor shipwrecked mariner should be protected from I pillage. These various duties devolving on me, I now have the pleasure of dis- I charging, but only in a brief and hurried manner. The effect of the recent visitation of Providence, although most disas- I troas in its consequences, will yet result in much good. lathe first place, it has afforded the means of knowing the extent and Iralaeof fisheries on your coast, the number of vessels and men em- ployed and the immense benefit which would result to the people within jvoar jurisdiction, as well as those of the United States, if the fisher- neovere allowed unrestrained liberty to fish in any i)ortion of your I Titers, and permitted to land for the purpose of curing and packing. From remarks made by your excellency, I am satisfied it is a subject I vliiib has secured your most mature reflection and consideration, and jibat it would be a source of pride and pleasure to your excellency to Imry into successful operatiou a measure fraught with so much interest I to Iwth countries. -d. It has been satisfactorily proved, bythetestimonyof many of those I'lio escaped from a watery grave in the late gales, that had there been jlieacon ligbts upon the two extreme points of the coast, extending a dis- |taneeofl50 miles, scarcely any lives would have been lost, and but a j^all amoaut of property been sacrificed. And I am satisfied, from juie opinion expressed by your excellency, that the attention of your 1488 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. governmeDt will be early called to the subject, and that but a brief pe- riod will elapse before the blessing of the hardy fishermen of New Eng- land, and your own industrious sons, will be gratefully returned for this most philanthropic effort to preserve life and property, aud for which benefit every vfssel should contribute its share of light-duty. 3rd. It has been the means of developing the capacity of man v of yoar harbors, and exposing the dangers att'.uding their entrance '.nd the necessity of immediate steps being taken to place buoys in such proioi. nent positions that the mariner would in perfect safety flee to tbem in case of necessity, with a knowledge that these guides would enable him to be sure of shelter and protection. From the desire manifested by your excellency previous to my leav- ing Charlotte Town that I would freely express my views relative to the recent most melancholy disaster, and make such suggestions as ought in my opinion have a tendency to prevent similar results, there is no occasion for my offering an apology for addressing you at this time. I have, &c., B. N. NORTON, United States Consul for Pictou Dependency. His Excellency Sir A. Banmebman, d'c, <£rc. No. 29. Chamber of Commerce, St. John's, Newfoundland, June 25, 1853. Sib : I have the honor to receive and have laid before the Commer- cial Society your letter of the 21st instant, stating that his excelieDcy the governor "will be glad to be enabled to convey to his grace, the Duke of Newcastle, the views and wishes of the society on the subject of the establishment of reciprocal free trade between this colony aud the United States of America." And I am directed to acquaint you, for the information of his excel lency, that the society, having fully considered the matter, arc of opin- ion, with reference to free trade with the United States, that as imports from that country are now admitted upon the same terms as from Great Britain and elsewhere, at a duty of about 5 per cent, (collected solely for the purpose of revenue), whilst the produce of our fisheries are sub ject to a duty of 20 per cent, on admission to the United States, it is de sirable that in any commercial treaty entered into between the Govern- ment of the United States and Great Britain, the interests of this colony should be so far protected that goods imported from each couutry should be received at the same rate of duty. That the views of the American Government should be obtained from our minister at Washington, in order that the society may more fully understand what they propose in reference to this colony, that the same may be more fully considered before any definite arrangement be entered into. That the prosperity of Newfoundland depending on her fisheries, it would be impolitic and unwise to admit any foreign power to a partici- pation therein further than has already unfortunately been done. I have, &c., PETER McBRIDE, President Chamber of Commerce, Hon. James Cbowdy, tCc, &c., etc. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1489 No. 30. TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. May it please Tour Majesty : We, Your Majesty's loyal subjectfe, the Commons of Newfoandland, in general assembly convened, beg leave to approach Your Majesty with sentiments of unswerving loyalty to Your Gracious Majesty's person and throne, to tender to Your Majesty our respectful and sincere acknowledge ments for the protection affjrded by the Imperial Government to the fisheries of this colony and Labrador, during the last year, and to pray that Your Gracious Majesty will be pleased to continue the same during the ensuing season. May itpUase Tour Majesty : The illicit traffic in bait carried on between The inhabitants of the western part of this island and the French, has proved of serious injury to the fisheries generally, as the supply enables the French bankers to commence their voyage early in spring, and thereby prevent the fish from reaching our coasts. We therefore most earnestly beseech Your Majesty graciously to be pleased to cause an efficient war steamer to be placed iu Burin during winter, so chat, by being early on the coast, she may avert the evil of which we so greatly complain. Passed the house of assembly, April 23d, 1853. JOHN KENT, Spealer. No. 31. [Memorandani.] Vice- Admiralty Court, Prince Edtcard Island. The United States fishing schooner Union, Warren D. Bunker, mas- ter, was seized on the 20th day of July, 1852, by Her Majesty's schooner Telegraph, the H'^*', Henry Weyland Chetwynd, commander, for fishing within the three-nale limit. Vessel condemned on the 24th September of same year — the judge by interlocutory decree pronouncing '' the said schooner Union to have been fishing contrary to the provisions of the act of Parliament made and passed in the fifty-ninth year of the reign of His late Majesty King (jeorge 111, intituled 'An act to make regulations with respect to the taliing and curing of fish on certain parts of the coasts of Newfound- land, Labrsidor, and His Majesty's other possessions in North America, according to a convention made between His Majesty and the United States of America,' and as such or otherwise subject and liable to for- feiture and condemnation, and condemned the said schooner, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, goods and merchandise found laden on board the said schooner at the time of her seizure, as forfeited to our Sovereign Laily the Queen accordingly." Appearance was filed for the defendants in this case, ♦' but neverthe- less under protest to the jurisdiction of this court." Upon argument, "le judge overruled the protest and decreed that the parties should appear absolutely. No appearance, however, was filed. I cannot find ifrom any papers in this case, at present in the registry of this court, that this vessel was ever interfered with by government officers for transshipping fish or purchasing supplies. 94 P 1490 AWABD OF THE FISHEHY COMMISSION. m<'.'*\ f'^- «. The scliooner Florida, of Gloucester, United States, Edmund Vmw master, was seized on the 3d day of August, 1852, by Her Majesty's schooner Telegraph, Lieut, the Hon. Henry Wey laud Chetwyud, com. mander, for fishing within the three-mile limit. Appearance filed for defendants in this case, bat under protest to tbe jorisdiction of this court. Upon argument, the judge overruled the pro- test and decided that the defendants should appear absolutely. The defendants' solicitor submitted and admitted tbe cause of tbe suit, and prayed for an early condemnation. Vessel condemued by cod- sent, and decreed forfeited to Her Majesty, for the same reasons as iu the case of the schooner Union. I cannot find from any papers iu the case, at present iu tlic registry of this court, that this vessel was ever interfered with by govemmeut o£Bcers for transshipping fish or purchasing supplies. The schooner Caroline Knight, of Newburyport, United States, Benja- min Small, master, was seized on the 11th day of September, 1852, by Commander Colin Yorke Campbell, of Her Majesty's steam-sloop De vastation, for fishing within the three-mile limit. The schooner condemned by consent, and decreed forfeited to Her Majesty for violation of the act 59 George HI, cap. 38. It does not appear from any papers in this case, at present in tbe registry of this court, that this vessel was ever interfered with by goy ernraent oflScers for transshipping fish or purchasing supplies. Of date 15th August, 1853, the following minute of court rppears: Eegina v. American fishing vessel Starlight. AflSdavits made before the judge in chambers by Colin Yorke Camp bell, captain commanding Her Majesty's steam-sloop Devastation, Jubn May, esq., master, and George Bathbone, esq., second lieutenant, aud George Harris, esq., midshipman of the same. Ifo further entry in this case appears on the record of the court, and I presume therefore *hat the prosecution of the Starlight was abauiioued. (Signed) CHAKLES DesBIUSAY, Refjhtrar. No. 32. [Extract of a speeth of the Hon. Joseph Howe, from the Spectator, July 19, lfi. 2 10 1'2 15C 6. It therein appears that out of 162 vessels boarded within the lira its, only 12, or about 7 per cent., had licensed. It is also plain why this is so. When established the charge was fixed at half a dollar per ton, and a large proportion of vessels took out licenses the first year. Some, however, did not do so, and the fishermen soon discovered that there was little risk of interference or capture, as so few cruisers were em- ployed, and no other efficacious measures were adopted to prevent in traction of the treaty by those not licensed. The fee was tUeu raised to one dollar per ton, and has this year been further raised to two dol- lais a ton without any incrense of vigilance, and the natural result has been that very few licenses have been taken out, and thofe in fact only AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1493 by vessels which, having received a warning, were liable to capture if foand fishing again within the three-mile limit. 6. Moreover, in direct violation of the Ist article of the convention „i 1818, American vessels are permitted to resort to the harbors not alone for shelter, repairing damages, or for wood and water, but in order to land and deposit their fish on bond, whence it is conveyed to the United States by a regular line of steamers. 7. So far as I am aware, the only measure adopted by the colonial nnthorities has been the employment of the steamer Druid, which, as I liave already stated, could not have efifected much, as she had other and important duties calling her elsewhere. She occupied also a very anom- alous position in not being a manof-war. 8. Tbe result, therefore, is that the encroachments of American fish- ing vessels are practically disregarded by the colonial authorities, and tbcy are actually encouraged by the inhabitants, who derive large prof- its from supplying their wants at the various ports. Very few colonial vessels are engaged in fishing, owing to the almost prohibitory tariff imposed in tbe United States on fish imported in colonial vessels, and tbe colonial fishermen, therefore, in considerable numbers, man the American vessels. 9. The cruising of three or four of Her Majesty's ships to watch lines of coast of several hundred miles in extent can effect but little in pre- veutiiig encroachment (especially as one warning must be given, and moreover it must be extremely difficult to determine correctly the dis- tance at which a vessel boarded may be from tbe land), unless they are supplemented by more vigorous measures on the part of tbe colonial authorities and people, whose interests are, I apprehend, alone affected b> this question. 10. 1 draw attention to the want of action on the part of the colonial authorities not as a matter of complaint, but because it is commonly stated that tbey are anxious and hope to force the Americans to a re- newal of the Reciprocity Treaty, by confining them strictly to their fish- ing rights, but yet they leave them practically unmolested when they infringe them. 11. 1 transmit for their lordships' information a letter from the gov- ernor-general of tbe Dominion, inclosing one from Her Majesty's minis- ter at Washington, respecting a threat, on the part of the American fishermen, to resist by arms any interference. A rumor to the same effect appears to have been current on the fishing grounds, but I should not attach any credit to the story. Tbe fishermen know perfectly well the consideration they have received, much beyond what they are enti- tled to, and they must also be aware that such a proceeding would prob- ably result in tbe withdrawal of the system of licenses and increased vig- ilance to prevent encroachment. 12. In conclusion, I would observe that as tbe American fishermen are all fully aware of the illegality of fishing within the three-mile limit, and of the means which are afforded them by the license system of ob- jtaining the privilege of doing so, the order as to giving them one warn- ing should be abandoned, and the public notice should be given before [the next season commences that all vessels, without licenses, found ling within tbe limit will be at once captured and sent in for adjudi- I cation. Ihave, &c., G. G. WELLESLEY, ViceAdmiral. The Secretary to the Admiralty. P- 8— I have forwarded a copy of this letter and inclosnres to the Igovernorgeneral of Canada for the information of his government. ••'> - ■& '*.S'fc4 1494 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. No. 34. [Extract of a report from Commander Coolirane to Vice-Admiral Edward 0. Fan- bLaive, Commauder-iu-Cbief.] Her Majesty's Gunboat Britomart, At Halifax, June 18, 1870. Mr. Kest, the fishing warden at Beaver Harbor, New Brunswiek iufonned me that he often saw twenty or thirty American vessels tisli' ing ; but he has no boat at his disposal or any means of preventing it, thoagh he has occasionally been able to seize their nets when set very close to shore. ■I . *4 . . —t No. 35. Consulate of the United States of America, At Halifax, 2^ova Scotia, August 30, 1870. Sib : I perceive It is stated in one of the morning papers of this city that an order has been transmitted from the Canadian authorities pro- hibiting American fishing-vessels from obtaining any supplies in the ports of the British North American Provinces. If any such order has been received by jour excellency, will you be kind enough to furnish me with a copy thereof? I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, M. M. JACKSON, United States Consul His Excellency Vice-Admiral George Grenyille Wellesley, C, B., d:c., die. No. 36. EoYAL Alfred, Halifax, August 31, 1870. Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, and to inform you in reply that I have not seea the statement in the morning papers alluded to; and as such order would probably have been addressed by the Dominion Government to itsowu officers I can only suggest that an application should be made to the Do- minion Government for the information required. I have, &c., GEO. G. WELLESLEY, Vice-Admiral. His Honor Judge Jackson, United States Comul, Halifax. *■';,**,. No. 37. Consulate of the United States of America, Halifax, Nova Scotia, September 1,1870. Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your commani- cation of yesterday, suggesting an application to the DominioD author- ities for the information which 1 requested. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1495 I addressed j'ou under the impression that tlie Imperial and Dominion antliorities were co-operating, and acting under tlie same orders, regu- iiitions, and instructions in reference to all matters connected with the tirotectiou of the inshore fisheries. As American fishermen are almost lliiily visiting this port on their way to the fishing banks, it becomes a matter of great importance to them to know whether any orders have been issued by your excellency, as the representative of the Imperial Goverumeiit, to prevent them from getting such supplies as have been customary, both before and since the treaty of 1818, in all the ports of the British North American Provinces. Since addressing you 1 have understood that the commanders of Her Majesty's vessels, acting under the authority of your excellency, have notitied American fishermen bound to the fishing banks that they would not be permitted to procure ice or other supplies in any of the colonial ports, and that any attempt to procure such supplies would subject their vessels and cargoes to seizure and confiscation. As consul of the United States,! am frequently applied to by American citizens engaged iu the deep-sea fisheries for information on this subject. To enable me to give such information, I have respectfully to request YOU to furnish me with copies of any orders issued by your excellency III relation to supplies to American fishermen. 1 have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, M. M. JACKSON, United States Consul. His Excellency, Vice-Admiral Geo. Grenville Wellesby, C. B., ttc, ii'C. No. 38. Royal Alfred, At Halifax, September 3, 1870. Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, in which you request me to furnish yon with copies of any orders I have issued in relation to supplies to American fishermen ; and in reply to state that copies of my instructions to officers under my orders were transmitted to Her Majesty's minister at Washington, and were by him communicated by the orders of Her Majesty's Government to the United States Secretary of State. Although it is not within the scope of my authority to furnish you ^Ith these documents, I may state in general terms, which will probably be suflBcient for the purpose you have in view, that the duty enjoined on the commanding officers of Her Majesty's ships is to prevent any in- fringement of the arrangement agreed on between the two governments in respect of the fisheries in the treaty of 1818. That treaty expressly defines the purposes for which alone United SUtes fishing-vessels are to be allowed to enter ports within certain limits. The words used are as follows : " Provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the parpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, and curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to them." It appears to me that the expression " for no other purpose whatever " txclades them from procuring ice, bait, and other supplies; and the offi- 1496 AWABD OF THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. cers have therefore, in my jadgment, properly notified fishermen agaiust any attempt to infringe the treaty, and by so doing also disobey the British and colonial laws in reference thereto, in which the very same terms are nsed. I have, &c., GEO. G. WELLESLY, Vice- Admiral. His Honor Judge Jackson, United States Consul, Halifax, No. 39. Captain Hardinge to VieeAdmiral Wellesley, Valorous, Halifax, September 17, 1870. Sib : Agreeably to article 3 of your instructions, dated 3d May last, I have the honor to make the following report: Owing to the seizure of the schooner S. G. Marshall, on the 31st July, the ship has been much detained at Charlotte Town in prosecutiug her to condemnation. In consequence of the evidence obtained of various vessels in the em- ploy of and belonging to Mr. J. C. Hall, an American citizen, doing bu- siness in Charlotte Town, being illegally registered, and wearing Eng- lish colors, to enable them to prosecute the inshore fishery, my attention has been greatly given to the detection of these irregular vessels. The presence of a ship of war at Charlotte Town, I consider, would be of great assistance in exercising supervision and checking these frauds on the statutes. This port, being on no fishing station, is rarely visited, and, in conse quence, the officials, to whom it was my duty to apply, were unable to render me the assistance I required. In exercising a supervision over the shipping here, which is much wanted owing to the class of persons who form the customs authorities, and who here are appointed solely from political reasons, the irregular vessels would in time be suppressed. It must be remembered that these irregularly-owned vessels are fitted out to obtain their cargoes in a short space of time, e. g., the S. G. Mar- shall had on board two seines, one of 200 fathoms long and 18 feet deep, the other 100 fathoms in length and 12 feet in depth. The cost of the first one was about 400L, the smaller one about 2001. In addition she had four boats. In evidence, the master stated that if he had remained where be was taken he would have filled his vessel in forty -eight hours. With regard to the fishery on No. 6 station, I have, owing to the lim- ited space of time actively employed, but little to record. The cod-flshery was a good average catch from the Bay of Chalenr along the coast to Peter Point. The mackerel fishery was hardly an average, if the American fisher- men are to be believed. The English vessels made good catches off Bathnrst and other places close to the shore where the fish gcliooled. By this, I do not mean it to be inferred that the American fishermen do not fish inside the limit and share in all the advantages of the in- shore fishery. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1497 I have seen as many ns thirteen vessels at one moment fishing close inshore, but of course the whole were outside the limit before they could be approached. The inhabitants of Port Daniel complained that, prior to tbis season, the Americans were in the habit of hauling their seines in the bay, greatly to the loss and impoverishment of the inhab- itaots. The inhabitants of Gaspd Basin and the neighborhood complained of the behavior of au American, Mr. Ebenezer Marshall, of the schooner S T. Marshall, last year. They stated that he hauled his large seines Ob Sandy Beach, forming the harbor, and had brought to land large uumbers of young codfish, which were useless to him. The spot always had been a favorite breeding-place for the cod, and tbey feared that its character would be totally changed, and great loss to them ensue, if that practice was pursued. They also stated that tbey feared the mackerel would avoid the bay for a season if the seining was persisted in. With regard to the best method of protecting the fisheries during the ensaiog season, I beg to make this suggestion : That in the Gulf of St. Lawrence the stations 4, 5, and 6 be placed under a senior officer, so that any one of the cruisers under the altered system might be able to refer any question or difficulty to him. The senior officer would then be able to clear up questions, and explain mat- ters of a delicate character, on the spot. He also would be able to re- lieve the cruiser, in the event of a capture having been made by her, by receiving the necessary witnesses on board, instead of the capturing ship being kept off her station for a length of time. The fact of being able to communicate on the spot with a superior iiamediately engaged in the same duty would naturally strengthen the position of those engaged in an arduous duty of the character for the tirsttime, and lessen the isolation now experience. Id my opinion, it requires a personal acquaintance with those engaged in the fisheries, and also a knowledge of the class of officials met with, to be able to detect the subterfuges to which they have recourse in order to i;ain their ends. With respect to the Dominion cruisers, and their fitness for the duty leqaired of them, I am prompted to make the following remarks : Of those which I have fallen in with, the Ella T. Maclean draws too uttcli water to, be a serviceable cruiser. Ilie England is too indifferent a sailer to be of much service. I observe that I have omitted to mention that the master of the S. T. JIarsball last year, and complained of to me, is the same Ebenezer Mar- shall in command of her when captured. I have, &c., E. HARDINGE. ' -, 't Ml'. No. 40. [Extract of a duspatch from Captain Phillimore to Yice-Admiral Fanshave.] Sphinx, Halifax, November 15, 1870. SiB: With reference to Article III of the fishery restrictions, I have toiDform you that the most plentiful sorts of fish on the western coast If^cGulf of Saint Lawrence are salmon, cod, ling, mackerel, and and the best baits that are used for catching them are small 1498 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. kinds of flsb, wbich are easily obtained by dragging tbose paits of riv ers wbicb become sinall pools at low water. Salmon, cod, and ling are found at tbe montbs of rivers where these boats are, and in about the same proportion of number. Mackerel and herring naturally come into shallow water at certain seasons to spawn, and are then in the best condition for human food ; but they can be enticed, and very easily, if along a bank, to more than tliree miles from the coast, and then caught there by a vessel standing out to sea, and throwing overboard large quantities of bait as she goes along. These fish are cured and packed on board the fishing vessels directly they are caught, it being necessary to do so in order to preserve them, "As the nearest principal markets for the sale of fish are New York mul Boston, and as there is a tax in the United States on fish landed from British vessels, but none from American, and as fish are more plentiful near the coast, it follows that the Ashing business on this coast is moat profitable when it can be carried on close to the shore, and under Ameri- can colors. Also, as fishing is apparently most profitable under Ameri- can colors, and there is an American law which prevents a British-built ship from ever being able to sail under American colors, it follows tbat the shipbuilders in the United States have a better market for their fish- ing schooners than the British. On the other hand, it is a disadvantage to the United States Government for vessels to fish under their flag, fur they lose the tax which they would get were the fish to be lauded at their seaports from British vessels instead of American. The residents about the coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence have in- formed me that their inshore fishing this season has been good, and tbat they attribute this in a great measure to the American fishing schooners having been kept ofi:' the coast. Large numbers of these schooners have been fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence this year, and have been fre- quently seen doing so within three miles of the coast, notwithstanding the precautions that have been taken to prevent them. These fishing schooners generally go about in fleets, and their crews are made up ot a mixture of all nations, with but a few bona fide Americans amoug them. These men receive no wages, but a certain share of the proceeds of the sale of the fish caught during the No. 41. [Extract from a letter from Commander Knowles, of Her Majesty's sliip Lapwing (No 10 A), dated 7th November, 1870, addressed to Vice-Admiral Fawushawe, commander- iu-cliief.] POET HOOD. 2. The insliore fishing in the vicinity of the port has by all accounts been far above the average, the mackerel coming in through the Gut ofi Canso about the commencement of June, when there was an immense r catch in this harbor; they then went northward toward East Point,] and off Sea- Wolf Island and Ghettican. The herring fishery here has been excellent ; the summer berringsj came in in July, the fall herrings for three nights in September, andli believe that as much as ten thousand barrels were caught off Heuryj Island and outside Smith's Island. The cod fishery here has not been remarkable. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1499 This port seems to be a great harbor of refage for tbo American scbooners ; about fifty of them ^ere frequently at anchor at a time, and J)revlous to the treaty large supplies were obtained from the storekeep- eis on shore, but owing to the constant presence of a man-of-war the traders uow derive bat little if any profit. The general feeling here is that the abrogation of the license system and stringent manner in which the laws have been enforced have had the effect of greatly improving the catch of the inshore and coast fish- emeu. 5, B.— Although, as will have been observed, some of the foregoing correspondence appears in the form of extracts, the selections so made have been introduced in their present shape simply for the sake of brevity; and to avoid wearying the attention of the Commissioners ffith matters irrelevant to the present inquiry. 1500 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Ill E e a (( o I as •si 1^ CO •se^j^ag s; o a s 1^ a. 03 09 i i 0 o 3 •9 •a n o I c &s - SI' SI I i a H H o 5 I iS 3 4:3 13 5" : S tf : >.i=| : l'-^s;5 a -* 5 : S'U^ " "• H * i:? ; 0 ■oSianaox o a t I u S § 3 I =3 a a 3 i - a Si s I -"I AWABD OF THE FI8UEKY COMMfSHION. 1501 Hj 'T'^'^'^ 'T-i'T'^l •<•<<■<•5£3 £j3 a « o s 3 J'c £ = - ■CO a IS •c o o c3 s o o o o o:= goo '0'«'0 6«a'«'3'''CMla'a'C ; c S • • • • ■ o a • ;m a to «e o *-< -^ *»• f-t i-t »-* rN gbb tic !uc tit bit tb ^ a B a tf a 3 ^R ^A ^ ^ ^ ^ ^■^ :SMe5?B|o„^o'3 1-3o|rlfs^tl|lg eg B ^■5 a . 6<-.(/3 ti-a tCa-- --- - ■ a B a a ta-S. 5 3 S 2 » f • a .3 5 o a • a «'!s « a . - . . 0 • -■3 ^.= ,54 6t6c^bctitsi6(bigciib!ct«Mbictc aaaaaaaBasaasa ^ ^ ^i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 3 .o a a ej3 5 ceo b- .? c « -v 53o?.2L »i e c s e o ;f c ; iSS^^^B^I ^^a(!l3aa^^= O 555ii = o = C( AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1503 0 Eh J t-1 1. I. g 2 US s i| . ."2 1 .>31<2 . 2 ."2 * £ •s.s ""S *.- O O O O Oh phCb^ ph pci^ I ■9 e fap M 1 S A.2 3 , b o o c e o .a *" a a a 9 S AM ;;;;:::; I ! o .•■ .^ 2 • • • .---sooeso-Sooootc .ooo_goooo'oOOo ■ '"":::;: ;3 :; : rs^ ::::::: la:: : 01 ««i 05 a o _ tag |<^ ' ® o v_3'S'u o o © e • • ce ee ' ' ' ■ :•€ o s' o o^4; 5 3 a •as-s .Sh'S s ■as SSSH :xa!JS?H o aO "9? ■ O uciS 3 •s ^ b © © 3 . , o P Mt «;.2>C « a is t« 2 a s c5 « rt o oj (8 Cj3 5 S 3 •■ : 3 :;= e e 3 o o o e feSas-o-3 ; a • ; a ; • g § :.aS.a ;2 :^ s 3 :§ '•S-2 _o o_o o o o o o o eri o £ OS fe 'CC'S'WCO'CC'O'C wo a** tta "":B;q;BB a •2 '• 'a 5" r -- _- „— i-.U3i, •C 3" :::ss2!:ks££ss sasssssssasa aaasssssfisssssss p.a.o.e.s.aoo.aacao. o.-^ ^^ o©©©c©ci^c;a)ai©¥©if^ 5§ « Si o a B 2 "S « fa « u ^1 «-< "S* .S§ ■S ® § « -I «'J 1^ ^•s o a •eta B| ^M c a 'iiJi555 s = 003000 a I OR iaa(S5(Ssais<5• :< •I Si >' I- •5 3 MS-: <9 -1,3 ; : '^- ■< • -■'£■' S <:=^ wTir c* §13 ssss SS $S 9 §111 'Xiomaaea aaqM oisa pan saiJinboi a^vin ox ta s o . IS o p. s * O go 09 00 o 00 g'S'O'O'O'e'O'S'B p e e e e , ©-co S • • O 5 -OSS £ o & fc ::: « 2 *S : ; h£ :-2^ \M a. flj o g :1 »9 •I -3 B-3 o ■« ,2 pi 5 = > • »" 0 K e - jwqjtwpnn 8«jBis p»)|aii : '/'.^ <• •J ; "" u H u 'Z _ .■ i 5 :•:- t- < I c ;»''■" ^. •■>■ -ZS? ^ y >r-i is '^ £ s 00 o o B ?f o o CD ■ i i • "4 V i i ooeo so eo *B -^ "C 'O ^ "O ^'B O ■B e-. t£ be •= fc ; ft-g a a 2 5 o tt 9 >T) -:» • e-. •? a 9 Ol 1^ ■S >-. >» ^ 9 9 '-^ t-j IN t ss _t. _ JI ,- r, 'a . . .1.. ....lo .....1.. ...do ...do .. .do ....do Provincetown . ....do C C 0 5 S 11111 do s. ' ' ' ' • ■ • :S : « ! . ! ! ; ! I 1 : ; o» ; 2 c cc e ccceesgo S ; ■ 1 • • : ' : ■ ;3 ; :; ; ; ■s : i • : • * ■ • i ; i ; - " $ '- If, C.2.B ^ . = fc - ? o£5Si '■''\. i '• '''• i : :|^ S : ' bc • : •■ 5 ; ll : Ul: < 1 ^^ 1 s i is Rd. Freeman W. West : : : : | ; :;::::; o := '. c 1 : •'S5 ; ;«sS ^ ; W ■s :;j7 >r.zi a T. 'A e Si S 9 — t^ — T — = ■£.= = 5 S; ciea . 9 c I E- : ; ; ; : :& ; ; : : : ;2 s c se ecccceo o o.EM -LULU =j.li lLJ^L o 3 C B _ „ - >. a o o -" .s c « r. •- " ■ ■ C = . 9to.>^ w : :o» ;,^5 OD OD OD — *» S* C ffi «t S". CI 95 F 1506 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION s a 9 4 .& 1^ "S" I t I 2s a3 3 .a Si (S6 Hi 5-» ■a 'I9ja^3BJ<( 'p^pjHoq etiud g . a t = 1 ta"S :o5 III ££a^ft:£ 23 ^ M .: ^ 3 ; t 3 S 00 9 QB OD O V $ « O « « V I- ff»TD atJ4 0. 2 2 •e ' o SI s <1 iS| S^Ot^O O OOOQOO • S S ^ S o# r» ' ^^ n Q4 9< r^ SB 2 u- u"* ■^j«88300u njqjtt nj8ii pm B9{j{nbu{ e]|«ai ox o e o e o c o ^ ^ = 2J si Q • a O C f = • 2 |t«;o| Sa'IO'So*^ ;s ;2 :?„ a o-u ■% 5 - --^ a jtEnS a.a . _. S o-' 5 i "» ' - "■ : a : . . es ■ . •s^. a^ ^« s a R*)-* ^ S • — " • ■8,I0103 o 8 S oW^ j,^ •89»«is p9»tnii a -tA-B e» a S So t « r T ;<^^ ,:«. ^ s s « 1^3 tf* is ■Z ft OD IT" 125 71 * ' : : is . . , s • • -A • E % %tl or,-i '3™ 3 < • ■ ^ . . .H :u ; : : : a M II' * '. \ 1 •'•-S S ' • 9. '■ u : ij= £fl i ■'^ = • = M I ~-K ^«1tJ • 6 i ' . ; ; : a ;s • • . , ^ .g J • ■ ■o : : o , . ^ :b • Q ^ifa « ■ 5 M Six a ft e o ■=-S b a V a ^50.2 * o o o op a • o ■ • C9 • :e.s a 9 n : a ■ a ■ • a ^ iS' * ^ o 5r2 I n ^ M ■#. 5 : B o2e ©Sto •V fc-cts s-e : g : : s : a . :g.i1 ■s ■§ » S O B - f 5 i ; Moee V '. ', ', w^r^rmt^r^ r^ ^^ ^ i-t ^ iH iM iH ^ Of -^ f^ »i^ pN vM »^ H ^ ^ ** ■■ '^ '^ '^ ^^ .w be Ox ?eD Gloucester. Carnliua Do. KiiHbliKht Do. Abbev Ileathc Do. D. U.MiiDsHrl.l Do. Charley CoUax Do. Eilward Evelyn Do. Tyro Do. I.ucile Curtis Do. Goldfu Kagle Do. Annie M Do. Fii'ince Do. Foxhound Do. Masai «>it Do. AVycoining Do. S«a Spray Do. Siwah H. dressy Do. ;ariaTa '. Do. :.H.Siniih Do. Josiph Storey Do. C^inlwell Do. Ar.?«»*i' Do. C.t-x.V Do. E.J. ^' ..nis Do. LaiiM .. )o 1, Do. Grcyl- i.iu' .. Do. Geortu- Hieele Do. Catalina Do. F. W. Piiiwiiley Do. (r. H. Kobertsou Do. Sylvia Do. Vessel. Port Flynn Gascup Gloucester Jolin Shearer ])o. Eldorado i)„' C.E.Satward j),,. Alice M.Gould Port land. Wni. Fisher Do. Evada Do. Columbia D^»l l'km« .. X„. "UtlMue tons 24, 269 1,0011,915 • •• - . 15,038 1 420 367,119 511,fi:i0 4!<,944 1 105 1,5,038 367 661 49, 944 Tolal. 82,475 4, 384, 460 4, 4li6, 935 1S52. S'if'l^llisli qtls. ?"™8 bbU S™, timwa. 45,003 9,259 2,351 69 102, 057 15.000 33,926 937, 918 3:J, 4.i6 1,(1.58 Bin j a, laa, 39a i 972, 991 .54,173 i 42,715 1.5,583 ! 3,409 1,.507 ! 810 0:19 ' 577 2 224, 449 ti9, 173 2^ t360 49, 209 1 507 M« :;::::-pC" to' 508 725 1510 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Setitrn showing the quantiliea and values of fi»h and prodncta of Jinh, «Jc— Continued. f4 Artick'R, ..«„|-SS?-"'- S 1852. , Toni;iii<» and soiiDils pVirR.. Trout bbla Oil, viz: Cod tuns Cod-liver do.. Seal do.. Bliibltcr .tnd dregB dn . . S(>a1-8kiDfi No Whsltdioue cwt Oysttrs liush Total 1853. Driod codfish ntU Corpcodllsli do.. Mackerel bhU Halibut qtls Caplin PK){». Herring bbl» Salniou tierces Tongues and sounds, pkgs. Trout bbls. Oils, viz : Cod tuna. Codlivor do.. Seal do.. Blubber and dregs do.. Seal-skins No. Whalebone cwt Oysters bush. Total nan- ties. 100 Value Q"»"t'- * "'"" ilea. m tiO 543 1!) 1,771 16, 945 Value. •V9 465 78, 878 6, 'ill S75, 8S1 11, 593 IS I Exported to other oouutriea. .1, 943 108 5,563 SI'S 517, 4.W 33 443 1854. DiImI codfish qtls Herring bbls. Salmon do.. Mackerel do.. Halibut do.. Turbot do.. Trent do.. Cml sounds and tongues, pkes Caplin pkg8. Oil, viz : Cod tuna. Cod-liver do.. Seal .do. Seal skins No Oysters bush. Total 1855. Dried codfish qtls Core aud pickled fish ..do.. Hening bbls Salmon tierces. Mackerel bbls Turbot qtls. . Sonnds and tongues, .pkgs Trout bbls Caplin pkg8. Whalebone cwts. Oil, viz : Cod tuns. Cod-liver ...do.. Seal do.. Other fish and oils not enu- merated Total 150 105 105 13 i 130 34 I 38 30,888 10 13 6.640 1,315 l.Vj IS 325 53 6 fO 5,333 .''>34, 340 60, 993 48 10 901, KH) 3, 440 40 18. 330 37, o:i3 340 91 51,101 17, 370 1,080 8,443 4,330 1,146 4r, .TOO 3,040 468 49 3,180 318 8,131 306 516, 4.'>0 10 182, 955 24, 731 2,166 C30 19 304 19 403 10 5 146 79, 4, 13, 881 939 613 144 345 34 : I ,137 ,956 960 130 749, 386 33, 986 3,833 3 71 7 78 819 635 3,797 109 r>, .563 398, 734 158 113, 119 66,379 8.904 3,210 181 29 15i 195,509 1,041, 1, 23, 2P, 968 47, 730 34,814 , 14, 193 ' 2,784 ! 5, ftia ' . 010 078 138 849 61 3 390 19 S.^ 113 3,615 233 3, 744i .330, 8.50 471,946 35, no 866, 341 10,915 356,000 76 7fi I 3, TrS,'. 147 7, 1(1 534,378 3!t ■"iM,«< 41,:i-l 1, H-J, m 10,;il5 3B7,5!>j 'Jl 3, 935, 743 4. 46(P,0'3 3, 631, 423 I 4, 896 193 1,390 13.1, 863 41,8m 744 393 497, 7.'>."> 106, .503 1, 313. 925 6,398 418, 401 170 92-2, 71 H •J, 4)0 .50 12 1,146 5.5, un 3, :).-..5 6j-3 2011 lie. 97-2 5, ,567 l,niH,J7i 398,870 W.tti 4, 589, .535 4,70'2,6J4 3, 009, 849 4,224 65, 044 16, 466 1,089 38 1,347 394 715 604 763, 738 131, 1.51 739,413 1,107,3P8 1, 078 32, 042 3, 059 I ■ V 390 I 1!) 3.53 113 I 3,796 262 j 3,760 I l,26.i,3.'>* fSl 9,1, Oli 64,216 1,089 3> 1,3(7 294 "17 m 14.'. 341 742, I* 5,K8 4,793,971 , 5,mSl AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1511 Kdiirn nhwliK) thf quantities and raluen of flsh and products of finh, ifc — Continned. Art!oleg. Imported from United Stntes. {iZ:i^»'- Exported to Uiii- Exported to otiior tod States. couotrioR. Total. 1830. PriM ciMlflsh qtls L (■,.r.'C(»lH«h do..!.. laplin ^Hf"-!" Hiring 1)1.18;.. S,iliimn ^'T.'?- ■• Mackcri'l bids ... Trmt do..:.. Ilslilinl <|tl8 .. S.iun(l« and tongues . . pkus . : . . f*»UUm ..S».\.. iiyaliTH bUBll. Oil. viz: . ! Cml tuns ;.. Codliver do.. .. Seal do.. I.. RliiiilrT and (Iri'Crt ....do..'.. OlhiT ti'tli and oils not enu- j nieratrd ]■• 1U4 $91 *a"- ^«"- 64,293 ^IKJ,?!!.". 1,'J27 66 6, 652 I 1, 121 ; 4,57!) ii, S-iA 24, ■ina 5,370 3,868 Quanti- ties. 1,304,041 4,11!) 336 2.'>, 642 1, H52 13 6 30 1,348 337, 387 Value. 13, 594, 000 9,547 6^6 69, 432 32,656 180 95 189 2,467 338, 784 Quanti- til-H. Value. 1,208,344 #.3,787,795 7,52 149, 409 28 11,204 3271 "0, 444 I 3,247 180 ' 4,6H1J 414 629, 691 65, 0.'>4 966, IM 24, 754 1,971 Total 91 rrifil codfish qtls Mackerel Ii'ds. Ore codfish ntls C.ipliu PKRS Tmut bills. Siunds and toDgueg. .pkgs. Ilfrriiii bids Ilrrrins, smoked boxes. Salmon tierces. Silinnn. preserved . . .cases Lulisters do.. Halibut qtls. lurbot do.. Sealskin.' No . Wttlebone cwts Oil.vi;: Cnil tuns. Codliver do.. Seal do.. Hirring do.. Bluliher and dress do. . iilher lish and oils not eu- immi-rated Owters bush. 120 482,640 5,723,859 6,046 403 I 32,294 I 8, 973 i 12, 8 I 30 1,346 36i,317 14,126 844 92, ^aa 47, 044 180 95 139 2,467 342, 653 3,999 208 5, 009 414 779, 100 76,358 1, 036, 828 34, 754 1,971 6, 206, 499 38,227 119,369 18,478 ! 55,430 '2,"i89 "ngoo 9, 296 8, 999 390 , 61,742 21 7,094 43:J 76, 877 6,892 I, 354, 095 33 1,143 217 i 139 I 206 ; 31, 302 1.55 I 023 . 163 : 37 18 8 486, 387 3 4,432 101 j 6,733 1 I 333 ; 4, 591, 875 240 1,636 254 78 784 93, 897 86 21, 529 793 177 62 24 467, 342 57 702, 096 33, 888 249, 115 48 14, 395 1,392,322 33 1, 142 217 129 SOA 49, 780 155 8,803 165 37 18 8 496, 113 3 4,822 122 7,165 1 .')33 4,711,144 240 1,636 2.'>4 78 784 149, 327 86 76,489 793 177 63 24 476, 241 57 763, 838 40, 983 325, 992 48 14, 395 6,893 Tot.ll . 120 1858. I iJrieil codfish qtls j , Core codfish do . . i faplin pkps.l , Halibut 1 854i 97 Total ! 110 97, 4«0 •I- 1,808 18C0. Dried codfish qtls ! ' | 34,691 Core oodllsh do..j j Caplin pkgs. i | , Herring bbls ' ! Do .1)0X08 l,gOO I 864 Salmon ti erues i Do. preserved .. .casrs 1 Tront bbls. Sounds and tongues.. pk^is. Halibut (itls. I Mackerel bills. Oysters bnsh Seal-skins No Oil, viz : Cod tnns. Cod-liver do.. Seal do.. Herring do.. Whale do.. Dogfish do.. Blubber and dregs . . do . . Other Ush and oils not enu- merated 97 19 l,014i 36 199 Value. tl43, ^55 ' "73,' 899 Kxported to other countries. 5U,458 (Juantl' lios. , 076, 598 *85 39, 7«7 54 99 1, .'1(13 IIKI 306 7 91 a 163, 397 18,619 36, 667 81 8,918 9,9915 3683 r>, 3104 li 39 H 386 339, 088 Value. 'i'olal. ties. ; ^nli'f. «4, 153,081 I,l9r,,7!i:) ^j, 1,1161 95, 48!i 15H i:i9 34, 967 418 344 48 489 77 HH.'i GU,!MO r.i ai 3,7lli 6!IU 9Un 7 51 8 I 373, ia;j, 764, 4, 3. 976, 430 8r)4 789 77 19S 417 i:io 439 4, noi •(■J4 5, sori n S'.l j 8.jl 32!l, le,-) I. cm 167, 7H liiii •m 41 4",i Ui,4M 77 4, m 417 3, 1.IO 270, 513 494,194 1 I .'),830,7»1 88, 637 65,904 •43,' 977 1, 113, 933 3, 499 88 36, 351 9,070 51 750 733 39 4 196, 609 13, 099 97, 663 I 8,491 344,903 3, n60i 390 4,673 3 16 7 73 Total I I 883 1861. Dried cod fl>«h qtls. Core codtish .do.. Caplin pkgs. Herring boxes.- 3, 498 Do bbls. Tront do.. Salmon tierces. Tongues and aoauds. pkgs. Halibut qtls. Seal-skins No. Oysters bush. oil, viz. : Cod tuns. Co, 134 837,657 158 1,944 369 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1513 Hftiim iboitlnj thcquiinliliea and values of fish and j»ro1 95,640 fll6 •3 870,801 447, fi5 09, 134 837,657 158 1,944 Imported Iroiii United States. Exported to Uui- ted States. Exported to otbor countries. Total. Quan- tities. Valut (jiianti- ties. Value. Qnanti- tlrs. 132 Value, gunnti- til'8. Value. i;|„|,lKT and <1rf KH . . tuim iihii ilfli mill oils, uotenii- uiiTaliil «2, 348 133 12,343 3,156 |3, 156 Total •1,786 183,341 _ 5, B04, 594 4, 488, 356 24 2, 738 77 5, 786, 835 iefi2. PwdoodlWi <|tl» C,iri. coclliiih <">•■ 14, 516 400 54, 256 480 1, 355, 331 20 1, 135 63 1,269,837 420 1, 135 79 4,542,613 S04 2,728 96 lIlwitlWK ""•■ 16 19 11 S Ut'iriDK . 1 1 iiii .....bblH 13, 251 507 1,778 :», 800 4, 868 25, 604 31,513 43 3, (i.S7 14 47 46 488 267, 574 118 a, 538 386 3, 4:i3 17 1 19 133 51,580 4o:i 52, 0(iO i:i4 383 134 350 193, 652 283 130, 265 8a, 420 659, 246 8,430 144 2, 696 2, 564 34, 764 549 5, 435 14 217 58 1,077 268, 6-24 118 3, 7584 354 3,433 17 1 19 308 83, 320 Tioiit •• ""■ lii'innn tierccH 5,271 78, 264 Do. pr(8i'rvtMi...fiwp8 \l«/.lii'rpl bblH. 134 170 12 589 1,050 1,016 33 42-4 760 1,2!IU llalilml... .....MtU Toiiniiwniid8oni*(U..pltg» 167 772 193,413 283 Oil. viz: f'.J tUDB .JOJ 41, 504 19, 680 171, 76» loa, too ^fjjl , . .do. - 659, 246 8,480 144 3,6941 69 1,324 3,888 Total 5 181,766 5, 669, 359 5, 851, 123 lgC3. Dried codfish qtls I'liipcinlHsli ....... .do 14,247 $68, 385 984,842 .505 33, 840 354 3,818 8 43 495 •n 190 692 346 284, 461 14, 075, 120 605 110, 345 139 00, 005 77 408 600 144 547 499 830 200, 510 999, 089 505 68, 576 354 6,538 8 43 495 33 190 693 346 387, 151 14,143,505 605 Herring bbls Herring, smokoil Imxog "eos' 'J33C 35, 736 120, 072 Vim, 417 139 2,710 42, 546 102,551 Salmoi), presorvt'd . . .cases 408 Mn pkgs llnlicrel bbls 600 144 Halibut qtls Sounds and toni;aeH..pkgs CtMl-roes bbls 547 499 830 Seal-skins .....No 2,690 6,240 200, 750 12 0 Oil,riz: C(h1 tnns 18U 25 4 41, 755 12, 230 878 2, 7151 199 4, 162 17 22 11 147 635, 859 !)8, 169 900, 408 3,419 3, 182 1, 569 8,808 2,897 224 4, 16fi 17 2a 11 147 667,614 110,399 Seal do.. 901,286 Herring ...do . 2, 419 Whale do.. 3, 183 Uoflish do.. 1,569 BIiibbtT and drejjs . . do. . 2, 808 Oilier tish and oils, not tnumirated 10, 747 10, 747 Total 345 ana s.'-.i 6, 084, 243 6, 387, 096 1IJ64. Dried codfish qtls. Uaildock io.. toe codfish do.. LinK do 300 1,080 7,068 ""'ies 40, 994 201 1,009,166 1, 031 340 8 18,321 682 1,904 23 11 387 4, 451, 86; .3,44 288 81 64, 976 413 32, 683 no 105 465 1,016,2;!4 1,024 408 8 40, 833 683 3,115 •£\ 729 405 158 608 455 4, 492, 853 3,441 489 34 Herring bbls. 32,519 81, 043 146,019 Henlng, smoked ....boxes 1,278 616 413 Salmon tierces 1,311 30,688 53,370 110 Salmon, preserved . . . boxes Trout bbls . 718 18 158 130 873 6,993 19 950 313 259 7,098 484 Caplia pkgg gKkfrel bbls ™l>»t qtl» "tigu(saiid8(mndH..pkj{8 950 478 183 1,147 177 1, 4.'i9 ■ i ■ 436 1514 AWARD OF Tllii FISHERY COMMISSION. ti Jteturn showing the qitantitieB aud values of fitk and products of fiih, i(o.— Coiitiniipd Artlcloii. CmlroeH libU Lnh8l»rH, proHiTvoil . .casfs OyHtoM IiiinIi SoHl-Hkins No. Oil. viz: CimI tilliB Cod-livor 8 Tront bbls Mackorel do.. TJirbot qtis Lobvters, pre. srved. .cases Halibut qtis.. Tonjrn«8 and sonnds . . pkgs WTialobone cw t Seai-ekius No Oysters bush Oil, viz: Cod tnns Cod-liver do.. Seal do.. Herring do.. Wliale do.. PojcUhIi do.. Blubber aud dregs. ..do.. 34 11,740 14, Ufi 300 l.'>0 :i4, 6.13 30 8,08» SO 311 4 8 718 59fi 3 3,500 800 140 181 3J 90 in 21 Total . .1 1.53 1866. Dried cndflsh qtis Salmon tierces . Herrings bbls. Trout do.. Oil, viz ; Seal tuns. Whale do.. Cod do.. Cod-liver do.. Herring do.. Blubber and dregs. . .do.. Seal-skins No. Halibut qtis Cod-roes bols Haddock qtis. Wbalebone cwt Sonnds and tongues . . kegs . Turbot, fresb Salmon, preserved Pickled lisU cwt Total 1867. Dried codfish qtis Pickled cudQsh do.. Haddock do.. Halibut do.. 4.3.12 36 10 10 1,707 3,169 40, n.'57 268 1,074 48 S03 23 51 1, 620 860 10 h 308 5,380 72 8,881 634 648 1H4, 6«4 Exported to other countriei. Quantl- tie.. f "l95,'9.V» Value. TuUI. Quantl- , _ 1)6 SO ♦I'' 9, 176J 172 1, 629 2i* 15 363 03, .592 982, 998 6 121,216 15 ■ST., 967 .50 3,086 24 94 668 1, ,590 ,534 30, 313 1, 79.5 .596 340 1,873 913, 593 44, 761 41, .580 541 13, 879 2, 9.58 405 546, 133 8. 445 61,052 182, 871 3,744 171,880 8, 2f 2 48, 055 7,837 75 964 1,915 3,440 20 308 1,076 6,800 446, 584 35,524 9,536 1.481 •140 13 1" 90,Hb6 , l-i5,9.W ■■■«,■«( .593, 3:«i 126,624 ' 371, ir.7 2.59 3,777 2, :UI6 I .5, 069 ! 2,nij Mi l.lV.ll II 24 l.') •5M.MJ 2. 3W .5, H7H,37H I 5.i«3,«a 4,011,069 2,004 3, I HO .5:14 106, 0!>U 3.M 328 101 239, 971 1,926 279 3,086 3 2 11 324 929, 740 2, 1.50 162, 825 37 3,739 2,748 915 101 53 3n9, 645 564 332 457 2.50 177 1, 037, 334 1,685 683 2.5, 794 910 162 78 21 1,488 875 338 8, 0«0 179, 977 46}, 273 H9, 369 7U9, 994 4:^8 989 1,730 4,0G6 5, 608, 785 997,111 6 fiBH 1,.VH) .■>:il oi.'Ui: no 3, .570 '.m 3-,M 17 13 9.5i' !I24 101 942, 471 ,074,551 n nni 3.H Ml l: 61,7C1 \fl 45 I.4«- 2, CO ♦il -. :tti 1-1, JoS 9, fie 41!) 3,267 92 \W "'..1 i 67.i. iffi U4.130 7.il.5:( 14. IK" 4.6-^ 4.4:1 6, iJ4.;'i^ 3, 713, .343 .59. 880 488, 475 531 597, 676 508,380 70, 703 1,537 1,019 232,2.33 2,256 664 914 20,000 177 1,639 5, 699, 422 3, 163, 121 3.301 1,415 930,447 3,72l.7-» 4,;)I9 l-.W.Stt! 203, 7?4j 611,346 305 4,i!T3 4,813 4.- 3,0U , 238 103 104: 311,26.5 I 1,424 I 343 I 4.57 ! 250 48.5 5,3g0 7G>.K- 557, atj 7'. ,".40 1,613 I.H76 233.44* 5,f!36 6-4 !>14 20.000 4-3 1.076 .J, 439 6,146,001! 1,066,215 1 3,198v«5 1,683 1, 317 , 3,201 3,»1 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1615 'JO,e« :t"i,45: I'.O 2.3« 4,074,591 0 2,nft( 3,H Mt 5-.'7,.HJ Cl.W v..) 3,24" Irt 4> 1,4" ii,i;:o «4 i>.:«i 1*1, «i 67:i. -f*; 114.130 -.il,iT4 '.a 14.1f> 4.C-» 4,t:i a 'SI.'-' I'-IV-W 6ll,34r; 4,-r5 760, K- r,-J>2 557, ac 7?,;^0 1,6IS l.lTfi 233. 41- 5. iW '.'U an. too 4-5 1.076 .-1,439 3.201 3.951 Ufivr* thouing the quantitiea and valuet of fink and produrU of ftnh, 4'c. — Continued. Articlp*. Iiiiprirted fnitn Unitud States. Exported to Uni- tud Stiit«i. Tiirh.it •»)»'■ Cpllu p5«« <,„iiid» incl longncn ..do.. Siliimn t'"";*,'^* HirriDf* o'"" Mifkfivl <]"■■ do.. do . No Tmat .... ('ml r'*« ■ ■ S tiKliiiiii (1:1. vii : i',«l . Cidliver . .. Putlllih . Total. .tnn«. . di). ..d... ..do. ..do. tev»'- Quanll- y , » S fi.'i!S WIT ,4IH 17 576 ro ■J fi.V. 93, «« ll-.i,'J.M 109 4,«0H 300 34:1 61) 67 94 10 940 .14, 133 17, 4i4 10, 7S1 3, 4IH 1,601 Ezportfld to other rountriea. 'C-; ^-'- ToUl. 3 73 li-il 4. 373 119, JM 73 161 :l>l8. S'UMiisanil toDgurf)..pk|;'i. Wbalcbone cwt iiv,<(fpi bush. !<<-»l.»liin« No. Oil. Tl?: Ini tuns. r,«|.|i\er do.. ^Tiiile do.. S-al do. . litrrinif do.. i;inblK>r and drogg . . .do. . TuUl. ll?69. Iirifil cmllish q tin. I .re codlish do.. HiiHoik do.. lUlibut do.. >.ilnion tierces. liming bbis Imnt do.. t'i»l iws do . . T xniints and noiindg . pkpe I/ibslers, pieservi'd iiyters bush. S'llskins No. Oil. viz: ^li tuns Co-.llver Sf»l While flerring li.i|;«sh Blubber an(i dregs.. Total do. do. do. do. do. do. 1?70. Dri*ic;':!'>ck do.. Halibut do.. 5''°""i tieroM 5™"S bbls. )!«fl'"»l do.. J"« do.. •■wroes do.. 463 348 19, 919 I 69, TJ6 40, 191) I 846 ' 120, 597 .54 0,788 S,363 9 13 I 4?, 018 6 13 100 1.5,794 : 19,635 5!I3 83 3 , 397 83,090 99,000 490 63,5-JO 348 1 4S6, 887 36 36 36 I 9,011 36,044 664 1, 398 3,330 I 55,084 37,651 119,953 889 T,^* 719 719 9,000 579 63 1,784 3 9,000 91,000 1.5, 87."> 303, .365 385 75 80 8 6-26, 577 17, 033 35 65 3,983 19,833 864 1,099 10 67, 987 35 130 48, 448 7H,339 6,919 8,176 80 l,l.'!0,09a 837 749 146,964 4.09.\089 ■j.511 1. 498 440, 899 1.099 4,140 30 487 317,522 2,478 149 79 4,4.'>(> 34 86 559 9,184 89,049 186 487 934,017 346.990 14.950 10.080 713, -.280 5.100 1,790 1,195,075 2,355 1,719 5, 900, 801 780,300 4,710 5,157 1, l(i9, 948 837 749 187, 163 9 915 1,009 6, .W3 :« 5(10 1 333,316 3,071 995 75 4,855 34 86 , 094, 818 9,511 1,408 561,489 54 7,390 9,184 130,060 199 500 100 266,659 499, 940 36.950 10,500 776, 800 5,100 1,790 0, 397, 688 5,884 141, 7c9 646 9«!4 840 99,340 725,367 5,168 3, »36 840 937 361,091 I 4,016 270 I 3, 796 18 i 29.11 io.j: 197A 361, 091 578, 544 67, 375 64,5, 935 9, 5.V> 4,393 1, 6110 3,160 1,904.086 9,3.55 1,719 664 9.214 179, 440 1,,598 964 1,539 363,021 4,528 333 5,580 91 30 11 198 4, 816, 344 4,710 5, 1.57 1,398 147, 494 8.38.320 12,224 3,856 1, ,559 949 363,091 670, 144 83,950 948, 600 2,940 4,470 1,680 3,168 7,281,860 1 7,908,437 1, 196, 704 1,907 28 272 3,568 126,856 l.\5 308 1,355 4,544,913 3,U51 44 544 56,368 316,728 1,940 9.464 4,980 1, 213, 737 1,943 98 xn 6,551 146,689 1,019 i,:«o 1,265 4, 61-2, 200 2,086 44 674 104, 816 396,060 8,153 10, 640 5,060 1516 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Relurn showing the quantitiea and values offish andprodiwta offish, «fc.— Continued Articles. Imported from United States. Quan- tities. Sounds and tongues. .pkcB. Senl-sliins ...No Oil, viz : ' Cod tuns. Cotl-liver do.. Seal do.. Herr'ng do.. Uogflsli do.. Blubber and dress. . do. . Total 1871. Dried codflHli ntls Core oodHsh do.. Haddocli do.. Halibut do.. Salmon tierces. Herring bbls. Mackerel do.. Trout do.. Cod-roes do . . Turbot do.. Sonuds and tongues.. pkgs. Seal-skins No. Oil, viz: Cod tuns Cod-liver do.. Seal do.. A\' hale do. . Herring do. . Dugtlsh do.. Blubber and dregs. . .do. . Total 1872. Dried codflsh qtls Core cadtish do.. Fresh frozen codlish. . .do. . Haddock do.. Halibut do.. Turbot do.. Herring, pickled bbls. Herring, fresh do. . Herring, smoked boxes Salmon tierces. Salmon, preserved Trout bbls Mackerel do.. Cod-roes do . . Sounds and tongues, .pkgs Caplin do.. Lobsters, preserved . . Whalebone cwt Oysters bush Seal-skins No. Oil, viz : Cod tuns. Cod-liver do.. Seal do.. Herring do.. Whale do.. Dogfish do.. Blubber and dregs . .do. . Total. 1873. Dried codfish ntls Core codfish do.. Haddock do.. Halibut do.. Herring, pickled bbls Herring, fresh do.. Herring, smoked do.. Value Exported to Uni- ted States. Quanti- ties. 453 3,084 S3S 4H 5.82 G 108) Value. 8453 3,084 33, 436 11, 925 47, 940 960 1,736 309, 3.» 8,735 630 1,423 31, H63 916 386 103 33,000 455 93 509 7 10 48 $36 8,544 19, 653 6,898 1,074 1,885 344 30 500 343 198 11 36 9,544 30 1,848 3."., 114 10, 550 134, 940 '"'i'soo 3.3, 448 95, 589 7,338 3,088 103 33,000 .59, 150 18, 400 71, 360 1,130 160 349, 475 34, 176 58, 9.59 30, 694 17, 184 15, 080 1, 9.53 30 500 47, 880 39, 6U0 176 Exported to other countries. Quanti- ties. 353, 344 3,609 373 6,087 3 lOli Value. $353, 344 5:14, 996 97, 315 1,034,790 864 1, 65ll 1, 319, 991 640 430 2, I>54 155, 566 458 68 1, 939 30 97 504, 094 4,783 331 7, 995 0 31) 69 1,212,612 739 358 li 429 5 121,220 14 3,975 304 30n 910 94 147 277, 872 3,791 23 4,228 50 38 8 93 236, 231 42, 194 30 3,696 75, 348 31,6.50 1,359,641 1, .'■03 1, 798 7,076 '"300 fi, 950, 905 «5, 014, 218 1,044 900 40, 184 364, 240 3, 664 544 5,817 80 97 504, 094 632, 366 44, 903 1, 119, 300 1,152 3,000 1,104 Total. Quanti. ties. V iilDc. 3,W, 4* 3, K14 4IU (), 38!l '2 li 210 3,55, JM .m. 43-1 10!:, m 1, Oft!, :;)0 M) 9fiO 3.3M ",2«0,2ilj 1,328, Tin ?,-), 640 6:|il 4,W 3, 97'' 187, 4-J!) 1,374 4."i4 l,93!l 20 19!l 537, 004 049, 1,V l.OU i,m m 63, a 10, m 3.(i;ii 5,ei: fO 1911 537,094 5,23? 3111 8,504 9 SO 79 691, 4ir, (i3, 30i 1, 1!I0,M 1, m 3, (IOC 1, M I. 'Ml 7, 736, 606 ',Oe6,0M 4,850,448 1 739 1,433 36 858 20 363, 660 14 63, 600 3, 080 2, 432 3,880 7,288 94 147 680 169 377, 872 530, 749 4,600 591, 920 7,500 5, 320 1,880 1,488 , 221, 1.56 739 358 12 429 ' 5 1 140, 873 i fl, 898 I 14 5, 094 2, 189 604 910 124 147 ,8S4,K4 7:19 1,4:« ;t6 20 422,619 20,694 14 90, Trl 3,0*0 17..ili 4,8:12 7,'M lil 14; 680 378,372 mjd 4, 133 221 4, 22H 50 38 8 104 6,718,397 4, 886, 944 3,354 9,887 343, 438 300 I , 369, 205 1,523 1, 79f 1,84H 122, 608 10, .WO 300 57P,6M 44,'JOO 591, 9'20 5, ;m l,2t0 1,661 6,954,5M , 929, n> 2,2?4 i.m 3,696 318,7(0 3l,liM 21)0 AWARD OP THE B'lSHERY COMMISSION. 1517 1.041 I.jM 900 63. »i 4r>!i.i*21 10. 1M 3. Bi 5,817 fO 1911 537,094 (i!ll,4li; ra.30'J 1,1!I0,5<« 1. m xm 1, M l.iii4 4,!?e4.0,21 7:t9 1. 4;k % 4'.!-.>.619 ■iO,6;'4 14 80, >4 3,0*0 17,51i 4.f;« 7 2'^ ' iii 147 6«) 109 '"■Sl'iJ.i 57»',fa 44,i00 591, '.'20 7,.=*0 5,;!'.'0 I,2t0 1.661 fi,954,52j 9?!I,W 2.vS 3,696 31*1. >" 31, «' 200 B((iir« shoidng the quantities and values of fish and j'roducts offish, <|c. — ConUniied. Articles. p.?>!!!!['n^Jui,v ExnortPrt to Uui- Exported to other ».„,_, StJtei t.dS:ute8. j countries. ! ^•''»'- QiiaU' titica. . lieicea Salmnn ■••■ Salmon, piescivcd Trout , Maikerfl «^JJ- bl>l.M CwlriH'n -.- LiiMcv. presiTvcd........ S,mmlsiiuaioii),ni<-'«--PKK» Cipliu •<'"■• (ivstHs >><;«'> Stalskins. -No Whaleluiiie nil. viz; (Vl t'V'8 loilliver «"• ^jl do. Wliaii' ']o- I)o;«sli <)o- Bliibkraiicl(lit'g»...do., Tiitul . 1874. Dripilcndlirtli <|tl.s lurort-lliali do.. IMilork do.. Halibut do.. Turliot do.. Ilerriii29 bids IlHrriiitts, frozen do.. SaloKiii tierces Salmon, i)re3erved lbs Trout Itljls Maokerel do., Lob.«l«r.<, ]ii'H»erved ... lbs Tmsuesaml souuds. -pUgs riplin do. Ol.iws bbls Wialflwue cwt (111: Coil tuns (JKl-livpr do. Sial do. Value Q;-"-, Value. Q-^"" Value, /^--ti. ise 635 IIP, 795 '7,076 405 1,6-20 1, )i8 1U6 ; 147 19 858 879 279 t806, 571 8,6fi0 4,588 1»3 S, 574 1,390 7,711 »i;i9 133 '2,616 "'a,' iio "ieiisai 135 I 227 32,0fi0 l.'iU 'M, 595 80 10, 4U0 .1 ,737 lll-J , 7.^") 57 78 6 143 139 :.. 218,967 18, 004 3U0 85, 4H9 310 8i!2 1,644 Htrrini; Whale Il0i;li«h liliiblior and dregs. S'«l-i(kiU8 do.. do. .do., .do. No Ovsters bush Total . 103 18, 401 8,300 1,643 55, 203 8, 301) 84, 618 ..TO 1,720 6114 18 627 13 171, 553 484, 597 648 521,. 500 31,605 878, 150 7,896 9, 360 7r'0 8,288 7, 8!I5, 998 6, 031, 462 846 63 1,2.54 52 514,665 463, 531 1,478 I 11,834 108 108 477 83 7C, 400 19, 133 79 1 1, 5,50 10 2,015 6,840 36, .562 7.56 47 85, 814 168 51 1, 186 17 2, 462 139 4, 3.58 80 62 6 80 396, 816 93, 637 4, H75 6, 043 376 2,581 168 51 3, 5.58 1,700 3!;3, 840 .32, 025 610, 120 2, 5H0 8, t;80 768 1,280 515, 861 3, 954 321 6, 835 .57 7- 6 143 1,609,724 9U4 18 1,449 13 189, 951; 8, -.KIO 7, 883 36, 562 2, 834 47 8.5,814 276 51 1, 186 17 2, 9,39 222 4, 358 21) 62 6 81 398, 366 Value. 1817,366 8, 660 6, 208 329 2, .574 1,390 279 135 "486,' 707 648 553, 560 64, 200 888, 550 7,896 9, 360 780 8,888 8,138,963 6,116,951 1,3.56 63 2,898 52 569, 868 8,300 118,245 4,875 17, 872 376 2,581 876 51 3,558 1,700 470, 840 31,148 610, 180 2, 560 8,680 768 1,296 517, 876 79 ! 283,2.50 8, 226, 460 1875. Jlrifilimlflsli (|t"8 l'otei'(»llisli do.. Haildoek do.. Halibut do.. Tiiibol (io.. nmini: bids Hftriiig, frozen fri'.'ili . .do. . ^hm tierc<«s Salmou. prpMerved lbs Tiirbot. smciked ntls L'l)«niiils anil tongues, pkgs '*l'li" do.. WlialelHme cwt fi'h.pickli'd do.. Oil viz: ^,«!,- tuns tiwliver ito ?;'»'■ do.. 5.7"i|? do.. 1* do.. HM\ ,io.. 10,008 50,177 1,120, 147 294 30,758 14, 4.50 1,931 92, 274 14, 430 27. 034 161, 227 r.iO 144 183 15 881 5, 403, 1, 48.' 751 460 .5;t; 366 60 ,643 8 136 i. 6, 50, 170 120 86, 0, 380 683 82 1,353 70 : 164 9 4i 8,118 229 164 9 450 144, 783 105 145 46 .52.', 14, 472 (ilill 434 '46 , 2.50 1,136,235 730 144 330 15 192,63!! 14,450 8, 101 .50, 120 8 144,723 1, 4.58 221 164 5.5 57 8,511,710 36 15 166 6, 2 '2 3,864 81,912 I 6 768 954 74 803 20 31 496, 028 84, 077 634, 260 8, 561) 3, 968 640 , 990 89 ,971 21 37 5, 453, 928 1,460 575 660 60 577, 917 14,4.50 113,414 6,683 136 14, 472 8,748 663 104 55 5, 700 502, .330 27, 341 656, 173 2, .560 4, 736 640 1518 AWARD OF THE FlbllEKY COMMISSION. Betmrm akoicitig the quaniilies and valuta offish and products of fish, ^'c— CuntiDned. Aitidea. ImportHd from United States. Exported to Uni- ted States. Exported to other countries. Value, Quan- tities Valae Qnanti- ties. Value. Qnanti- y , ' Quanti- ~ " ties. *"'"«■ ! ties. ^•1«<- Blabber and dregs itiins. 4 168 88 •1,404 346,924 551,001 92 |l.471i 346,9^4 4.01.001 Sealskins So.. Total «22 225,639 1 7,6I9,6f9 ^ '.Hj.JJi 1876. Dried coalfish qtls Core codfish Uo. . Haddock do.. Halibat do.. Hemux bbls.. HeiTiog, amoked boxes Salmon tierces SalnoD, preaerved 4,905 225 "m 88,875 27, 958 450 380 96,647 1 1, 359, 163 1 5, 475, 970 734 i 1. 4(i8 535 ! 1, 926 142 1 884 862,876 : 419,9.i8 800 1 5U fi, 386 102, 176 50, 888 5, 036 1 e l,3t;4,06« 5. 0 WJ rjj ...lis •''^ 1. m ■Mi M4 2:"i.:5i 'M.m 1,063 16,992 7, Hi im. ife 50. a'* ,-,,o;i6 1 « ilaekend bbls Troat . do.. Cod-roes . ......... do.. 435 73 80 3,332 292 532 ' 3, too 642 < 2,568 ■M 39 396 : 396 6, 046 89, 020 ll« • 119 3Cli -M 6,U4(i •i'.O-.'O SooDda and tongues, .pk'. s Caplin ...I'u.. Lobsters, preserved Ufsters bush 'iso' 5 'iso 15 80 Fiata, pickled qtls Seal-skins So '341,811 "'414,353 2,348' 37.'-., 680 941 24. 192 4,69l>, 638,010 19" 2,4M 82 I 2,848 Ji 70 72 , 2.284 341 811 444 IVl OiLtU: Cod tnns 84 18 ... ..^ 3,840 4,608 612 856 2, 372 37" .VO CodliTer do.. Seal do.. Herring do.. Wbalra do.. 1 1-.'> •>. HHI 4,otMi fa-.frii lit -im 24 ;i, 104 72 i fti Pot-bead do.. Blubber and dregs. . .do. . ToUl 165 155, 447 7, 538, 430 7 6-7 "77 A. RKCAPITULATIOiN. Years. Imported from United States. Exported— To United States. It;. I. 1863. 1853. 1854. 1^5. 1836. 1857. 18.W. llS9. 1H». Values. le**. 1863. 18«4 1865. 1866. 1867. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1871. ItW. 1873 1874. 1875. 1876. »^rw*r Total for twenty-six years . 1)82 105 158 91 120 297 110 883 1,785 5 345 1,780 152 10 72 348 36 36 139 79 82 165 0,700 Vahteg. «8a, 475 584, 340 182, 9ii5 113,119 330,850 482,640 391, 163 494, 883 4<)4, 194 378, 610 185,241 181,766 308,853 184, 684 546, 133 446, 584 846, 498 486, 887 686, 577 309,333 349, 475 8:16, 331 242, 967 885, fi.39 155, 447 To other coun- tries. Total. Valwis. 14, 384, 4tiO 3, 9:J5, 743 5,156,634 4, 589, 5;i5 4,793,971 5, 723, 859 6. 178, 375 5,494,961 5, 830, 791 5, 618, 747 5,604.394 5, 669, *>9 6, 084, 243 5,678,378 5,608,785 5,699,482 5, 888, 033 5, 900, 801 7, 881, 8M) 6, P.V), 9ti5 7, 736, 606 6,718.897 7. 893, 998 8, 826, 4tiO 7, 619, 6i»9 7, 5:12. 430 Vtthiff. 4,4ai,W .5.339.i-? 4,70il>:i» S, 1-J4. 'i\ B.2(16.4« 6,.m.tti! 5,9fil,i» fi,3t4.?6i 5,99I,3J' 5, 7-^. SB .i,8Jl,l3 6.3-7.(W ll, IM,!-!? 6. 14li,0O6 3.474.5:11 fi,W7.f-~' 7.;"Of.4l7 7,2«l.i!'? ii,9.M,"a p, ISi-.lW !.,5II.7W 7.84S.W^ 7, 6--7.tr; 8, 417, 196 ' 157, 142, 996 16J, -W- 'i** AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1519 B. glaltmnt Bhowing the total and average importa and exports of fink and products of fish for tkefour yturs preceding the Jteciprocity Treaty, the twelve years undtr the treaty, sicen MW» after its abrogation, and three years under the tFashington 'Treaty, respectively. 1- •cos ll Exported— Tears. To TJnited ° States. To other conutries. Total. Valttei. Values, m, 475 534, 340 182, 955 113, 119 Values. 14, 384, 460 J, 935, 743 5, 156, 634 4, 589, 535 Values. 14, 466, 9?,5 •82 105 158 4, 460, 083. 5, 339, 569' \ti:A 4, 702, 65+ Total for 4 years pi-eceding Reciprocity Treaty ... 345 903, 889 18, 066, 373 18,969,361 330,850 483, 640 391, 163 494. 385 494, 194 373, 610 183,241 181, 766 303, 853 184, «84 546, 133 446, 584 4, 793, 971 5, 733. 859 6, 178, 375 5, 494, 961 5, 830, 791 .5,618,747 5, 604, 594 5, 669, 359 6, 084, 243 5, 678, 378 5, 608, 785 5, 699, 433 5, 124, 831 uv; ..,.- 91 130 397 110 883 1,785 5 345 1,720 152 10 6, 206, 499' iw-\7 ..•.....•■■■•.■•■■.■■..■•..•......■ 6. 569. 538 5, 989, 846 liVl -- .-...-.....-,,.... 6, 324, 985 it^ ••.... 5,991,357 i,tft 5, 786, 8;i5 ]i^i 5, 851, 135 l^ 6, 387, 096: ]^4 5, 863, 063 1^ 6,154,918 \M ----...-.--....-. 6, 146, 006 Total for 13 years uudor Reciprocity Treaty 5, 518 4. 410, 003 67, 985, 485 72, 395, 488 72 348 36 246, 498 426, 887 6i6, 577 309, 3:13 349, 475 216,231 243, 967 5, 328, 033 5, 900, 801 7,28l.8b0 6, 950, !i63 7, 736, 606 6, 718, 297 7, 895, 998 5, 474, 531 6, 337, (m 7, 908, 4:n 7, 360, 398 8, 086, 081 36 139 631 6, 954, 538 8, 138, 965- Total for 7 years after abrogation of Reciprocity Treaty 2, 437, 968 47, 712, 560 50,150,528 Wl 79 S3 165 266 285, 250 225, 639 155, 447 8, 226, 460 7,619,689 7, 532, 430 8,511,710' Iffi 7, 845, 338 lt;6 7, 687, 87T 666, 336 23, 378, 579 34, (J44, 915 AVEUAOEa. ATertge for 4 years preceding Reciprocity Treaty Average for 12 yearH under Reciprocity Treaty Arerage for 7 years after abrogation of lieciprocity Treaty Atetage for 3 years under Washington Treaty Aterage for 86 years, from 1851 to 1876 4, SIC, 593 5, 665, 457 6,816,080 7, 793, 859 6,043,961 4, 743, 315 6,133,957 7, 164, 361 8,014,971 6, 367, 69» ^'%m k^Mt mm :■:' f-^<7\ H^^J ■^'1;:: 1 If Bit ^jKl Bjra 1 P ^PI^EN^IDIX eT. SPEECHES OF COUNSEL INCLUDING THE FINAL AKGU- MBNTS. I. At the fifth Conference held on the Slat of July, 1877, on the conclusion of the reading of the " Case of Her Majesty's Government "; the *'Answer of the United States"; and the " Reply of Her Majesty's Government," Mr. Thomson said : This, your excellency and your honors, is the "Case of Great Britain "; the "Answer of the United States" to this Case, and the reply. The issues are plain, and are not, I apprehend, to be misunderstood. I think I may not be presumptuous in saying on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that we feel these issues are trusted for adjadication and decision to able and impartial hands ; and if it shall happen, as I hope it may, that the result of your deliberations in this Case may be the basis upon which future and more lasting negotiations may be entered into, and so a source of continued national and local irritation be entirely removed, then I think I may fairly say to your excellency and your honors, that you will have acquired no unenviable and no uuiinportant place in the history of your times ; and I am quite satisfied that you will have earned by your labors the lasting gratitude of two great peoples. IL At the twenty-fifth conference held on the 28th day of August, 1877, Mr.TRESCOT, on behalf of the Government of the United States, made tiie following applicaton : Mr. President and gentlemen of the Commission : As the time is now approaching when the evidence in support of the British Case will be closed, and we will be requested to open the testimony in behalf of the Tnited States, we would ask leave to make a slight change in the order of our proceeding as it has been at present arranged. According to the present arrangement, it will be our duty to open orr case in advance of the testimony by laying before you the general scheme of our argument and indicating the points upon which evidence will be submitted in its support. The character of the testimony which ha been now submitted in sup- port of the British Case, and the tenor oi that which we will offer (as may be inferred from the evidence of the two witnesses whom we were allowed to examine out of order) have impressed us with the conviction that a practical discussion of the real issues will be more certainly se* I cured, and the time and patience of the Commission will be more wisely 96 F 1522 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. economized, if we are allowed to submit such views as it luaj' be our duty to maintain at tbe close instead of the advance of the exam- ination of witnesses. As we understand tbe wish of both governments to be that tbe whole discussion should be as frank and full as possible, it has occurred to us that you mi^ht be disposed to allow us to adopt such an arrange- ment as would in our judgment best enable us to lay before you a com plete i)resentnicnt of the opinions of the government we represent. And we feel more assured in that opinion as this privilege deprives counsel on the other side of no advantage which they now possess. For, beside the right to reply to the printed argument which they now bare, we would of course expect that they would also be allowed the right o! oral reply, if they desired to exercise it. An opening speech is not necessary, as the counsel on the other side have shown, but it would be obviously improper to submit this Case without a careful review of the testimony which will have been offered on both sides ; and this can be done with much more couvenicuce and thoroughness by an oral speech than by a written argument. To say all that it may be our duty to say in a printed argument would be im- lM)Ssible, without swelling it into a volume of unreadable proportions. It is our purpose to make the printed argument a complete but con cise summary of the contention, a clear statement of the principles in volved and the authorities referred to, accompanied by an analysis ot the leading facts of the testimony. This we can do, so as to make it ati efficient help to you in your own examinations of the case, if we are not compelled to overload it with all the discussion which the evidence and the case itself suggest, but which we could suflicieutly dispose of in oral argument. We would therefore request permission so to distribute the argument on our side as to have the opportunity of submitting our views orally. upon full comparison of all the testimony taken. It is no small induce ment to make this request that we believe that upon the close of tbe testimony we will be able to dispense with much argument which we can scarcely avoid in the present imperfect condition of the testimony. IJespectfully, RICHARD H. DANA, WM. HENRY TRESCOT, Counsel for United Staks. '"i ry] Mr. Foster said: As the motion just made involves a departure from the course of procedure adopted by the Commission, to which I assented, it is proper that I should say a few words in reference to it. At the time the rules were adopted, the Commission certainly cannot forget the posi- tion in which I found myself placed. Contrary to ray own expectations and to the expectations of my government, the Commissioners decided to allow the active participation in the conduct of the case of five counsel on behalf of the five maritime provinces. I came here expecting to meet only the Agent of the British Government, and suddenly found I was also to meet five leaders of the bar from the five provinces. I felt it important not to have five closing arguments against me. Now tbat there are counsel here to represent the United States as well as the British Government, it seems to me reasonable that such a moditication of the rules should be made as will permit the services of the counsel who have been brought here in consequence of the decision of tbe Com sion to be made available to the greatest extent. While I should have AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1523 beeu quite content to have discussed this mutter in writing with the British Agent, finding that I had to meet Ave counsel, my government lias been obliged to send counsel here, and it seems desirable that we should be able to use them in the most efficient way. Tlien, again, the evidence has assumed a very wide range, and is manifestly going to be conflicting to the last degree upon some of the points, notably as to what proportion of the mackerel taken by the American fishermen in British waters is taken within three miles of the shore. On that subject there is going to be a very great conflict of evi- dence. 1 don't believe that such a question can be satisfactorily discussed either in advance of the reception of the testimony or in writing after it is all in. It involves so much detail, that the writing, if laid before vou, would swell to a bulk that would be altogether unreasonable. I therefore very strongly concur in the application that has been made. Mr. DouTRE suggested that the British counsel should have time to consider the matter before replying. Mr. FosTEU concurred, and said that was the reason the application ami the grounds of it had been put in writing. At the Conference held on Wednesday, August -8, 1877. Mr. Thomson. An application was yesterday made to the Commis- sion. 1 was not present at the time, but I have seen the written prop- osition, and I understand that it was an application made to your ex- cellency and your honors for the purpose of altering the rules. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government — 1 am also now speaking the mind of the minister of marine — I may say that these rules have been sol- emnly entered into. We have acted upon them from the commence- ment to the end so far as we have gone, but still we have no desire that our friends on the other side should be deprived of any right which they think they ought fairly to have in order to bring their cases before this tribunal. We, however, certainly deprecate any alteration of the rules; and we feel that we are just in this position. During all this time that we have been examining our witnesses, we did so under the idea that the rules would remain as they were engrossed. It is impor- tant, we think, in such an inquiry as this, that these rules should be rig- idly adhered to, unless there be some very important reason why they slioiild be deviated from. I confess, speaking for myself, that I hardly see the force of the reasons advanced in favor of the proposed change ou behalf of the United States Government. They say that their argu- ments, if placed on paper, would be so bulky as to fill a large volume. Possibly that may be so ; but still that is rather more complimentary to their powers of discursiveness than anything else ; and they accompany tbis expression of opinion with the statement that they wish to be lieard orally at great length. I presume that this will all be reported by the shorthand writers, and in the shape of a lengthy volume it will meet the eyes of the Commissioners; soldo not see how this bulky volume is in any way to be escaped. Nevertheless, as I said before, we are not desirous to object to our friends on the other side taking this course in order to fairly bring the merits of their case before the tri- huaal, if they so think fit. W^e, therefore, are willing that they shall, if they please, be he^rd orally at the close of the evidence on both sides; bnt we submit — and we trust that in this respect there can be no dift'er- euce of opinion — that your excellency and your honors will not make any deviation from the rule which requires our friends on the opposite 1524 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. side, at the close of their case, to file their written argument, if they intend at all so to do. We contend that it would be entirely at vari- ance with the whole spirit with which this inquiry has been conducted that they should, after making their speech, call upon us, if we please to make a speech in answer, to make it, and that they then should file their written arguments. Such a course would wholly displace the position which we occupy before this tribunal. Great Britain stands here as the plaintifiP, and the ordinary rule in courts of comuion law h this : That the plaintiff, after a short opening of his case, calls wit. nesses, as we have, and at the close of the plaintiff's case the defend- ant, after a short opening of his case, also calls witnesses ; the respect- ive counsel for the defendant and the plaintiff then make their closing arguments; after which the case is submitted to the jury by the Judge. This is the course followed ; and, therefore, while we are willing, if it is really thought necessary by my learned friends so to proceed, that they should have the right to close their case by arguments in writing, or verbally and in writing, yet if they close verbally and then wish to put in a written argument, that must be done at once ; and we, if we so please, will then answer them verbally or in writing, as we like, or in both ways. I confess, speaking from the stand-point of counsel, tha^ so far as I have a voice in the matter, I rather reluctantly agreed to this, because I think that these rules were formally framed ; and, in reality, the proposition that the case should be conducted by written agreement came from the learned Agent of the United States, if I understand rightly, and we acceded to it, and entirely on that basis we have con- ducted the whole of our case. Still, I say again, that we will meet otir friends half way. Mr. Trescot. I suggest that my friend's proposition is an attempt at meeting by proceeding half-way in different directions; the trouble is that our half-ways do not meet at all. I am not sure that I under- stood my friend exactly, but as I understand him, he claims the right of two replies ; that is, the right to reply to our oral argument and tlien the right to reply to the printed argument, to which we have no ob- jection. Mr. Thomson. I said we would reply to your two arguments, oval and written. Mr. Trescot. If you mean that we are to make an oral argument, and that if you do not want to make an oral argument you shall not be obliged to do so, I have no objection. Mr. Thompson. I suppose that we will exercise our pleasure regard ing that matter. Mr. Trescot. If we make an oral argument, they have the right to reply. If, then, we give a printed argument, they have the same right to file a printed argument in reply ; their relation to us in the case is pre- served throughout. My friend refers to the character of the case, and taking into consideration not only the character of the case, but of the parties of the court before which we are, I may even venture to say ot the counsel engaged, I do not think we ought to proceed in the spirit of a nisi prim trial. Your judgment certainly cannot be prejudiced by a full and frank discussion. Our purpose is to save time and labor. We propose orally to discuss this subject before you with a frankness and freedom that we cannot do in writing, and then to put in a printed sum- mary, giving counsel on the other side the right to put in the final one. Surely my friend does not want us to adopt his suggestion because he wants to say something at the last moment to which we will not have opportunity to reply. There cannot be anything of a mystery in an AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1525 argument like this. We all now understand what are the issues which are before us. We only want to discuss them with perfect frdnkness and fullness, so that everything that is to be said on the case may be said. I want this case to be so argned, both in spirit and fact, that whatever the award may be, and whoever is called upon to submit to an adverse decision, they will be satisfied, having obtained the fullest pos- sible hearing on the subject. I want to secure no advantage over my friends on the other side, and I do not believe that they desire to have any advantage over us; if they will allow me to borrow an illustration from the language of their witness, we do not wish to " lee-bow " them. But I think that my learned friend is sacrificing himself to a sort of tecbnical superstition for the word " reply." In this case there is nothing mysterious, and no necessity exists in regard to having the last word. We are willing to lay our whole argument before the Commission, and then to let them reply to it, if they so wish ; but if they do not choose to do it we do not intend to compel them to reply, and it is perfectly in their power to eif ect themselves what they propose by declining to reply to our oral argument and confining themselves to their final argument. 1 say frankly I would regret such a decision very much. We wish to know their case as they regard it, and without dcjpriving them at all of their right to reply, to have a frank, full, straightforward and manly dis- cussion of the whole question. I have always thought that the fairest manner for submitting a case is followed before our Supreme Court. Both parties put in their printed arguments, bringing them within the common knowledge of each i>arty before the court, and then they are allowed to comment on these arguments as they please. Mr. Thomson. I agree with Mr. Trescot that this cause has not to be tried as one at nisi prius ; we do not want nisi prius rules here, but we want tbe broad principle understood that Great Britain in this case is the plaintiff, and as such she is first to be heard and the last to be heard. A great advantage is obtained by the United States by hearing onr case first, and for this very simple reason, during the whole time our evidence is being given before this Court they can be preparing their witnesses to meet it. There is always this advantage given to the de- fendant in every case. He has the privilege of hearing the plaintiff's testimony, and during the time the testimony is being given, he has the opportunity of preparing his answer. On the other hand, when the plaintiff comes to close the case, if there be an advantage in having the last word, the plaintiff has it. So the advantages are about balanced. A "frank" discussion, under the proposition submitted by the counsel for United States, simply means that the United States would get entirely the advantage in this cause. There is not the slightest desire on the part of the British Government or on the part of the Canadian gov- ernment, represented hereby the minister of marine, that one single fact should be kept back or forced out as against the United States ; on the contrary, that they shall have the fullest opportunity of being beard ; Imt we submit that not o. ly the rules solemnly adopted by this tribunal, but tbe rules which govern the trial of ordinary causes, should not be departed from. We have given way a great deal, when we are willing to allow our learned friends who represent the United States to take the course they propose to this extent, that they shall make their oral si)eeche8 if they choose to do so, and if they choose, in addition, to put in a written argument, well and good, but they must do it at once, and that, if we please, we shall answer their written argument and speeches orally and by written argument, or by one of those modes only. We ought not to be asked to yield more. JJift ;>;' =*■ ^« 1526 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Mr. Dana. Your excellency and your honors : From all the experi ence I have had in the trial of causes, where there has been examiua- tion of witnesses, it appears to me to be the best course to argue the facts of the case after the facts have been put in. Such is the practice in the United States, and I presume in Canada. This seems a simple proposition : that the time to argue upon the facts, to affect the inluds ot those who have to judge and determine, should be when it is liillv ascertained what all the evidence is ; and it is always daugerons, otteii inconvenient, and always illogical to argue upon supposed, assumed. supposititious, hypothetical testimony, which may never come before tlie Court. I suppose your excellency and your honors understand my objection. It is to a rule which permits that when the plaintitt' has put iu all bis evidence, and the witnesses have been cross examined, the defeiulant's counsel may rise and state what he is instructed will be tiie testimonv, what he supposes or assumes will be the testimony on his side, and then to make an argument upon that testimony, assumed and hypotbcti cal as it is, and to contrast it with the testimony of the phiiiititl, and deliver his mind fully and finally on the subject. This is dangerous and utterly unsatisfactory. Consequently in the United States, and I pre- sume in the Dominion, the argument is made after it is known what the testimony is, because the plaintitt's counsel in an ordinary cause, or the counsel representing the Government here, may rise with full beliei that it will be in his power to place the case in a certain position by his tes- timony, but it may turn out that he will be disappointed iu Lis testi- mony, that the witnesses have not said all that he expected, and that the cross-examination reduced or altered the testimony. But there k another reason. When the defendant has put in his entire case there is the right of rebuttal possessed by the plaintiff, and the rebutting tes- timony may produce eff'ects which the defendant's counsel had no reason to anticipate, and which, without directly contradicting his testimony, may place it in a new light. So I think every person will see, and I am quite sure this tribunal will see, it would be wasting time for us to at- tempt to impress by argument, comparison, and illustration, the eflect of testimony which has not been put in. Now, when v.e speak of open- ing the case for the plaintiff' or defendant, we do not mean arguing the case. On the contrary, an argument is not allowed by our practice iu opening a case. All you can ever do in opening a case is to state very generally what kind of testimony you expect to produce, what you think will be the effect of it, and the positions of law to which that evidence is to be applied — mere signals of what is expected to be done. It' in opening a case counsel attempts to say anything about the evidence put in on the other side, and argues on the character or effect of his own testimony, he is stopped, because he is arguing. Now, if I recollect the rules of the Commission, there is a provision, not that the British counsel should argue the case upon supposed testi- mony, but that they should open their case and put in their testimony f then, not that we should argue upon their testimony and our supposed testimony, but that we should open our case by merely explaining what evidence is expected, and when all the testimony should be in, rebutting testimony included, then there was to be a complete printed argument on the testimony, the points of law, and everything connected with the case. The learned counsel for the Crown thought, wisely, no doubt, that it was not worth while to have an opening at all, and they did not make one. Now, your honors might have said, *' We wish you would open your case, because we will better understand the testimony as it AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ir)27 coiues ill, ai»i know bow to apply it, and also the counsel of the LTnited States will bave a better opportunity to understand your case from tbe lirst, and be better able to cross-examine witnesses, and adopt wbat courietbey may see fit witb better intelligence of your position." But the learned counsel for tbe Britisb Government made no opening, and (it that we made no complaint. Now, we are very mucb in tbe same position they were iu tben, only we bave a mucb stronger reason tbau tbey bad. IJy this time, an opening, technically speaking, is not necessary. If tbe British counsel thought it was not necessary three weeks ago, it is nincb less necessary now, because this tribunal understands tbe main points taken on each side, and has a general view of the manner in which each side expects to meet them by testimony. As the counsel on the other side did not open the case, they would surely not think of maintaining that we should now open ours. We propose, as soon as they have concluded their evidence, to begin on our evidence. If this tribunal, or any member of it, should ask that, before we proceed to put ia any testimony, we should make any explanation, we are quite ready to do it; or, if the counsel for the Crown should so desire, we are ready to do it. For ourselves, we do not propose to do so, but to go directly on with the testimony. We will then be on the same terms, neither side having opened, neither thinking an opening necessary or desirable. We !«hailtheu proceed with our testimony until it is completed; the rebuttal testimony will then be put iu by tbe British counsel, and it is not until the rebuttal testimony is completed that this tribunal can be supposed toicnow on what facts it is to proceed. Now, do your honors think it is desirable to have an argument before you know on wbat facts you are to proceed ? All the facts having been placed before the tribunal, then is the time to argue the question. It may be said by the learned counsel that what I have so far stated is unnecessary, because they don't mean to compel iis to open. But I thiu! your honors will see it is well to understand in advance what is meant by an opening and an argument. When the whole of the evi- dence is before the tribunal, then comes the question, in what form can the counsel for the respective governments most beneficially to them- selves, to their opponents, and, what is most important, to the tribunal that has the weighty responsibility of determining the case, present all the tacts and the principles of law and policy to which they are applica- ble! Whatever mode will do that best is the one we ought to adopt. We, the Agent of the United States and, the two United States counsel, have made up our minds that it will be more satisfactory to the tribunal that has the judgment of the case, quite as fair to the opposite side, nnich more satisfactory to us, and more just to tbe United States, that tlie course which we propose should be taken. The only question is whether the course we propose should be adopted or the course pro- lH)sed by the counsel for the Crown in amendment thereto. Tbey seem to see that after the examination of witnesses and reading of aflidavits, extending over a long period, an oral argument is advantageous ; at all events they do not object to our making one. It is advantageous, be- cause it can be done aiwaj'S witb more effect. I do not mean more effect as respects the person who delivers the argument, but more effect on tlie course of justice, than a printed argument. When an oral argument is delivered, any member of the court who thinks tbe counsel is passing from a point without making it perfectly clear can ask for an explana- tion. We desire that this tribunal shall have an opportunity to ask, at ii'iy time during the argumrnf, for an explanation, if any explanation is 1528 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. H*t-'*N|.«v mi needed. It is, moreover, a hardship to those who hand in a printed argu- ment to be left in uncertainty as to whether further explanations may be necessary. I therefore think the experience of all engaf^ed in aHcertain- ing truth by means of witnesses and arguments shows that tiicre should be an oral argument, if possible, on the testimony and such of tbe ink- ciples of law as are to be affected by it. In this case it seems to be thought expedient also to have a printed argument. Perhaps it may bo; but if it should be given up by both sides, we do not object. If there is an oral argument only and no printed argument, we shall be more careful in our oral argument to exaniine into all questions of law. If there is to be also a written argument, tbe oral argument would be confined more to the facts. Now, your honors. our suggestion is that we shall, as the defendant always docs, when the evidence closes, argue the facts with such reference to i>rinciples as may be thought expedient. When that is done, it is the plaintifl's time tn reply orally. The briefs are a different thing ; the printed arguments are a different thing. In a great case like this— a question between tin- two greatest maritime powers of the world and intrusted to three gon tlemen with absolute power over it — whatever will best tend to enable each side to understand the other fully, at the time when it is necessary to understand them, is for the benefit of justice. When we have niadf our oral argument, the counsel for the Crown will make their oral argument. If they choose to waive the privilege of making that oral argument, if they think their policy will be best subserved by making neither an opening nor a closing oral argument, which we cannot compel them to do, and by hearing all we can possibly say before their mouths are opened, and to have their only speeches made after our mouths are closed — if that is their view of policy, I should like to know whether the agent of the Crown here tacitly gives his consent to such a course of procedure; that is, that the American side shall be obliged to put in both its oral argument and its printed argument, when the other side has put in nothing, and then have an opportunity to close upon us with- out our knowing from their lips anything whatever. We have had what is called the British case and what is called the American case ; bntthey are simply in the nature of pleadings. They do not go iuto the test! mony, they do not argue the facts of the testimony, they do not state what the testimony is to be ; they are of a general chfiracter, and in no sense arguments. I think this tribunal will agree with me on that point. In regard to the amendment proposed by tl><^ nthor side, by which we will be compelled to put in our printed an amei. e moment we close our oral argument, 1 will suggest to tn onors some objections to it. One objection is that we shall hji i)repare our i)rinted argument before we begin to speak. Won! i that be a ri 'ulous position in which to place counsel? They wo, have to prepare and print a full argument, and then come into court and take an oral argument, and then hand in the printed argument. I har \ know how I could proceed with such an undertaking as that. But a stronger objection '-^ this: They claim the right, under their amendment, to make an oral a , inent as well as a printed argument after we are through. So they are not going to open their mouths, and we shall not have the benefit of bearing anything from them in this case until our pieces are discharged and our ammunition exhausted. It is then the battle is to begin on tbe >ide of the Crown. Now, your honors will see that it comes right dov to this: We propose that first an oral argument should be made on the testimony. Counsel on the other side agree that an oral argument on the testimony AWARD OF THE FIUHERY COMMISSION. 1529 is a goo«l tliiiiff ; at all events, they do not object that there is anything unreasonable in having the arguments on the facts postponed till the facts are liiiown. The only question, then, is this : shall there be first an oral argument by the American side, and then an oral argument for the Crovrnrif tlie counsel for the Crown desire it, and then our printed argu- ment to be followed by their printed reply ; or shall we be compelled to iiut in both arguments before hearing anything from them ? The counsel for the Crown may rise and say they don't intend to make any oral argument, and thereby retain all the benetlt of a policy (if secrecy, and then it would be our (luty to put in a printed argument. Xlievcan force us to this by simply declining to make an oral argument. Then they would come in with a printed argument which would be the linal argument. Nothing we have proposed or can propose can prevent the counsel for the Crown having tlie closing words, because if our sug- gestion is adopted, first wo will make an oral argument, then they may rise and say they do not wish to make one, then we must put in a printed argument, and then they will close with a printed argument; only they cannot get the advantage of refusing to make an oral argument at its proper time, and make it afterwards out of time. Their own proposi- tion, on the other hand, is this : that they shall not be required to make an oral argument after we have closed ours, but shall have the right to transfer tbat oral argument from the stage immediately after ours, until the United States counsel have finished their oral argument and put in their printed final argument. Then the counsel for the Crown can argue orjlly on all the testimony, and in addition put iu their printed argu- ment. The result, therefore, your honors, would be that you yourselves \rould be placed under a disadvantage. You will hear our argument nnder a disadvantage ; you will always be obliged to say to yourselves, "the American counsel have given us a printed argument, but we can- not expect to find in it adequate replies to arguments they never heard." All the learned counsel on the side of the Crown have been able to say is, " We have submitted the case of Her Majesty's Government, and they liave our case." I have reminded your honors what these cases are. Then as to the briefs. We put in a brief six weeks ago, and we were to have a brief from the counsel for the Crown, but we have not seen it yet, I suppose owing to the fault of the printers. That brief w ill not be a brief on our testimony ; that, I suppose, I may assume. Mr. Ford. Yes. Mr. Dana. Therefore, as far as the facts are concerned, that brief can be of no use, and the original case of Her Majesty's Governme.t will also be of no use to us. I hope your excellency and your honors will fally understand we consider an opportunity to argue the facts as of very great value to the United States, and we assume you consider it at all , events your duty, how much value you may attach to it I cannot say, to give counsel the fullest opportunity to argue the facts with the knowledge of two things: First, what the facts are; and second, how oar opponents propose to use and treat them. Now, it seems to me that the most common justice requires tbat the resDJt should not be that before we file our final printed argument, and leave this court and this part of the world, and return to our several lionies, having done all we could do under the circumstances, we should not have heard by the ear, or read by the eye, one word that would ex- plain to ns what the counsel for the Crown think of our testimony or of their own, bow they mean to use it, to what points they mean to apply •t, what illustrations they mean to use. That will be our position if the proposal of the counsel for the Crown should be adopted. If we are 1530 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. i^li*^^ forced iuto tbat position by the counsel on the olher side refusiua to make an oral argument, we cannot help it; but I hope this tribunal will not give that course its sanction in advance, and so compel the result, that we must open everything and they notliing. The adoption of our proposal would be of very great advantage to us. I am not de- fending myself against a charge of trying to get an undue advantage. for under no possible construction of our proposed rule would it give^us any advai'*^age, except the opportunity to know fully what is the case on the other side, and if that is an advantage, it is a just advantan^e, But I wish to say that I am quite confident the learned counsel ha'le not fully considered the position in which they place themselves, us. and the members of this court by the amendment they propose todav! And it would give me great gratification to see them rise and withdraw' it and say : " You may make your arguments on the facts orally when they are placed before the tribunal ; we will then consider whether we wish to make an oral argument or not; if we do not, you will never know our views; if we do, you will get such knowledge as we see fit to disclose. Then you may put in your printed argument, and we will have the opportunity of patting in our printed closing argument, which ends all, unless the court should intervene and think the other side should have a reply, because some new points were made." That power, of course, is possessed by the tribunal, and no doubt will be fairly administered. But I do not like to take my seat until I feel I have impressed on the Agent and learned counsel for the Crown the fact that, if we are compelled to make both our arguments before they are called upon to make any observations, and before we have heard what course they are going f^ take, it will be a very great disadvantage to us, especially when we consider they will be in possession of all we pro pose to say on the subject of the testimony and the facts. Now, the view whlcii the learned counsel for the Crown may take of certain facts may be one that has not occurred to us. The illustrations they may furnish, and the manner in which they may deal with the various wit nesses, are matters regarding which we have not the prescience abso lutely to know. We have got, however, to make our oral argument without having this knowledge; but if our proposal is adopted we have at least the power of answering the other side in our printed argument, So it seems to me fair that before we put in our second argument we should have heard their first. I am quite sure this tribunal will feel, and never cease to feel, while you are discharging your present duties and afterward, if the amendment is adopted and the counsel of the United States compelled to deliver their arguments, written and oral, before the Crown had given us any idea of their views of the facts, ho« thcj mean to apply them to your honors' minds — that this, though fairly intended, is not fair, and'you will say, " We find so much in the final argument of the counsel for the Crown on the testimony, which evidently was not foreseen by the counsel for the United States in mak ing their f;,rgumeut, that, to give them an opportiuiity to reply, we must call them back." We do not desire that, and your honors do not desire it. As the learned counsel on the other side do not object to our proposition ii' itself, but are willing to accept it upon a single condition, which condition would operate as I have shown, 1 trust your honors will say you cannot impose that condition upon us. I do not hesitate to say, although my learned friend, the Agent of the United States, is alone responsible tor the course to be taken by the Government, we could not accept it and we •"juld withdraw the proposal altogether. Then we would fither AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1531 have to proceed with 'our testimony or make an argument in advance on bvpothetical testimonj . Therefore, the proposition of the Crown, unless forcetl upon us, which I have no idea will bo done, will be declined by us and we fall back on our own proposition. I need not remind your ho'uorsthat it gives the counsel of the Crown the opportunity of decliu- iuo' to make an oral argument ; nevertheless I think it would be in the iaterest, I will not say of couni-ol or of my own country, but of inter- national justice, that they would let us know before we submit our final printed argument, what they propose to say about the facts of the case. Mr. Thomson. A great deal of Mr. Dana's argument, and it really was the chief argument, was not in reply to what I had to say in regard to the motion ; in a great deal of what he said, I agree with him. I depre- cate as lie does arguing on hypothetical evidence. Such is not the prac- tice in the United States or in our own courts. Who asks that the Ameri- can counsel in this case shall argue on hypothetical evidence ? Who asks that they shall be heard, either orally or on paper, on a mere hypothesis ? Every fact and circumstance material to the case, both on the part of Her Majesty's Government and the United States, I assume, will have been presented before the counsel on the other side close their case. Then the counsel for the United States, as defendants in this case, will make their arguments, either orally or on paper, just as it seems best to them, supporting their own views of the case, and we, as connsel for Great Britain, will present to the court our arguments in an- swer to the arguments which they have adduced in support of their case. It was perfectly idle for Mr. Dana to have taken up so much time in ar- guing that they would be called on a mere hypothesis. Is it not idle to say to your excellency and honors, that you do not know what the case is about? Do we not all know what the points in issue are; do we not all see them ? So well do the learned counsel see them that they abso- lutely declare they do not intend to open the case — that it is wholly un- necessary, as the court now understands every single view that is likely tobe put forward. So they will understand, at the end of our case, every tact put forward by the British Government. The points are salient and plain and are understood tlioroughly by the Agents and counsel of Her Majesty and of the United States. How, then, can it be said there is any hypothesis at all ? My learned friend Mr. Dana) says I am asking that an amendment to the rules should be iiilopted. 1 am not. So far from that, the United States are coming in at tbis late stage of the proceedings and asking for an amendment of rules that were made in their present form, not merely by consent of, but I believe at the instance of the learned Agent of the United States. Can it, then, bo said we are asking for any amendment to be made? Iliey are asking as a favor that the court shall lay its hands on its own niles— rules made at the instance (and in the form they now are) of the Attiericau Agent. They are asking that as a favor, and at the instance of Her Majesty's Government, and with the consent of tlio minister of niariue, I come forward and say on behalf of the two governments that tliey are quite willing to so far depart from these rules as to consent to Moral argument if the United States counsel think ic is any advan- tage to have one, though the government I represent can see no such advantage. lean understand that a jury may be led away from justice by specious arguments, but I apprehend that this tribunal will not be swayed by any such means, and that the epitomized statement of facts given by wit- ureses \\ ill have more effect than all the eloquence of the counsel on the other side. If the case is to be decided by the elo(iuenco displayed in 1532 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. J ' the oral arguments, then 1 admit that Her Majesty's Government wonKl stand at great disadvantage, but I do not think that eloqnence will have a feather's weight in this case. I desire the court to understand distinctly that this is a motion made by the counsel of the United States to have the rules altered, and I come forward, for Her Majesty's Agent and the minister of marine, to state we are willing it shall be done as they wish, provided always they don't, in getting an inch, take an ell, They will have, if they think it is an advantage, the right to make closing speech, but must immediately afterwards put iu their closinc printed argument. They are simply to support their own case. We are" then, simply called on to answer the case and argument in support oi the speech they put forward, and nothing else. Not one principle ot ordinary justice will be infringed or departed from. In conclusion, I must confess I cannot help feeling a little surprised at the manner in which Mr. Dana submitted the motion, for he put it in an almost threat ening manner to the tribunal, that if it was not acceded to, the counsel for the United Sta^^s would withdraw the proposition altogether. That is not the usual tiode in which a favor is asked by counsel before a tri- bunal. Mr. Foster. I think I am entitled to a few words in reply. If the learned counsel (Mr. Thomson) had boen present yesterday afternoon when I made the explanation which accnmpanied Mr. Trescot's motion, I think he would not have made the observations which he has made! This is what I said : When I came here 1 found myself met suddenly by five of the most eminent gentlemen who could be selected from the five maritime provinces, and, contrary to the expectations of myself and mv government, they were to be admitted to take charge of this case, and they were assisted by a very eminent lawyer, now minister of marine. who is spoken of by counsel as having largely the conduct of this case, I alone, a stranger in a strange land, having no reason to suppose coun sel would be brought here to assist me, found myself, I say, by the un- expected decision of the Commissioners, placed in such a position that, instead of meeting the British Agent, I had to meet the British Agent, the minister of marine, and five counsel. Now, to avoid five closing oral arguments against one, I was well content with the original arrange ment of the rules. But the rules provided that they might be changed if in the course of proceedings the Commissioners saw fit to alter them ; and as to our application being an application for a favor either from our opponents or the Commissioners, it is no such thing. It is an applica tion to your sense of justice. Before t. judicial tribunal there are no such things as favors. Decisions go upon the ground of right and justice. and especially so in regard to a treaty. Under the oath which the Com missiouers have taken, equity and justice are made the standard of al! their proceedings. Now, how are we placed t We have, in the first place, a much greater mass of testimony than I anticipated, or any of you anticipated, I presume. In the next place, we are on the eve of a much greater conllict of testimony than I anticipated ; we see that very plainly. Then again, from prudential considerations, counsel on the other side saw lit not to open their case. It was a grievous disappoint ment to me; I could not help myself, as I saw at the time, and so said nothing. But it was a great disappointment to find they did not think fit in their opening to explain the views they intended to enunciate. As the testimony has gone forward for more than a month, it has become obvious to all of us that in a printed argument, prepared within ten days' time, and compressed within the necessary limits of a printed argument, we cannot examine this testimony, and cannot render the AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1533 tribunal the assistance they have a right to expect from counsel. It is, therefore, proposed that, instead of making opening oral arguments, which obviously would be quite inadequate, we should have the oppor- tunity of maiiing closing oral arguments, to be replied to by the British counsel, and then that the printed arguments should follow, giving them the reply then also. Whatever we do, we are willing they should have the reply — the reply to our speeches, the reply to our writings. Is it possible that any arrangmeut could be fairer than that, or any arrangement more calculated to render your honors assistance iu coming to a just and equitable con- clasion ! Now, I know my friend, the British Agent, does not mean to (leal with this case so that batteries can be unmasked upon us at the last moment. I know the Commissioners will not allow such a course to be taken. Unless that is to be done, it is quite impossible that any unfair advantage would result to us, or that the British counsel would be in the least deprived of their admitted right to reply, which always belongs to the party on whom lies the burden of proof, by^ the course which we propose to follow. What we do desire is, that we should have the chance to explain our views fully before your honors orally ; that we should then hear from counsel on the other side ; and then that the printed summaries, which are to be placed in your hands to assist you, should be left with you when you go to make up your minds on this case. What do they lose by it ? What can they lose by it 1 By omit- ting to make any oral arguments, as Mr. Dana has said, they can get the last word and unmask their batteries; but if printed arguments are to be made at all, does not common sense require that the printed argu- meuta ou both sides should follow the oral arguments on both sides ? I put it to each member of the Commission, I put it my friend the British Agent, is not that tb"^ course which every human being knows will be most likely to lead to a thoroughly intelligent and just decision? If it was a matter of surprise; if we were before a jury, and a poor one; if it was one of those nisi prius trials, which we are sometimes concerned in, I could understand the policy of trying to have both oral and written arguments made against us after our mouths are closed forever; but I cannot understand it now. If the matter should be left as they desire to have it left, I venture to predict that either on our application, or more likely at your own request, we shall be called upon to reargue this case after the original arguments are supposed to be closed, for you will M iu their final arguments, oral and written, matters which you will think common justice and fair play, for which Englishmen are said to be distinguished all the world over, require that we should have an oppor- tunity to answer. They may close upon us orally, they may close upon as in writing, bu^y as for their possessing the privilege of keeping their policy concealed till the last moment, I do not believe they really want it; Ido not believe my friend the British Agent wants it ; and if be does not want it, there is no conceivable objection to the adoption of the course we propose. Mr. DouTRE. May it please your excellency and your honors : My learned friend, Mr. Dana, has spoken of the usages of the courts in dif- ferent countries, and with those observations we might have agreed, until necaiue to claim a most extraordinary thing, and one which I am sure oar learned and experienced adversaries never heard of being conceded "I any country in the world— that the defendant should have the reply. % conviction is that there is no danger in challenging our friends to name any court in the world where the defendant has the right to reply. i think we would be far below the standard given to us in the compli- 1534 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ments of our learn" 1 friends if we did not see very clearly the course which they propose to follow. They would have the means of meeting everything we could state ; and anything we might state after that I don't conceive what it could amount to. It may strike persons not familiar with courts of justice that it is strange we should insist ou hav. ing the last words, and our friends magnify that extraordinary desire on our part to point out that we have not to deal here with a jury, which might be misled by the elegance of some skillful lawyer, but that we have to deal with a far higher order of judges. This I admit. But I would like my learned friends to explain the strenuous eilbrts they are maljinc to get that reply. It is nothing but such a demand that my learned friends are putting forward. Our American friends have been so extraor- dinarily lucky in all their international difiiculties that they have ar- rived at the last degree of daring. We are living in hope that some time or other the balance in connection with international difficulties between England and the United States will turn on the right side, I do not know if we are in the way of reaching such fortunate result. but we live in that hope. Our learned friends on the other side pretend that they have been placed at a disadvantage from the fact that we did not, as they say, open our case. We did open our case. We opened through Mr. Thomson, who stated to the Commission that all he had to say was printed, cut, and dried, and ready to be read ; that it set out the case in better language than he could have used in a speech, and that there was nothing to add to or take from it. I think this was the best opening that could have been made, otherwise our learned friends might have complained and said they expected to have obtained more detailed information about the case. But they felt it was a saving ot time, and they have expressed the opinion to-day that it would have served no real interest to have gone any further than Mr. Thomson l)roceeded. Mr. Dana has complained that the brief which has been filed by the American agent has not yet received an answer. I think we are not bound to answer the brief. If we do so it will be merely out of courtesy to our friends. Our answer might come in our final written argument, and there is no reason whatever, and no right ou the part ot the counsel of the United States to demand to have it sooner than that. If we choose not to answer it even then, I question if we can be re- quired to answer it ; so that if we give an answer to their brief it will be a mf^e matter of courtesy, because we are not bound to do so. Mr. Dana. Do we understand there is to be no answer ? Mr. DouTRE. I do not say so. While I think we will file an answer. it will be done out of courtesy to the counsel for the United States. We have been told we are keeping masked batteries for the last moment. I would like t^^ know where we would find ammunition to serve those bat- teries. Is u ! all our case in the documents filed, in the depositions of the witnesses, and in the affidavits 1 Can we bring anything more to bear ? They are our ammunition ; they atv^ . tU here ; our hands are empty, and we have no more to serve any masked batteries. The argu- ment may be very plausible, that in a large question, involving two great countries, it is necessary that everything should be done which tends to enlighten the minds of the judges so that a just result may be secured: but that argument, your honors will understand, would be as good in every court in the world to obtain for the defendant the last words and change all the rules of judicial tribunals. Hon. Mr. Foster says he has been induced to agree to the demand now under discussion because when he saw he was going to be met, contrary to the expectation of his government, by five gentlemen, whose talents he magnifies for the oc AWAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1535 jjjjo,,^ because it suits the purpose be bas in view, he thought he would be ond'er a disadvantage if the rule in question sliould be maintained. If we go back to the time when the rule was adopted it will be recol- lected that the five lawyers on behalf of the Britisli case were then be- fore tbe Commission, if they were not admitted, it was known for sev- eral weeks that the British Agent intended to be assisted by counsel ; so tlie fact was fully before every one of us when the rules were adopted. >ow we are asked to change these rules. So long as it is a matter of convenience and pure courtesy to the United States, we have no ditti- (ultviu acceding to their request, and in doing this we are acting within the terms of the written document under discussion, which says: As wc nndcrHtand the wish of both governments to be that the whole discussion should be as IVank and full as possible, it has occurred to us that yon might be disposed 10 allow us tu adopt such an arrangement as would, in our judgment, best enable us loiay before you a complete presentment of the opinions of the government we repre- .ent, and we feel more assured in that opinion as this privilege deprives counsel on the otiier side of no advantage which they now possess, for besides the right to reply to the iriuted argiuuent, which they now have, we would, of course, expect that they would also be allowed the right of oral reply if they desired to exercise it. So far this is perfectly correct, but it does not show their hands to us at all. We do not see their real object, for there is a masked batterj'. Apparently a very simple alteration oif the rule is asked for, and our frieml Mr. Trescot thought yesterday that it was so unobjectionable that it would be immediately acceded to. Well, if this paper had stated the wiiole truth, and did not cover anything which is not mentioned, we should have accepted it immediately, as has already been stated by my brother counsel. But we suspected that this slight alteration conceded something, and we were not mistaken. Mr. Trescot. What is it ? Mr. DouTRE. I will explain it, certainly. INIr. Dana says, ''You have a reply." Certainly we have the reply, but we might reply in eight mouths from this, and it would be just as good. Here is the practical result: if the proposition, which is not included in this paper, but whick has been admitted verbally, were accepted, our learned friends would develop their case orally, and we would answer orally. They would then come with their printed statement. Now, is not this the reply ? What would remain for us to say ? What would be the value of that lirinted document which we could give afterward ? What new aspect or expose of our case could it contain ? None whatever, so that virtu- illy it gives our friends the reply, and that is the reason why they are iosisting so strongly upon the change in the rule. Mr, Dana. You take the objection that under our projiosed rule you would not be able to put in anything new ? Mr. Weatherbe. All you asked for was to substitute an oral for tbe written argument ? Mr. Trescot suggests that it would be better if he were now allowed to read the amendment which he proposes to submit. Mr. Weatherbe. It would have been bettor that we should have had ii last evening. Mr. Trescot. It i s entirely in accordance with the paper which I read last evening. Sir Alexander Galt. We should have had the precise proposed alteration of the rule before us before hearing this argument. Mr. Trescot. It is precisely the same as what was laid be tore the Couimission. I will read it. The third rule reads this way : Tlie evidence brought forward in support of the British case must be closed within ^iwiodof six weeks after the case shall have been opened by the British counsel, 1536 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. •j- VnVT nnless a further time shnll be allowed by the CommiBsionera on application. The evidence brought forward in support of the United States counter case must b closed within a eimilar period after the opening of the United States case Id answer^ unless a further time be allowed by the Commissioners on application. But as soon as the evidence in snpport of the British case is closed that in support of the United States shall be commenced, and as soon as that is closed the evidence in rP])ly giiaH )^ commenced. After which arguments shall be delivered on the part of tlio Uuitod States in writing within a perid often days, unless a farther time be allowed by the Commis- siouM^ on application, and arguments in closing on the British side Mliall be delivered in writing within a further period of ten days, unless a further time be allowed by the Commissioners on application. Then the case on either side shall be considered tiDally closed, unless the Commissioners shall direct farther argument upon special points the British Government having in such case the right of general reply, and the C'ommig- sioners shall at once proceed to consider their award. The periotls thus allowed for hearing the evidence shall be without counting any days of adjournment that may be ordered by the Commissiouers. The atnendraent which we would move wonld be to insert after the words "the evidenije in reply shall be commeuced," the following: "When the whole evidence is concluded either side may, if desirous of doing so, address t'le Commission orally, the British Government having the right of reply," Mr. DouTRE. I understand this, but it is not the motion under dis- cnssion. I have read the principal part of that motion, and I say this, that, if we take this to mean what our friends had in their minds when they made their application, the only alteration that this rule would re- quire would be this, " after which argument shall be delivered on the part of the United States, orally or in writing, within a period of ten days, unless further time be allowed by the Commissioners on applica tion, and arguments in closing the British case shall be,'' etc. Mr. Trescot. That is what Mr. Thomson proposes. Mr. DouTRE. Exactly ; and this does not give any more. But there was in their minds more than this contains. We have it in tbeir verbal explanations. Mr. Trescot. So far as the construction of language goes, I have no objection to your putting any construction you please or drawiug any inferences you choose from the language of the application that was made last night. But that the intention of that application and of the amendment we propose to-day were one and the same thing, there can be no doubt. When we filed that paper what was wanted was distinctly known, otherwise it would have been bad faith on our part, as we would have been asking for one thing and intending to get another. There was no possible doubt what the object of this was, as is evident from the fact Mr. Thomson suggested an amendment himself to counteract our object, showing that he had clearly in mind what object we had iu view. Mr. DouTRE. My answer is that by reading this we suspected the object of this paper was something more than to change the time when onr learned friends should address the Commission. It only meaut that instead of doing so before adducing their evidence they would do so after the whole of the evidence had been brought in. The object that our friends have in view is very clear in the paper which has been read here to-day by Mr. Trescot, but it is not so in the paper which was pre- sented yesterday, and we suspected this was an indirect way of secur- ing that which is not known in any court in the civilized world, namely, that the defendants should have the reply. They would have twice the opportunity of discussing the matter, when they have no right to be heard more than once. Now, why is the reply given to the plaintiffs t Because up to that moment the position of the defendants is far more privileged. They have all the evidence of the plaintiffs iu tbeir hands, AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1537 and they know what they are themselves Roinjj to prove. The plain titf does not know it. When we shall have closed our evidence, they will have the whole case in their bands, while we have only half of it. For that and other reasons the final reply is given to the plaintiff, and we object to our friends in this manner aeekinjj: to upset the rules which nievail in all courts of justice that ever existed. Mr. DANA. 1 heg that you will not sit down without explaining how vou lose the reply. " Mr. DoiTRB. We have a reply which is worth nothing; that is what I iiieiui. The virtual and practical reply is in your hands. That is exactly the position. I think it is necessary, in order to preserve the harmony that has so far existed here, we should not introduce in this Couimission a practice which has never existed in any court, tiiat one of the connsel should pa.s8 over the head of his legal aclversary in order to reach the suitor and ask him if he agrees to whjit his counsel pro- poses. Such a course as that would tend materially to impair the good rehitioiis which we all, I think, desire to cultivate. Mr. Trescot. I have no intention of saying one word that could dis- turb the relations that exist between the coun.sel on either side, and [ have no fear that anything could be .said on either side that would have sucli a re.sult. For that reason I '>»K t'"^'' '' ''* ""^ C()in])i!teiit for this Coiiiini.sHioii to aw^rd uny coiii|)tMiH:ii- tion fur coiiiiiicreial inter -oiirae lietweeii the two ooiiiitrieH, iiiid that the udvaiitiifrcH rpftiiliinc t'roiii the |)rii(;ticH of piircliiisiiii^ l>ait, ice, HtipplieH, &c., ami from being allontd to tranHship carjjoeH in British waters, do not (ionstitute a toiindatioii for awartl of cmiiiieUHatiou,ahd tiliall be wholly excluded from the cooHideration of thia tribunal. The object, may it ph\ise the Commission, of this motion is to obtain, if it be |)ossil)U», and placje on record, a decision dcchiring the limits of voiir jiu'isdiction, and thns to eliminate from the investi^'ation matters wliicli we believe to be immaterial and beyond the (scope of the powers conlerred upon yon. The twenty-second Article of tlio Treaty of VVash- inctoii is the charter under which we are acting, and this provides that — In.isninch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty that the [irivilt);('8 accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty, arc of ureater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this trmty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, at)d this assertion is not admitted by tliediiveriimciit of thi United States, it is further agreed tluit Commissioners shall bo aii|Miiiii(!(l to deteiniiiie, having regard to the privileges acconled by the United States to the 8iilijccts of Her Hritannie Majesty, as stated in Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty, tliu'ainonnt of any compHiisation which, in their opinion, oiigiit to be paid by tbeGnvcriitncnt of the United States to the Government of Her Bi'iiainiic Majesty in niiini for tiie privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of tliis treaty. The subject of our investigation, then, is the amount of any compensa- tinii which ought to be paid by the United States to Her Majesty in re- turn for the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States, under Article IS of the treaty, and that is all. The other articles referred to in this section, Articles 11) and 21, are set-otts or equivalents, received by Her Majesty's subjects for the concession made by Her )!;ii('sty's Government to Unitem]>eiiHatioii to be awarded in return for privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States, while the case made and the evidence ottered claims damages U8 well. Have any of our fishing vessels lee-bowed — I believe that is the proper phrnse — British fishing boats in former years, or are they liliely to do it again ? Are the fishing grounds hurt by gurry thrown into the waiei I Have families been alarmed by American fishermen on shore! Evt'iy description of injury and outrage, intentional or unintentional, great or small, going back to a period as tar as human memory extends, is laid before you as ground for damages. The colonial governments have erected light-houses on their coasts at dangerous points, and the perils of navigation are thereby diminished ; so they present an estimate of the cost and a list of the number of the lighthouses, and gravely ask you to take these things into consideration in making up your award. ^.Whatever has to do with fishing, or fishermen, or fishing vessels, di' H'ctly or indirectly, nearly or remotely, is brought before you and made the foundation of a claim. The British case and its evidence seems to me to be a drag-net, more extensive than the purse seine ot which we have heard so much, gathering in everything that can be thonyht of and laying it before you, if by any means, consciously or unconsdoiisl.v, the amount of such award as you shall render may thereby be affected, Now it seems to us, under these circumstances, to be a plain duty to ascertain if we can, and to have recorded, exactly the grounds of your jurisdiction as in your judgment they exist. We understand, as I have said, that you are simply to deternuue the value of the inshore fisheries, ^nd the value of the right of landing to cure fish and dry nets where tliis can be done without interfering with private property or British fisher men drying nets. From the beginning we have protested against any more extensive claim being maue; this protest will be found distinctly and unequivocally made on page 8th of the "Answer," where it is said: Suftice it. now to observe that the claim of Great Britaiu to be compensated forallow- iuR United States tishernien to buy bait and other supplies of British sulijectu has no semblance of foundation in the treaty, by which no near right of tratiic is conceded. And in the recapitulation at the close of the "Answer," the United States maintain that the various incidental and reciprocal advantages of the treaty, such as the privileges of trafQcking and purchasing bail and other supplies, are not a subject of compensation, because the AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 15U Treatvof Wiisliington confers no such rights on the inhabitants of the I'liiteil States, who now enjoy them merely by suH'cranee, and who cau It miv time be deprived of them by the enforcement of existinj* laws Ijf'lliJ, re enactment of former oppressive statutes. We say flrst, that vnii liitve no jurisdiction over such matters as a subject of compensation, iieciiiise the rr«^aty confers none upon you and nothing of the kind is (leiiomiiiated in the bond. We say secondly, that we have no vested riffhta umler the treaty, regarding commercial intercourse of this de- Kcrilitioti ; and that as regards such intercourse, the inhabitants of the United States stand in the same relation to the subjects of Her Majesty as tlie.v dill before this treaty was negotiated. These two points though piiiiiii'ijr somewhat together are nevertheless distinct. And we base our iniiteiition upon tlie plain language of the treaty, in which not one word fiiiii be found relating to the right to buy or sell, to trattic or trans- ftrcargoi's; the whole language is limited to the privilege of the inshore fisheries, both in Article 18, where these privileges are conferred, and in Article 22, which provides for the appointment of this Commission. Of course, it is not necessary for me to call your attention to the fact that oominissioiiers, arbitrators, referees, and every other description of tri- liiiiials, are limited in their powers by the terms of the instrument under nliiehtbeyact; and that if they include in any award, a thing upon which they are not authorized to decii 1' ^1 B 1' J' liUll , 11 conrso between the United States and Her Majesty's subjects in EiiroiK' states — ' Tlio iiiterronrse between tl'fi United States niul HIh Britannic Muicstv'.i [Hisst ssinn in the WuHt Iinlies, nnd on tlie (continent of North Aniniicu, hIiiiII imt Ih- aitic ei| Kv any of the provmionH of tliis article, Imt. eacli party hIihII reinaiu in tlie CDiiiukte \>,',l •CHHion ot itH rij{htH, with reHpect to mioh an iutercoiirae. ' Thus the coniiuercial intercourse between the two countries is provided for t)y tlie Treaty of ISl;"!, whicli, as I understand it, nuiier its various extensions, is in force to-day. It refers back to former and pit' existing; rights, to find which it is necessary to go still further imcli— to the Treaty of 179-4, conunonly known as Jay's Treaty. Tuniinj,' to that we find that the third article deals with the special relations itetAeeii the United States and the British North American Colonies. It im^lit be supposed — and the argument perhajjs might be correct, thon^iii I dn not say whether this would be the case or not — that the war ot isij abrogated the provisions of the Treaty of 1794, were it not timt tin' Commercial Convention of 1815 referring to previous existing riglits quite manifestly, I think, treats as still in force the provisions ot this article of the Treaty of 1794. I will not read the whole s\rticle, but it stipulates 'Hhat all goods and merchandise whose importation into His Msijesty's said territories in America, shall not be entirely proiiibiteil, may freely and for the purposes of commerce be carried into tliesiune in the manner aforesaid by the citizens of the United States, ami tiiat such goods and merchandise shall be subject to no higher or o«<'fr duties ttian are payable by His Majesty's subjects, on imporlin},' the same into the said territories; and in like manner, that the goods iiini merchandise whose importation into the United States shall not l)e wholly prohibited, may freely lor the purposes of commerce beciurieil into the same by His Majesty's subjects, and that such goods and uur- chandise shall be subject to no higher or other duties than are pavable by the citizens of the United States on importing the same in Ainericaii vessels into the Atlantic porrsof the said States; and' — mark this— "that all goods not prohibited from being exported from the said tenitoiifs, respectively, may, in like manner, be carried out of the same by tbetno parties, respectively, on paying duty as aforesaid"; that is to say, as I understand it, the inhabitants of each country going for the pnrposesoi' commerce to the other countrj', may export its goods, so long as their exportation is not wholly prohibited, upon the same terms as toexpon duties as would be imposed on Her Majesty's subji'<;ts. Then the arti- cle after some other paragraphs closes thus: " As this article is intemleil to render, in a great degree, the local advantages of each party, coiuiikiu to both, and thereby to promote a disposition favorable to tVieudship and good neighborhood, it is agreed that the respective governmeuis will mutually promote this amicable intercourse by causing speedy ami impartial justice to be done, ami necessary protection to be extended to all who may be concerneil therein." Gentlemen, such I understand to be the footing on which comiuercial intercourse stands between the two countries to-day, if there is any treaty that governs commerce between the British North American Troviuces and the United States. And if this is not the case, the relations between the two countries stand upon that comity and commercial freedom whitli exist between ah civilized countries. The effect of these provisions, to employ an illustration, is this : If the Government of Newfoundlaiiil chooses to prohibit its own people from exporting fish for bait, in whicii export, it is testified, they carry on a trade of £40,000 or £jO,0(K) auuu- ally with St. Pierre, it can also, by the same law, prohibit United States AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1543 citizc^iiH from carrying ttway such articles, but not otUorwiHe. As I aiulerstiiiid tlie ott'ect of tliis commercial claiiHO, whatever may be ex- nortctl frtun tlie British FrovinceH by anybody— by their own citizens, l)V Freiicliincn, or l)y citizens of other nations at peace with them — may jiIho Ih) exported by citizens of the United States on tiie same terms, as to export duty, tliat apply to the rest of the world. If, then, Newfoutid- laiid st'f'^ tit; to conclude that the sale of bait-lish — Raplin,or herring, or siiiiid— iiiid ice is injuriou.'i to its interests, and therefore forbids their ex- IK)rt)tlt4i};ether, that prohibition may extend to the citizens of the United .States; but the citizens of the United States have there the same privi- Ifircs with the rest of the world ; they cannot be excluded from the v'mUti \i^\)\\y and take bait out of the harbors of Newfoundland, unless the rest ot'tbe world is also so excluded. However, this is of remote conseoseof ohelter and of pui'uhuHin|{ wiKid itiid r)f obtuinir.g water and for no other imrpoHe iihalt-ver. By till' teriTiH of Article 18of tlio Treaty of Wasliinyton, United States ftsheriiien were liraiiti'd " pertiiiHHion to land upon thenaid cotuttBaiitl Hlioresand iMiandH, and also upon llii; Magdalen Islands for the purpose of dryin'sty, to take lish and to land for tishinenal .\et 5i), Geo. III., Chap. :?H, but Her Majesty's Governmoiit U'A luiiiiid la state that it seentH to them an extreme uieaBure iueonsistent witli thi? geiu'rai |iiil\'y of the empire, and they are disposed lo concede this poiii ; to the United Slab's G,)vi ;ii- ment under such restrictions as niay be necessary to pru'vent smuggling ami In nuarcl against any siibstantial invasion of the exclusive rights of tishiug whiuli iiw^v I'o iv- Berved to British subjects. A month later, on the 17th of March, 1871, another letter from Etrl Kimberley to Lord Lisgar gives to the colouial authorities this admoiii tion: I think it right, however, to add that the responsibility of determining whkt i» ilie true construction of a treaty made by Her Majissty with any forei^jn )>i)\ver must rc- ruiin with Her Majesty's Government, and that tl\e degree ti- which this <;((iiiiti y wouM iinike itself a party to the strict enforcement of treaty rigiUs may dep -ud mil nniv mi the liberal eoiistruetion of the treaty, but on the moderation and reasonabloiiuss wUli ■which those rights are asserted. In such a spirit, and with these views of commercial i)()!i(!y, the Treiity of Wasiiington was negotiated ; and can one believe that it was iiiteiideil to have a valuation by arliitration of the mutual privilegesof iiiteriiutioiinl commerce? Gentlemen, supito.se that the Canadian rei)resentative ou the doint High Commission, v.hen the 18th Article was under eoiisidtMa tion, liad |>roposed to ameml it by addiug iu language soiiiethinjf like this: and the said Coajmissioners shall further award sucli compeiisii tion as, in their judgment, the Uuited States ought to pay for its citizens beiu'x allowed to buy ice, aiid herring, squid and caplin, of Canadians and Newfoundlanders, and for the further privilege of being allowed ti> furuish them with tlo.ur, and kerosene oil, and other articles of meiclwu- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ir)45 (iisein pxchiiiige for ftvSli and ice, and far the farther privilege of Wwf^ qliowed to sell thetn amal! codfish ; su[)|)o.sc, J say, that an ainiMninioht ill tiK'so or similar words had bi^en sn^s'^'sted to the members of tlio Hi^li Joint Commission ; fancy the air of well-bred surprise with whicli jr woiilil liii\<-'' 'J^'^" received by Earl Grey and Professor Bernard and others. Imiigine England — free-trade England — which forced commer- dill iiitovcoiirse upon China with cannon, asking for an arbitration tr» (letei'iiiiiKMin what price Esigland, that liv^es by selling, will trade with thciiiliaiiirants of other conntries. I ;('iiturt> toex[)resa the belief that the ground which has been taken liero is not the gronnd that will be snstnined by the English Government, iiml thiit fuy friend, rhe British Agent, will receive from Her Majesty's niinistprs the 3ame instructions that I shall certainly receive from the Presiilt'iit of the United States, viz, that at the time when the Treaty of Wasiiington was negotiated no one dreamed that such claims as I have been roierring to would be !naolicy of the British Empire, and contrary to the spirit of civii- iziitioii. If the language were at all equivocal these considerations wohIiI lie decisive, but with the express limits to your authority laid down they hardly need to be asserted. The next question is whether the motion that has been made should be decided by you at the present stage in your proceedings. Wo have hroiiiiht it Itefore you at the earliest conveniefit opportntiity. Tje case of the British Government was not oraily o| tied, and in our pleiiiliiigs we had interposed a denial of the existence of any such juris- diction. If the matter had been discussed in an opening we might have reiilieii to it, but as it was we could not. The case proceeded with the int'oiliiction of evidence : Now, if the evidence otifered in support of these elaiii^ could have been objected to we siiould have interposed the objec- tion that such evidence was inadmissible ; but we could not do that, and \vbj f Bi^cause the treaty expressly requires the Commission to receive sncii evidenee as either governinent may choose to lay before it. To avoid tbc maniibld inconvenience likely to result from discussing the admissibil- ityoff\ idence.it was 8tij)ulated and we have allowed — I suppose with the qiprobat.'oii of the Commivssioners — every piece of evidence to come in witlioiit objection. We conceived that we were nnder obligation to do co, We could not bring the question up earlier, and we brit>git up now, just before our case commences, and say, that we ought to have it tjow dcdiled; tlrst, as a matter of great convenience, biicause the cijursn of our evidence will be affected by your det^sion. There is much evidence wliidi «".', ,'^;!iall be obliged to introduce, if we are to be called upon to Mive the comparative advantages of mutual trafiiii, that would other- wise be dispensed with, and that we think ought to be dispensed with. Moreover, we maintain that we are entitled to have your decisioji now o'l grounds of precedent. A precisely similar question arose before the Oiieva Arbitration. The United States n>ade a claim for indirect or loiiseqiuMitial damages. That claim appeared in the case of the United States, iiiid Its evidence which were (iled on the loth of December. The lintish case was filed at the sautc time, and on the loth of the next Ai>ril Lord Tenterdeu addressed this i»ote to the Arbitrators : Gkni'.va, April IT), 1S72. The luidersiniKMl, agent of Ilor Rritatinic MaJHsty, 18 insfcrnott'd by Hei Miiji-Hty's W'-rniiKMit tostati) f<) Cciiiit Holopis, that, wliile'preMwitinn tluiir C(>mittM-CiWi!,'imiler le s|ii':'iiil 1081'rvati'iii hereinafter nit'iitioned, in ivply to the Casvi wliicli hii^- Xwi-.n pro- MiWo;)tli«iiiin„f the United Stiitos, they tind it incu?ubent np-m them to inform I "iMibiiratoit, that a misuudeibtaudiuy has uutortuuately arisen betv.eeu Great Brit- t-mi,./'" M^ii-^itrators, that this CniMii i ' '.ise is presented wjili. out prejudice to the position assumed by Her Majesty's O .» •'Uiiiient in the cenes]mii(l. ence to which reference has been made, and iiiulei the express reservalicm of ail Ili-r Majesty's rights, in tho event of a dilfereii' >> coiiti 'nung to exis'. i>et\vi>Mi tli'Ili^'d Contracting Parties as to the scope and iiiti-i.tion of the ref -renee to Arbn n If circumstances should render it necessary for H ir Majesty to ■ iiise i\ , r eoniniunication to be addressed to the Arbitrators uikmi tins onbject. Her .M.ijisi_\ 1 direct that comuiunicatioQ to be made at or before the time limited by the uilt Articiu of the treaty. The undersigned, &c. tknti:rdi:n. Tlioreni»on, after some further fruitli^ss negc^tiatiotLSt: ':iriitors, of their own motion, proceeded to decide and decUire that the mdiit'ot claim.s made by the United States were not within the scope of tli ar- bitration, thus removing all misunderstanding by a deci.sioii elimiii .tiii„ immaterial matters frotu the controversy. The decision was inaihaiul jMit oil record exactly in the method which we ask you to [uir.sue here. We say that we are entitled to have such a decision on the groi id of precedent as well as of convenience; and we say furtlier that we a e en- titled to have it on the ground of simple justice. No tribunal lia; ever been known to refuse to declare what, in its judgment, was thee;teut of its jurisdiction. To do so, ana receive evidence applicable to the sub- ject as to which its jurisdiction is controverted, and then to make a gen- eral decision, thp result of which renders it impossible ever to asttertaia whether the tribunal acted upon the assumption that it had or baduut jurisdiction over the controverted part of the case, would be the extivu- ity of injustice. If an award were to be made under such circumstances, nobody ever would know whether it embraced the matter respecting whicli jurisdic- tion was denied or not. In illustration, I may mention the Geneva Ar- bitration. Suppose that it had gone forward without any declaration by the arbitrators that they excluded the indirect losses, and tlieii sup- pose that a round sum had been awarded, would not Great Britain have had a right to assume that this round suin' included the indirect claims to which it iiever meant to submit? So will it be here ; unless there is placed upon record the ruling of the Commissioners as to this i)oiiit,it never will be possible for us to know, or for the world to know, u;">u what groun.l you have proceeded — whether you believe that we aie to pay for commercial intercourse or not. No one will know how this is unless upon our motion you decide one way or the other. Foi onr assist- ance, then, in conducting the ease, for convenience, and for the init rma- lion of our respective governments, we ask you to make this decision, and it is entirely obvious that if no decision is made it must uecessarily be assnmpf just proninl so; and, if ref|iiire tiia shape tlie c Mr. Tho: said on tiie .Mr. Fos'i every otiicr ojieii and cl .Mr. Tiioj of the Aint particular i aboiit to he the couiKsei now be calit lUt hearing that tiie otii «H may say a.- 1 ratber i another piia Mr. TUKSi i> ver> jilaii' He taiies tbi aiH and the ui'iipon trea Treaty of 1 7 coniniercia! i the Britisb : Convention, artiele, even before by tli Treaty of 17 the Convent basis, but ii omit the art! States ami HI the Coiiti jirovisious o reference to tlie possos.si i«N((i/i m th (■»«»■«'," tbo, by the Trea iigiipon oiii to what we VIZ, that if Treaty of 18 i'l tins awa I'fivile-rcs; i lieud .Ml-, '1 Mtent of til. to tile iHtjiit •Mr.TfioMj I'f heard, ii. ^'iiited State AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1547 be assumed that these controverted claims arc by .you deemed to be a iiist "ioiiikI of awjnd. We never can know the contrary, unless you say 80- iuid if yon are to sa^' so, we think that convenience and justice both reniiire tiiai: you should say so at such an .early day as to emible us to sliii|)e the conduct of our case in conformity witii your decision, Mr. Thomson. I would like to know whether anything more is to be said on tlio subject by our learned friends opposite. Mr. Foster. We understand that, as is the case in connection with. every other motion, the party moving has the right, in this instance, to oiieiiand close the argument. Mr. Thomson. I make this observation simply because, in the course of tlie American Agent's remarks, he ^xid that Mi. Trescot iiad given iiarticiilar attention to the treaties, and hence I assumed that he was aboiit to be followed by Mr. Trescot. It woidd be obviously unjust to tbe counsel acting on behalf of Her Majesty's GDvernmcnt if they should DOW be called upon to answer the argutnent that has been miide with- (iiit hearing all that is really to be said on the other side. I understand tliiit tlie otlier side have an undoubted right to reply to anything which "I'liiay say, but if Mr. Trescot is afterwards to start a new iirjiiiment, a.- 1 ratber infer from Mr. Foster's remarks he will do, this might put aimtlier phase on the matter. Ml. TuKScoT. As I understand the position taken by Mr. Foster, it isver\ jiluiM: and stated with all the fullness and precision neces.sury. lie takes the ground that the commercial relations between Great Brit- ain and the United States stand either on ordinary international comity oi'iipoii treaty regulations. If upon the latter, then they rest upon the Tii'aty of 17!)4, the third permanent article rf which did determine the coiuiiiercial ndations which were to exist between the United States and tlie British North American Colonies; because in 1815 the Commercial Convention, then adopted and extended in 181.5 and 1827, renewed that; article, even it it should be contended, as I think it never has been before by the British Government, that the permanent articles of the Treaty of 1794 were abrogated by the war of 1812. The negotiators of the Convention of 1815 took tiio third article of the Treaty of 17})4 as a basis, but not being able to agree as to certain raoditicatious, decided to omit tlie article and to declare that " the intercourse between the United States ami tlis Britannic Majesty's possessions in the West Indies and 'II tbe Continent of Nort'i America shall not be affected by any of the provisions of this article, /. c, the article of the Convention of 1815 in lelereiice to the conimercial relations between the United States and the possessions of Ili.s Britannic Majesty in Europe, hut each party nhall \mm in the completr posaessioii of its right >cith respect to miah inter- cMw," those rights being, as we contend, t'ae old rigiits established hy the Treaty of 1815. But the question has not a 'ery important bear- ing upon our present contention, and has been sng<.'< a \ simply in reply to what we understand is to be one of the positions on the other side, VIZ, tiiat if we deny that commercial privileges were grantetl by the Treaty of 1871, and are not, therefore, proper subjects of compensation 111 this award, theu we have no right whatever to these commercial linvile<;es; and I can say in reply to the very proper inquiry of my lieiul Mr. Thomson, that in any remarks I may make, that is the fxteiitof tlie position which will l)e taken, but I do not expect to refer totheimint at all. Mr. Thomson. In referencv'^ to the time at which this motion should 'e heard, in view of the arguments which the learned Agent of the "•'lited States has used, I shall not, on behalf of Iler Majesty's Goveru- I iS-^ r|v m lflt» -4-- mE' ^'MP ^WK| IWIt ;-i|. • »■ M; ji' 1 1548 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COVIMISSION. ment, call upon this Commission to say tliis is an improper time for that purpose. We liave no objection timt this application on the part of tin- counsel of the United States Government should be heard at Ien"Ui and so they may be enabled to understand at all times, on all n'a^oll• able occasions, the exact ground upon which we stand. There is notli- iuff unreasonable in the view which has been put forward by tluMii in this respect. They are entitled to know whether the Commission is going to take the matter named in their notice of motion into consiiiera tion or not, VVe therefore have no objection that your excelleii(!,v and your honors should determine this point at once, and we do not com- plain of the time at which the motion is made. I shall now come to tin' substance of the motion. The Agent of the United States has traveled out of the record, and has referred to light-houses and other mattois not contained "u this motion. He also alluded to the injuries which were committed on our coasts by the American llshermen, and he says that we have put them all forward in our case as subjects for compensation. I am not here now to consider the question whether we have done so or not; 1 at present only intend to discuss whether the matters included in this motion are matters coming within the jurisdiction of this court or not. 1 read the motion. It states: The counsel aurt Agent of the United States ask the honorable Commissioners toriilo declarinfj !bat it is not competent for this Commission to award any comiieiisiitinn fur commercial intercourse between the two countries, and that the advantaf{es rt'siiltiii? from the practice of purcliasing bait, ice, supplies, &.c., and from beiii}; allowed tu transship cargoes in British waters, age 8, I think, tlnit these |)rivileges are tilearly inciilental; that, looking at the whole .scope and uieaningjof the treaty, it is clear that thes*» are incidental privileges for which the American Government can attord to i)ay. 'he wtntlsuf our reply, read by Mr. Foster, are these: By the terms of Article 18 of the Treaty (rf Washington, United States fisheiineii were granted jiermission ti> land upon the siiie privilege in common witii the Kultjecrs of Hur Uritaniiie Miijesty to take tish and to land for tishing pnrpo,>«*, clearly includes the liberty to pHnliihi' bait and snpidies, transship cargoes, &c., for which Her Majesty's Govcriiiueiit . onttiil it has a right to claim compensation. It is dear that these privileges were not enjoyed under the Convention of 1^1" . atd it is equally evident that they are enjoyed uiitier the Treaty of Washington. "Well, that is the argument which was put forward by Her Maje.^vs Goverumeut, but whether that axgumeut commeud> tself to ibe juug- AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1549 raent of this tribunal or not is not for me to stiy, though to my tniud it i8 a very strong and very forcible one. Keferring to the wording of the treaty itself, and to the Convention of 1818, the first section of the latter states : Whereas dilTcrences have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States, for tlie inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, and cnre flsh on certain coasts, bays, harburs, mid in k» itants of the said United States shall have for- ever, in common with the sniiji'cts of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take lish ofeverv kind on that part of the southern coast of Nfwfonndland which extends from Cape Ray t" tlie lianieau Islands, on the western and northern coast of Newf(»nndiand, from till! suid Cape Ray to the Quirpou Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, 1111(1 also on t lie coastf bays, harbors, and creeks from Monnt Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, and to and through the straits of Belle Isle, and thence nortli wardly iiKk'tiniti'ly along the coast, without prejudice, however, to any of the exclusive rinhts of thelliul'soii'sBay Company. And that the American fishermen shall also have liberty, forevi-r, to dry and cure fi^h in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of the smithern ]iart of the coast of Newfoundland hereabove described, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, or any portion thereof, bhall be settled, it shall not beliiwfnl for the said fishermen to dry or cure tish at such portion so settled, without previous agreement for su'di pnriwse with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of tbe ground. And the United States hereby renounce forevdr any liberty heretofore ciijoyeil or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure tish, on or within tbree marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Maj- esty's dominions in America, not included in the above-mentioned limits; provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for tbe purpose of shelter and of repairing d.images therein, of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purposes whatever. But they shall be under MK'b restrictions as may bo necessary to prevent their t.iking, drying, or curing fish tliereiU|Or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to tiieiii, Now, in reference to the Washington Treaty, you will find this hin- giiage used in the comtnencement of the 18th Article : Itisnjfreed by the High Contracting Parties tliat, in addition to the liberty secured totiie United States tiwhermen by the Convention beiween Great Britain and the rnitrtl States, signed at London on th')*2()th day of October, ISlf^, of taking, curing, and drviiij; tish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies therein dctined, tlieiiiiiabitantK of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her llritaniiic Majivsty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of ikis ireiity, to take fish of every kind, except shell fish, ini the sea-coasts and shores, anil ill the bays, harbors, and creeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New liriiiisnick. and the Ccdony of Prince Kdward Island, and of the several islanils there- unto adjacent, wii hout being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permissioa to IhihI upon I lie said coasts, and hhores, and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets ivd curing their fish ; provided Miati in so iloiiig they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with British fisher- men, ill the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the said piiriiose. It is understood that ihe above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea- fclitiy, anil that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in the rivers and iiiMitbs of rivers are hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen. I call attention to the fact that, in this very Treaty of Washington, tlielniiiieis have made as the basis of it, not only the Convention of 1818, jutthe 1st section of it, and in that section is contaitied the strong and liositive (leelaration tliMt the Americans shall have the right (aiitl only tliatrislit) of coming into liritish waters for the purposes of obtainitig sliclter. repairing damages, and of securing wood and water, and /or no |'"in i)H)iHme v'hatecer. 1 will now read Article 18 of the Washington 'I'iit.v, and the argument 1 wish to found upon it is this: That the 'Jijili C'lntracting Parties, or rather the High Commissioners, ha»l before tliein, wLen they framed that treaty, the Convention of 1818, the first ai'iicleoi which contains these words: That tlie American fishermen shall be admitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of ubtaiuiDg water, and for no other purpose whatever. iMMu,. t#^'^:*r^ > E^K ■^..v;,t^^^^-^'"^-: ^■^^ M '^'ir U 1: ,' =;A igj<.^^Si ■f i-T^i; r 15b0 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. One would suppose that under ordinary circumstances it would luive been snfflcient to have stopped with the statement that they siiouid lie admitted ''for the purpose of shelter, &(;., and of oUtainiiiy water," Imt the franiers of the Convention of 1818 were particular to add, "imd for no other i)urpose whatever." They not only so restricted the Americans by aflflrmativo words, but also by negative words. The High Contracting Parties liiiviiiff tliis W fore them, gave the Americans the liberty of coining ujton our sliorcs to fish on equal terms with our fishermen, and to take bait,&c. Toiii.viniiid the High Con»missioners considered that the framers of the Coiiveiitiou of 1818 ileemed it necessary to insert thtj words, " and for no other imii- pose whatever,"' to make it absolutely certain that the Aiiicriciiiis could only come in for shelter, repairs, wood, and water, and should enjoy nn rights as incidental to that privilege, and that they purposely olnitteil those words in the Treaty of Washington. It may, therefore, l»e well supposed that if the Aniericans were to be restric ed to the very letter of the treaty, the same negative words would h; ve been used, and un- doubtedly had those words been used in the tr.-a'yi there would bean end of tiie argument. If that had been the intention of the Hi;-!! Coin uiissioiiers, they would have gone on in this treaty to state in Article 18; It is agreed by tlie High Co tracting Parties that, in addition to tlio lilxrty Neciireil to the United States tisheririen by tbe Convention betwi'tn Great IJiitain anil the United Stales, signed at London on tho SiO.h day of October, IHIH, of takiiij;, (.iniiij;, ami drying tii^h on certain coasts of the Biiiish North American Colonics, tlicii'link'. lined, the inliabitants of the United Statt-s sliall have, in uoninion witli the snlij ptsdf Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Artii ';; XXXIUnf this treaty, to take tisli of every kind, except sludl-tisb, on tl)esea(H)asts and Nlioiv.s.aini in the l»ays, harbors, .and creeks of the Provinces of Qin l)ec. Nova Scotia, and NVw Urnnswick, and the Colony of Prince Edward Island, and of the several i>laii(ls tlnTi- nnto adjacent, withont l>eiiig restricted to any distance from the stiore, witli iieriiiis- Bion to land npon the said coasts, ami shores, and islantis, and also npon tin- Ma^dalni Islands, for the pnrpose of drying their nets and curing their flsb,audy'yr ho other j)ur- pose ichiilcrer. But these words were not used. Ifow these are the words which the learned Agent of the United States, and the learned counsel who are associated with him, seek, iu my judg- ment, to juterptdate into this treaty. The framers of the Couveution of 1818 were very cautious as to its woi^ling; the framers of tbe Treaty of Washington had that convention before them, and it must, tlieretbre, I think, be fairly ass»Mued that if it had been the intention ot either of the High Contracting Parties, in thisinstance, that the Americans should simply have the bare rights named in the treaty and notjing else, they would have followed the example set before them by the (convention of 1818 and used these strong negative woids, "and for no other piirrO^e ■whatever." 1 say that this argument is a lair and Just one; of course its weight is to be determined by this tribunal. I am by no means l)Utting it forward as a coiudusive argument, but still the fact that tbey did not do so is of great weight in my mind, though to what extent its weight will eflect the decision of this tril)unal it is not for me to say, but it does appear to me to be a very strong argument indeed. Had it been ii!t«*iHli'd to restrict the United States tishermen, and, to use tlio language of 3Ir. Foster, confine them merely to what was mentioned in the Inind, the High Commissioners would have added, "and lor no other l>urpose whatever"; and therefore their leaving that languajie out is open to the construction that the Americans w^re entitled to all tlie incidental advantages which that treaty would necessarily bo under- stood to confer. Is it not a rather extraordinary argument on the part of tbe United AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1551 States tlint tliia privilege of theirs related only to their right of coin- iiiciii iiiKl tisliirig on equal terms with our citizens, and to landing and to ilrviiifj their nets and curing tiu'ir fish, and that the moment they had dried tlit'ir nets and cnrenr for tish, and in effect declares — for this is the result of liis iirguiiient — that for so doing the Americans are liable to punish- lUl'llt. Mr. FosTKii. I said that they conld be excluded by statute. jMr. Thomson. I will show you before I am through tliat these Ameri- can fisbennen can by no possibility whatever come into our waters without iucurring the risk of forfeiture, if Mr. Foster's reading of this treaty be accepted as correct. This would be the result of his argu- ment; if yon confine them to the very terms of the bond, to use the liinpuijieot Mr. Foster, then it is clear that if they land tor the ])urpose of siviiig a barrel of Hour in exchange for flsh, or of purchasing flsh, at that moment their vessels are liable to forfeiture. This is a strange con- -.trmtion to put upon the treaty, and these are the strange results which will necessarily follow if this tribunal adopt the view presented by tlie American Agent. Bnt tiiere is another matter to be considered, and it is this : In 1854 theHeciprocity Treaty was passed, and under that treaty the Americans tame in to tish on our coasts generally. They exercised the same rights as they do now, and no person then ever complained of them for buying halt under the terms of that treaty, thongli it did not in express terms imthorize their purchase of bait or their getting supplies of any kind ou oar .shores; still they di»l so. By a kind of common consensus of opin- ion, it was understood that they had a right lo do so, an«I no person complained of it. And in view of the course which then was pursued, this *reaty was framed. ]\Ir. Foster has put this case: Suppose that when the Joint High Commissioners were sitting, the British represent- ative bad proposed that the value of the rights of transshipment, and of buying bait, and of having commercial intercourse with our peo|)le shonltl be taken into consideration by this Tribunal, then, had this been tliecase, it would have been met by a well-bred shrug from the Earl of Kipon, and Professor Berinird. This may possibl,y be so ; but I can say, I think it would have been very strange indeed if our Commissioners badsaid to the Ameiican Commivssioners: Under the treaty which we l)i'o|iose you shall have the right to ttsh in our waters on ecpial terms with our tisliermen, and have the right to land and cure your fish, and tlierifjbt also to dry your nets on the land,' but the moment that you tike one step farther, the moment that you buy a pound of ice, and the moment that you presume to buy a single flsh for the purpose of bait ill our waters, and the moment you attempt to exercise any <;ommercial privilege whatever, and above all, the moment you undertake to trans- ship one sinjile cargo, that moment your vessel will be forfeited, and till' cargo as well. 1 think that if tliis had been stated, there would liave been something more i)erhaps than a well bred siirug trom the American Oonnnissionei s. I think, therefore, it may fairly be contended, ill view of the wording of the two treaties, that these are privileges, which It was intended that this Conunission should take into consideration wlieu they came to adjudicate respecting the value of our fisheries; and ''^ ;# *j-;eii('i'al wheu next they tiansmit an opinion across the Atlantic which is to attect iiiiirmvii reputation and the reputation of their country. The right to take (isli "dii tln^ >hinvs of the M!ig\^) ""*' "othing else — they then do not wish to go a single step bevond that, tliougii the moment when it becomes necessary to extend their ri;jlits, they want to obtain a liberal construction of its terms. I (loiiot tiiinii myself that the United States can always claim to come before any tribunal and say that they have, where it suits their purpose to do 30, been very liberal in their construction of treaties. In regard to this very treaty itself, your Excellency and your Honors are aware, that it certainly was an extraordinary construction on the part of the Unitcil States Government wiien a duty was by them placed on the tin inickages in which free fish entered into the United States. I wish to show what necessarily would be the result if the United States conten- tion in this matter were right; but before doing so, it may be proper for me to notice an argument wliich Mr. Foster drew from the Convention of 181'), to wliieli he called your attention, and part of which lie read. He says th.it inasmuch as the Convention referred to previous privi- le;:es, wliich the United States iiad abandoned as against Great Britain, ami as those privileges must have been granted by the Treaty of 1794, tliiit therefore the war of 1812 did not abrogate those privileges, and that this was a distinct admission on the part of Great Britain tiiat the treaty mentioned was not abrogated, and that the privilege conferred bytliat treaty had been in no way interfered with. I altogether deny tlie conclusion he thus draws ; but it is not now necessary for the purpose of my argument to answer that statement, further than to saj' that the nieiitioM of those privileges had reference to ordinary commercial rela- tions existing between the traders of the two nations. These traders are a well known class of persons. They are merchants and ship-owners, who send their ships to sea. These vessels have registers, clearances, manifests, &(;., for the purpose of showing the nationality of their ves- sels, and these papers also show the voyage which the vessels have uiidortaken to ])ro8ecuto — what thfey have on board and everything about them. If they are on a trading voyage, this states their object. But fishing-vessels have no such papers except registers. They come without clearances, and if I understand the question at all, they are a separate and distinct class of vessels, and as a separate and distinct class they have always been treated by both nations. The 1st section ofthe Convention of 1818 had reference to ordinary traders, and to thein solely. Let it be admitted, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Foster is right in his construction of the effect of the language used in the Con- vention of 1815 to which he refers — though this I, in fact, utterly deny, tat still admitting that the words to which he has directed attention in fact declared that the war of 1812 had no practical effect whatever D|)on the Treaty of 1794— supposing that this was so, what do we find? ^^'efind that in 1818 a distinct and 8ei)arate treaty is framed, referring i to this very class respecting whose rights your Excellency and your Honors are now sitting in judgment — the fishermen engaged in the I prosecution of the fisheries of the United States. The Convention of 1818 was made altogether with reference to them; was it not? What I floes the 1st section of that Convention of 1818 say f It is this : I . ™' ' Whereas differences have ariHen respecting the lilierty claimed by the United j'ates, tor the iiihal)itants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish, on certain coasts, bays, I oarbors.aml creekj, of His Britauuic Majesty's domiuioas iu America, it is agreed be- VJ '^^•^-' 1554 AWARD or THE FI8HEUY COMMISSION. m^ f^;r;r:;5 "•*;'' ■■J '••.-<> ••■■ , f ■ vjt.'Sf ^-^ 'r i 'Ml- a ..iii 1* twppn tlifi Ilijjli ContrnctinK PnrtieH that tlio inlinliitants of tlio nniil Ijiitor] Statu. hIiiiU liiivii Jorcvcr, in coiniiinii with tlm miltJcctH of HiH Dritiiiinii! Mujcsiy, tin, !|i|,.,t,. to tai\(i IInIi (if every kintl on tiiat part of tlm Hoiitherti coaHt of Ni)\vf(niii(lliiii(|\vlijili (>xtfn(lN troni Capu Kay to tlio Kiinicau iHhmtlH ; on Die wi>Nt<^iii luid iioitljcin .(i^isi „g Ntnvfdnndliind, from Haid Caju^ Uiiy to the Qiiiprun iHlatidM ; on tlio hIhhtn i>( thr Mn,,. dah'ii IhlaiidH, and also on tlio cttuNtH, lia\H, liarlioi'H, iniruvioMHaKi'eenient firsiicli purpose, with the inhiiliitiiiitH.inoprii'. tr.rs.or jiossessors of the );'round. And the United States hereby renounce fmrviT any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take.diy.or mri! fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or liarliitr^ nt ills Britannic. Majesty's doniinionN in Amurica, not included within the above-iiKMitioinMl limits: rrorldvd, howivvr, That the American lishermen shall be periiiitteil u> (iitir Biich bays or harbors, for the purpose of shelter and of repairinjj dania;,'eN tlicicin, nf purchasinjj; wooil, and of obtaininjj water, and for no other jmrpose wliattver. lint they shall bo under such restrictions as may be necessary to i>reveiit their tidrovinces. By the teiiiis of that treaty the fishing-vessels of the United States and their li.slier- men were prohibited from coining within three miles of our shores and of all our bays for any purpose whatever, with three exceptions, that is to say, they might resort to our harbors for the purpose of shelter in case of storms, to make repairs in case of necessity, and to procure wood aiul water, and if they went into these places for any other purpose what- ever, their vessels were liable to forfeiture; yet though this was tlie case, as my learned friend on the other side well knows, they incurred that liability time and again. Vessel after vessel of theirs was con- demned from the making of this treaty up to the present time, and lias that treaty ever been abrogated 1? There is no pretense for saying that this is the case. That treaty stands in as much force to-day as it did iu the year 1819, the year after which it was passed, with one exception only, exceiit iu so far as it is interfered with by the Treaty of Wash- ington. JSow, let me turn your attention to what the Treaty of Wash- ington says on this point, because so far as any privileges were renounced by the United States iu the Treaty of 1818 they have conferred on the United States by the Treaty of Washington. The IStL article ot the Treaty of Washington declares — Art. XVIII. It is agreed by tbe High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen by theConveution between OreatHiitim aud the United States, signed at Louduu ou the 20th day of October, Idli, of talsiiiKt AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1555 rnrine, »"'! ilryinR Anil on cci tain coastH of tho RritiHli North Ainoriciin cnlonioM therein I ijiini till' inliitbitiiiitti of tlio Uiiitud HtatoH hIiuU liavo, in coiiiiiioii witli tint HiilijfotH 'ifllirHiifi'iiiiii; MaJtiHty, tlio liliorty, for tlio term of yoars iiiiMitioimd in Articlo XXXIII "I •'''*• treaty, to take fish of evtuy Itliid, except Hliell-lish, on tlio Hca-coastM ■in(ii*li()ri'M, ami in the bays, liarhorH, and chm^I^h of the I'ntvinoes of Qiiehec, Nova S((iliii. ini'l ^'''^*' Ihiinswick, and tlm c^t '***^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 I4^|2B |2.5 i^ iU 1 2.2 ■Ml 9^1 tii 1 2.0 11.25 Hu Hi MiiSi |i6 Photograjiiic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. UStO (716) S73-4S03 A '^ .minisKion. If this argument applies to buying bait antl ice. a fortiori, it applies to the privilege that they now enjoy of laudinc; ainl transshipping cargoes. Under the plain reaidiugof the treaty, tbere i« no doubt about it, and if it does not come within the incidental privi- leges, I admit that, as a lawyer, ! cannot contend for one niotiient tbat the privilege of buying bait — or at all events of buying iee, wbatt'ver may be said about bait, as to which there may be a i>articolar eonstmc tion, to which I will refer presently — I admit frankly that I csinuot $<« tbat the privileges of buying ice or of transshipping cargoes are nm ceded unless they are to be considered as nece.s«arily incidental. If ;t is denieay the fishermen for doing so. ^o\r I wish to be distinctly nndersiood uiM)n this |»oint. I submit, without a shadow of doubt — I don't tbink it wl)e controverteil on the other side, at all events it will not l>e smTe$$ fully controverted — that if those lisherinen, having a right to cnnn^ in and fish, as they undoubtedly have under the treaty, eboivse to hirv men to catch bait for them, they are catching that bait tbeni9eiv«^ There is a legal maxim put in old Latin, qui/acitperaliym/acitptr$t— what a man does by an agent he does by himself. Tlieret'o.einail these instances where it has come out in evidence that they come in and get our fishermen to catch bait for them and pay them for doiDf; sa. in all such caa»rs the act is that of the United States fishermen them selves. On the other hand, if the fishermen ui>on the coast kei>p large supplies of bait for the purpose of selling to such persons as coBf along, then under the construction of the treaty contended for by ibt learned in that way, that is a pur|K)se for which it is unlawful to enter our |K)rtG under the Treaty of 1818, and the act works a forfeiture of tb« vessel and cargo. That is a startling pro|H>sition. In reference to bait there is another consideration I throw out. I do not know whether it will be dissented from or not by the learnnl oood sel on the other side, but this treaty dims give them this |>ower, tbat they shall, in common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, h»x* the liberty, for the term of, &&, to take fish. May not buying tish be a taking offitk within the meaning of the treaty t Itdoesnotsay toeafcA^A. Thewordsare not^toflsh," bnt'*totak( fish." It simply uses the word *' take." The term is a wide one, and I am not by any means prepared to say that by a strict legal construction tbew lieoplei finding the fish caught here, have not a right to take it IhMi ▲WiRD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1557 the fishermen. I say that is |)os8ib1y a fair conRtriiction of the treaty. In that cHHe they do '* take lUh," and that im all. The contention ou tbe otbtT Hide, I suppose, will be to narrow that word **tako^ down to iiH^au the actual taking of flsh by the citizens of the United States from tbe water by means of nets and other appliances. If that be the con- Mniclioii, tlien it follows as a necessary cons<>queii<;e that in taking ia < from our fishermen they infringe the Treaty of 1818. I wish to lUkiieiu.vself distinctly understood on that point. By the Oonveutioa of ]S18 the American fishermen could not enter our harlrars at all except lor the tbrea purposes of obtaining shelter, to get wimmI and water, and to luaiie repairs in case of necessity. Entrance for any other purpose irait made illegal. Any privileges which they had under thatconven- tioo ivmHiued. Any restrictions that they laboretl under after that cobventinn still remained, excejtt in so far as they have been removed )>y the Wa8hington Treaty, and if the construction be true, as cou- tHHle«l for by the learned Agent of the United States Government, tbcn the restrictions as to landing for the purposes I have mentioned »n not removed. The purcliaNing of bait and ice and the transshipping of cariroe8 are matters entirely outside of the treaty and unprovideil lor. Uuder the Treaty of 1818, vesHels enti'ring for any other purposes (ban the three provided for in that treaty can be taken. As watt put loriranl in the American Answer, any law can l>e passed. An inhospit- able law, they will say, by which the moment they do any of these acts tbev will become liable to forfeiture. 1 do not presume that the remarks of the Agent of the United States, in vbich he Hfieaks of instructions possibly coming from his government or from the Government of Great Britaiu, should be taken into consid- fratioo,or that they can properly be used as arguments to !>« addressed to tbis tribunal, because, as the learned Agent very properly says, the aatbority ot this tribunal is contained in the treaty. If the treaty pvt^you authority you have swcrn to decide this matter according to lue very right of tliu matter, and I i*resume you will not l)e governed by ■MS directions from v<^ither government. Nothing of that sort can bo made use of as an argument, and you will determine the matter con- K-ifutiuusly, I have no doubt, u|)on the terms of the treaty itself. Now Urr Majesty's Government does not object to your deciding in so many Tordsthat these things are not subjects of compensation, if that be the jjdcmeut of the court. I have advanced very feebly the views which I tliink ought to govern your decision upon the point, namely, that these are incidental privileges which may fairly be construed, in view of the vav iu which this treaty is framebfrie« themselves, and of landing on the shores to dry nets, very *fil I have no objection and we will accept such a decision. But U^r Mhjesty's Government wish it to be distinctly understoo voa can conscientiously arrive at the conclusion for which they ask, »«• Riiall uot regret it at all. Mr. DouxBK. I would desire to add to what has been so well said by 1558 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMlilSSION. my learned fiioiul, that the interpretation which ITer MajeHtv'x Gnrern- ni«>nt liaa put upon tlie VVtM tilings mentioned in the motion. I think that thi8 interpretation (Miiiiot L lightly set (Mide to adopt the (M>nHtniction now aought to \w put ii|Hiti the treaty by our learnenmeli Yiuir Mi\j<*Hty witli M'litinii'iitH 4if iitiNWtTMHf; loynlty tn Your OracioiiH MnJoitty'H ptTMin anil tlimno, V> tuiidi^r to Your Miij>-My lur rcH|i4>ctful anti Hiiicera nckiiowleil)(iiiHitH for thn itrotuvlion nilonlttil Ity iIik ImiVriai GovorniiiKiit to ttiu tiHliDfifH of tliin colony and Liihrudor during tliu IiinI yi>ar, ami t < I tray that Your Gracious Mi^uaty will bo pluuiied to uoutiuue th« same dunuj; tlio eiuo' ug Hensnn. May it |deaM> Your Miijusty : Th» illicit tratllo in Itnit carried on liotwncn the inhahitantH of tho wcHtrrn \\»n<>\ this iitlaud and the French has proved of wrioua injury to the tiMhericH k*'"*'''^"^ > ^< the Hupply enahleH the French bankera to commence their voyage early iit H|iriiiK, mi thereliy prevent the fiHh from nMichinj; ourcoaHtJi. We, theretore, nioHt eiiriifHily U iMH!rli Your Mnjenty j^raciontly t» lie plea>M>rfvctionM of what few Hii};KeMtioii8 I have to otter may Im> exciiHeiK For my own part, I am much in favor of written argument lu'fore this tril)nn»l whenever that itt practicable. For ex- anipl*', it KceiiiH we quite uiiHumlerHtooii the learned a);ent and counsel tortlu' United StateH, Mr. Foster. TliiH may have oiHMirred in other reiiiK'ctt*. Were written ar^^umentH to lie nubmitted, and, after exami* iiatioit, n>|ilied to in writiu};, all that would be avoided. The otlirr side nill |irol):il>ly iidmit their written ar);unient would have been dill'ureut from wliat liaH tallen from their lipt*. Mr. KdSTKii. I hope it would lie very niucli lietter. Mr. Wkathkrhk. And yet an advantage of oral diRcusRion was very fonnlily stited liy .\[r. Diiia the otlior day — nanioly, the privilege of »!>k\\\\i at the moment for explan ition for obsuure and ambiguouH ox- lircssloiiH ; and hence, juHt now, in reply to my friend Mr. Doutre in tvfm\ to liiH interpretation — in which I niuNt aay I concurred — an to tlio declaration by the Agent of the United States of what his govern- iiieiit would do in case of an adverse decision on the point under dis- (iiHsjoti, :iu explanation has followed. The words, as we took them, woultl certainly fonn an unjustflable mode of argument. Treat ies8 Oil that Hnbj(>ct. Mr. Foster, representing the United States before this tribunal, says that a formal protest against tlie claim of Her Majesty's Government tor tliese incidental advantages — the purchase of bait and sup|ilies, triinssliipmeiit and trallic — for which we are here claiming compensation niiiler tlie Treaty of Washington, is to be found in the answer of the riiitHi States. He calls it a protest. I do find it in the Answer, but £ tiiul something more. I think this highly important. Of course this Answer on behalf of a great nation is carefully prepared to express the views of the United States. We all weigh well — we have never ceased to wt'inh well these wonl.s — ami we have within the prescribed time, many weeks ago, prepared and llletl our Keply. These are the words to niiicli the Agent and counsel of the United States refer: SuMce it now to l>e obHorvnd, that the claim of Great Britain to ho compeiiHated for tilowiiiK tiie IJiiitod 8tateM tixlieriuuii U> Itiiy litiit aiitl other Hiipplitm of Bririxli siilijocta lindHuoiieiiiblanceuf fuuuilutiou in tlio treaty, by which no right uf trallic is coiicudud. Tlie answer does not stop there. It goes further : The UnittMl States are uot aware that the former inboHpituble statutes have ever l»«n rf|M!alel»taiii ice, procure bait, hinI enKaK« h»nH urt> ncrft. Hary to the auccettHfuI inirauit of tbe inHhore or ont. ittatiiit'i< in force, or which may b«) called into force, to prevent the enjoyuieut l>y Aiiu-riniD liaheruien of theae iodispeuHable privilegea. Here in the Case prepared and filed and presented before this triltiuiul on btfhnlf of Pier Majesty it is alleged that these incidentN are aliNohitcIv essential to the successful prosecution of the fishery, and that tlu'Vitn- enjoyed under and by virtue of the aceeptauce of tlie Treaty of Wash- ington. Jlere in tbe third section of the Answer presented iK'l'ore this Commission, to become matter of record and history, it is alle^'eil thr there are statutes now in existence or that may be called into force to preclude the enjoyment by the fishermen of the United States uf i\w!v necessary incidental advantages. Substantially that is the only {^rniinil taken in the Answer, and I do not hesitate for a moment to say that, ])roviding it is cornnst, it is a reasonable answer. If Great Itritaiii may, after the award of this tribunal shall have l)een delivered— it' tlieCioverii ment of Great Britain or Canada may afterwards call into force those statutes which we contend are at present suspended, and raise tli<>(|iies tion for the decision of the court of vice-aermitted ; that you have statutes vliicli you have enforced before, and which you can and will enforce apiiu. This, then, is an important inquiry. 1 quite admit thiu much. lit wa.1 on conHideratiou of the importance of this question as regarded l)V the Uiiit«'d States, as I understand — this is the view of counsel repre- muug lit'i Miijesly's Government — that it was considered (piite reason- able a (liMiuisssiuu should be entered upon, and it was decided not to resist the argument raised by the United States, whose agent and coun- mI claim the advantage to be obtained by reducing the compensatiou iu this manlier. 1 iindeiMtiind the learned Agent and couusel, Mr. Foster, now to say that if an award should be made including any compensation for these a(lvanta)(e>< — I presume it is meant as well the enjoyment of them in the )i:i.st a8 |)ros|>ectively — Great Britain could not expect to rec<>ive pay- lutiit for Hiich award — that is, that they would not be paid. There is no kiii(l<)far);iiiiient in this, and for my part 1 am at a loss to understand why it sliunld be offered. If Great Britain were obliged to admit that an award contained any- thing by which it appeared on its face to be ultra vires^ the United States cuuhl not be called on for payment. But I submit to tbe learned Agent whether be would or ought to declare in the name of the great iiatiun he representr: that if an award were made, including compensa* tion tor tbe privilege's already enjoyed, even although under misappre- lieiisiun, tbe United States would repudiate that. They would hardly, I humbly submit, in the face of the world, repudiate payment of such a sum a8 might be awarded for those privileges of tbe past because tbe danger of confiscation had passed away. And we are safe in be- lievingthat if the United States were assured in any way that no pro- ceeding!! would ever be taken, but (he previleges in question could be secnred tlirougbout the continuance of the treaty to the fishermen of tbe United States, that nation would promptly pay any sum that might beavanied. Moreover, if this tribunal had the power ; if authority had been delegated and were to be found in the treaty to set questions of this iiind at rest, and in making their award of compensation if the Commissioners could secure these privileges — if not already secure — I thiuk then, also, no objection would bo taken to their being considered by the tribunal. But it is because it is contended that the enjoyment of these necessary incidents is insecure ; because the power of the tribu- ualigjimited ; because the matter will, it is said, be left in a state of un- certainty hereafter ; because questions may arise over which tbe govern- ment may have little control ; because the international relations of the futureare unforeseen and cannot be anticipated, that the claim tocomi>en- iiatiun is resisted. This seems to me to be the condition of the (juestion, and this 1 gather and have observed in tbe Answer, from the first, is the manuer in which the subject has been regarded by tbe Agent represent- ing the United States. And so regarding it, an anxiety to prevent com- pfusation incommensurate with the privileges understood to be settled aud secure beyond all question seems perfectly reasonable. But 1 thiuk there are objectiona to attacking the claim set up here oa 1562 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. belmlf of Her Mnjenty's Qorernraent in detail. A reason Htiited bv the learned Agent of the Unitcsd States for asking for the docMsion of t)ii,i question now is that the matter should become a record ol' tlm Conimiit BJon ; and if the Commissioners come to the conclusion that the li 'ht to transship and obtain ice and bait and men and supplies tor the tjsh ery are nvcessary incidents to the right to " take fish," and arise thert-' fore by necessary implication from the very terms of the treaty, himI tha: they (!an be properly considered in making up the award, it shoiilil ii^ known and read hereafter. And I can undiTNtand if an award were to be paid out of the United States Treasury, and in that siiiii was indiuWd an amount for these already specified rights, and if any duiihtscxisthl as to whether they were secured to the flMliernten, thost; doubts HhoulJ be set at rest uiion such payment. It will, however, hardly bu (;oi|. tended that this tribunal should be asked to give the grounds. It woiihl be utterly impossible to give such grounds on each branch of thocasc. Take the argument of the couuse! in relation to light-lioiisfs. Tlic rep- resentative of the United States, it ap|)ears, now thinks that theevi dence in regard to light-houses was irrelevaut — that is to say, if wo hail no light-houses at all, our fisheries would be just as valuabh^ as tlieyarv now, and that if we had ten times as many as we have, no conii)eiisatiuii should be allowed in conMeT COMMISSION. 1563 The Answer of the TJDited States, at pages 8 and 0, 14 and 15, 18 and 19 clHiiDH on tlie part of the United Stutt^H consideration in estimating the amount to be awarded for Canada of the advantages arising to Cana- tlimm on the coast from the admission of United States fishermen into our waters. In effect the Oommission is aslccd in this document first tn estimate tlie value of the privileges accorded to the United States by thetiTuiHof the Treaty of Washington in giving up to them the fish- erien, and then, although there is nothing whatever in the treaty to justify it. they are required to reduce that sum by deducting therefrom \\w viilue to a certain class residing on our shores of the right to trade villi United States fishermen, including the supply of this very bait in mierttion. The Commissioners will find on the pages mentioned very dear lancnage to show how reasonably we can claim for the privileges now soujjlit to be excluded. Mr. Foster. I dou't believe you remember just the view we take of that. We say: The benet]t8 tlina far alluded to am only indirectly and remotely within the scope inil ('i>|!i. 'z.tiice of thiH CommiHsion. They are brou((ht to its attention chiefly to refute tlie rlaiin thut it is an advantage to the United States to be able to outtr the harbors oi the provinces and traffic with the ibhabitants. I say it lies out of the case on both sides, and that is what our mo- tion Kaya. Mr. Weatherbe. That is an admission that incidental privileges are trithJD the scope and cognizance of the Commission. But there is other laiii,'uage which has l)een assigned to other counsel to cite. There are aniple quotations from the arguments of Canadian statesmen, advocating remote and incidental privileges in Parliament, as arguments in favor of the adofttiou of the treaty. If the Agent and learned counsel for the United States succeed in this motion they do more than exclude from the consideration of the case compensation for the right of procuring bait and ice by purchase, and the other incidents to a successful prose- cution of the fisheries. And as the Answer stands, evidence may be of- fered on other points, unless other motions follow the present, for exclud- iog matter from the consideration of the Commission. I think it can be shown that if this matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Com- Diis!«ion, and bad not been so considered when the Answer was drawn u|i, a great modification of that Answer would have been mada Mr. Foster. It is quite capable of being very much improved if I had more time. Mr. Weatherbe. I am, however, only turning the attention of the tribiitial to the deliberate and solemn admissions and declarations of the Aibver, which bind now and hereafter. Whatever may be the argument of the United States for the present moment, these must remain, and tbev point to the true intention to be gathered from the language of the Treaty of Washington, as understood by both of the great parties to that compact. The simple question we are now discussing is this: whether certain 'Mnggare to be taken into consideration as incidental to the mere act «i taking fish out of the water. What I understand the argument of the Unite»l States to be now is, that by the Treaty of Washington the Amer- ican fishermen have the right of taking fish out of British waters, and landing to dry their nets and cure their fish, and nothing else. The right to land to dry their nets and cure their fish they admit are sub- JNtN for compensation. But what does taking fish mean T It means taking them out of the water and landing them on the deck and nothing more, it is contended. We contend that by a fair and reasonable cou- 1564 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Rtrnction of the words, the Uuited States have obtained the privilepf>of carrying on the fiakery. Can it be doubted that this wuh iLu iiitctitii,u when the words were adopted. Are we asking i'ur any htraiued uuti. struvtion by the tribunal f I think not. By the Convention t^f 1818 the United States renounce, forever tlitre. after, the liberty to United States tlsherineu of ttshinj; in certuiii liritJAii waters, or ever entering these waters, except tor shelter uiid fur wood and wat<;r. " For no other purpose whatever^ is the sweeping laiiKiUKt of the treaty. I presume we are to have very little ditference of upiniuim!; to the intention of the clause containing these words. That ul»us<< o( the Convention of 1818 was fully considered by the Joint iii^h Cumiiiiit. sion who framed the Treaty of Washington. What do these iimwmn, sioners say f That language has been cited. In addition to the liUrtY secured by that Convention, the privilege is granted of taking Mu Tbe Treaty of Washington permits the liberty of taking fish and uf lunditii; to dry nets and cure fish. This tribunal is invited to decide thut it h not competent for them to award anything in relation to the iucidcntal and necessary requirements to carry on the fisheries. Is it contended there there was an oversight in framing the Treaty of Washington f Is there an absence of words necessary to secure t lie full enjoyment of our fisheries to United States fishermen f Was that absence intentional f Thr. learned counsel for the United States liiiv« not stated their views upon this point. Can it be possible that those who represented the United States in framing the Treaty of Wasliint;iuu intended the result which woultl follow the success of the present luutioD. Can it be iiossible both parties intended that result! If this is an ovrr- sight, who are to suffer 1 The compensation is to be reduced, we are told. liut if the United States Treasury is to be saved, are the UuitHent timo, or as part of the Hnal areiinieiit. I have now only a few observations to make in addition to thoi*)' that have l>een so strongly )>ut by the Iearneenetits which may flow to tlii> siilijectH of Her Britannic Majesty from traffic with American Hsher- men, and tlioy allege this as a spccitic ground for the reduction of the aiiiiiitiit claimed on behalf of Great Britain. Now, at page 13, part iv, 1 ot the answer, they say : It i« nex; nrnpi)M>re8«uce of foreign liuher- iL'iiciintiot |iiiNHil)ly have done them any injnry. Swdiidly. The invidenliil henffits armng from traffic with American fishermen are of vital injivrliiRrr io the inhabitants of the Hrilinh maritinir prorincet. Tlie incidental benetits arising from traffic, therefore, are, according Itothecontenticm of our learned friends, to l>e taken into consideration, »niltohave weight with the Commissioners in reducing those damages Uhicb they may award to the British Government. Now, all that has liveii contended for on the part of Great Britain up to the present time listliat tlio value of the incidental advantages which necessarily arise from the concession of the right to take flsh within the three-mile limit, Umltolaud for the purpose or curing, should be taken into considera- [tiou by the Commission. On page 9 of the answer they say : It isfiiilhcr im))ortant to bear in mind that the fishery claims of the Treaty of Wash- |iii|!toii bave already l)een in formal operation during four years, one-third of the whole [ixriiKl (if their continuance, while practically both liNliingand commercial intercourse jlnvcbeeu carried on in conformity xrith the treaty ever since it was signed. May H, 1871. Ueretliey say that practically both tisliing and commercial intercourse I have been carried on in conformity with the treaty ever since 1871. Now, [then, if you will turn to the same answer, page 13, they say : Thu United States call upon the British Agent to produce, and upon the Comniis- Jiioni-rs to rt'(niire) at his hands, tangible evidence of the actual practical raliie of the Mf^'ikije of Jiiihhig, hy American, in Uritinh tnritorial tpatern, n» it has cjriiited undtr the ymlf fnrfnur jiiarg itast, as it exists to-day, and as, judging of the future by the })ast, it may I"*"""'''* ie ejrjttcled to continue during the ensuing eight years embraced in the treaty. We have met their views, and given evidence of the actual practical rahieof the privilege of Ashing and its incidents of commercial inter- jconrse as actually carried on in conformity with the treaty. Noff. your excellency and your honors, it appears to me very unfor- 15G6 AWARD OF TIIE FISHERY COMMI88ION. -Ji li ^ •1 ;.ii ; if* tnnate nn rof^nrds onr prenent ixMition that tliift Gommi.HMion did not «it jiuiiu'diately after the treaty whh eutered into. It' it litui Hat— it' the (■•m. Btniction put ii|K)n the treaty whh to tbe effect that tbu CoininiHMiiiti 1,4,1 iiojurlHtlititioii to take into coiisiiieratioii tb« iiiuideiitiil H(lv)iiitii)r,.H„| which evidence has been ;;ivc>n, then, aa has been put by my |»*Hrnn| friend, Mr. TboniHon, no tralllo woubl have taken pbioe trotii Ameriiau Dshintf-veHHelH coming into cur harbors for tlie purpoHe of tMi,\iii|; h^ir lor they would have been liable to Im contiitciited t'urthwitli. lint tlni treaty having exi»te«l f»»ur years, the tlnbennen of tbe United Stiit^saml of (ireat liritain bavcMilved practically tbequcMtion of tluMMinstruiiiiin of the treaty tbeniHtdvea. The tishernien of the United Sttitt'it liave found it more to their convenience and Hiieedy baiting; to employ iirit- iHh liHliermeu to take bait for them, and, in aonie inHtaturcH, to Imv it from them, Itelievint; that tbe right of trafllc waa conceded by tlii.s treaty. and thence the tralllc bax arisen. No auch tralllc would have ai istn haij this question been determined at the outset in accordance with tlic viewa contended for by the counsel for the United States ; but U'taiiiH^ that tratlic has arisen, and tbe (luestion has been solved by tlie jN'ople themselves, therefore they now say we are precluded from rccovtriiii; any compensation for it. It has lieen shown here by clear, iiidiMpiitable evidence that the Bank fisheries ott' the coasts of tbe Dominion and Ne\r. foundland could imt be carrieil on to advantage by American tislunapn without obtaining the bait upon our coast, which they have dune. It is admitted that this la a subject for consideration, and that tliisisa question they have to pay for ; but now, forsooth, because this Cominis- Bion has not sat, and four years have elapsed, and the fishermen 01 tiii> two countries have practicjtily solved the question for tbuuiselves, tvc are to be precluded from obtaining comi>ensation for tbo advautii;,'t»i that would otherwise have to be paid for. Again, in tbe Answer of the United States, nt page IS, it is statitl; *'The lienetits alluded to (that is, the incidentiU advantages) are onl\ indirectly and remotely within the scope and cognizance of this Cmii mission." llere my leurneil friends show that they v/ere clearly of tli>! opinion at the time they penned this answer that these were matters that were within tbe scojte of the Commission, and within their jniistlic. tiou. And without objection on their part, we have tlirougliout the whole conduct of our case adducetl evidence to support the position \ru iiov contend for. Mr. Tbescot. What I have to say I shall say very briefly, for my pur pose is rather to express my assent to what has been said than tn-M anything to what I consider tbe very complete argument of my uolie:ii,'iu-. Mr. Foster. If I understand tbe British counsel correctly, they admit that the con struction for which we contend is a fair construction. Tliey seem to think that a broader and more liberal interpretation would be mure in conformity with what they consider to be the spirit of this di.scHs.-iion, but all of them appear to admit that if we choose to stand on that lan- guage we have the right to do it, and thev do not object that it slionld beenforce*!. They seem to think, however, that certain conscquent-w would follow, of which they have apprehensions for us. That is onr tuat- ter. Tbe consequences that flow from the interpretation will be coufintMl to us, and are matters we must look to. At present the only quft^tioo is, whether we have the right to say to your honors that you are limited in your award to a certain and specific series of items. I think, hon- estly, we have drifted very far from the common-sense view of this case. As to the techoiual argument, if we are to go into it, it might be la- AWARD Of THE FI8IIEBT COMMISSION. 1567 mteil first, thnt, ninler the Trentjy of 1818, if a fiAhermnn w<>nt Into a ntioui't) |><'r( **"*' l>o^>i{li^ ^ l*****^ "' ^"'*' '**'* ^li** cabin Htov« li«> violiittMl the (rt>ili«*rmHn boiiKlit icp, he wha only buying wuttT in another Ibaiif. ami tliiTft'ore that, whun hu hiul a ri|;ht to buy wat**r, hu liad tlirriiilit to Imy iu«. 1 do not, however, 8U|>|io!<« that thiM iH the kind i>f artfuuH'iits >our hoiiort) pro|)«»(o to consider. It a|i|>ear8 to uie that live ItNik at the history of thin nejfotiation, we ttee with |M'rl'ect din- tiiictiifHii what the CoiuniiHsion is intenih>d to do. When the lli|;li Com- aji.^iiin iiM-t, iin«l the quention of the Uttherieit came up, wliat was tlie (.iiiilitioii tit the faets T We were annoyed and wurried to deatli by our ij>bt-ruit'>i ii'*t Ik'Im); allowed to go within three niilen of the Canadian !4iote ami by their beinjj walchetl by cutters. The idea of not being aloveil to buy bait, fish, and ice, which we bad done ever since the tiolierifM existed, never crossed our minds. We knew what had turn ibe i-rf tliiiit.'!* for sale as an indutsenient to come into your |M)rts. Wo lull ilic (Ifclaration of Her Majesty's Colonial Secretary, that whatever mi;:lit lie tlie ttH'hnical rijfht, he would not consent to colonial le);isla- niiii«bi«-li(le|irived us and you of this natural and profitable exchange, .tiiii wf knew that in the extreme application of your laws, you had not aat-mpteil to contise^ite or punish Uniteil States fishermen for such pin liases. It never occurred to us that this was a cpiestion in discus- >:«ii. What we wanted to do was to arrange the question as to the in- viiirr tislif rie>. Tiiat was the only question we were consideriu};, and NlUr tVoiii laisiuK any question about it, what is the instrui:tion of the lliiibli (iov(>riiment to their negotiators f it was as follows : Thf twocliiff qiiPHtions are: As to wliptlirr tlie expivswion "thrpe marine iiiileH of i'( i'( tli<- (oHKiH, lia.vH, oreekH, or linrborit of Her Hriianiiic MajeHty'H t-liiie or a limit of three : ••t'imi aline drawn froiu lieailland tu heatlland ; and whether the proviso that ' .' Aiiii'ric-uri lixhernien Hliall lut ailmitle«l to enter sueh liays or harlMtrtt for the pnr- |.~-,.t >L<-lrcr. aiul of ni|tairlng ilaniaK**'* therein, of luirelianing wood, and of olituin- :'.;;vutrr. anil fur no other purpose wliatever," is inteiiiletl tw exchide American ves- ri'tiiitu e iiiiiiK inshore to tratiie, transship lish, pnreham! store:*, hire seamen, \k. Ilrr Mjjt'sty'.H (.tdvi-rnnient wouhl he ulatl to learn that von were able to arrive at a ci.i'.w^iVf iniili-rsiandinK with tho Cominissioners of the United Slates upon the dis- I Ml intrriirt-talion of the Convention of 1r\ «ili In- |iri'|iared for the whole qnestion of the relations Itetweu the Unittnl States li.'lii^' Kiiiirh |Mis>rssioiis in North America, as re^^anls the fisheries, lieiiiK n*ferriMl l^o>i>Mtl*-ration and iuqniry ta an International Ci>mmis>ioD. on which two Conimis- >>^''rstiilM' lien-atier appointed, in cousultatiua with Ihe Uoverumeut of the Do- hiniuu. ^boni(l be the British representatives. Nut. wiiat was that but an instruction not to trouble themselves with \\kut\ qiu'stidhs we are arguing here to day, but to goand settle the qnes- liim (til SOUR* basis which would not involve any such discission. And *bat(ii(l wp tin? W'e said: "The question is between two inshore fi>bfries. We think our inshore fishery is north something; you think vour inshore fishery is worth something. We give you leave to fish in ours, ami we admit fish and fish-oil free of duty, and make the matter pretty much on equality. If that is not suflicient, take three honest* miudt^l gentlemen and convince them that your fisheries are worth a great de-al more than ours, and we will pay the difference ;*' and so we ^ill, without any hesitation, if such shall be the award upon a full hear- ing of all that you have to say and all that we have to say. That is the vbole qaestiou we have to decide. Take the fishery qaestioo as it 1568 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. B w stands. If yoa will demcnstrate and prove that wben we gn into the Galf of St. Lawrence to lisb', the privilege is worth a great deal more to us to be allowed to follow a school of uiiickerel inshore and catch thein than is the privilege accorded to you to come into our insboro tisheries- if, after comparing our fisheries with yours, this tribunal entertaius the honest opinion that an amount should be paid by the United States, the award will be paid, and no more words said about it. What is the use of im|K)rting into this subject ditliculties and contentions of wodIs which do not mean anything after all. The question is, whether the Canadian inshore fisheries are worth more to us than our inshore tish eries are to the Canadians, with the free import of fresh ftsii, and if, after the examination of witnesses, this tribunal holds that onr inshore fisheries are worth a great deal more than the inshore flsherics of thn Dominion, then we will not pay anything. But the question .sul)mittt^l to this tribunal is not one that requires a great deal of discussion ai)out treaties or a very close examination of words. If we are to yo into that examination, one of the first things to determine is, what sort of a treaty are we dealing with ? Because if it is a commercial treaty, an exchange of commercial rights, it is one of the principles of diplomatic interpreta- tion that cannot bo contradicted, that runs through every modern reoip rocity treaty, that commercial equivalents are absolute equivalents, ami do not admit of money valuation by an additional money compensation. For instance, suppose England should make a treaty with France, ami England should say: "We will admit your wines free of duty if you will admit certain classesof manufactures free of duty." The treaty tiiengw^ into operation. Suppose for some reason or other there were no French light wines drunk in England for ten years, and the French took a large quantity of English manufactured goods, at the end of ten years it might turn out that England had made several millions of doUars by that treaty, while France had made nothing. But you cannot make any calculation as to compensation ; the whole point is that it is recip rocity — the right exchange. Just so is it in regard to tlie question of fisheries and their values. Suppose from the right to import tisb into the United States the Canadians make $500,000 a year, and from our right to import fish into the Dominion we do not make 8iOO, what has that to do with this question ? The reciprocity, the right ot «^xchan{re, is the principle. And this is why it is that all reciprocity treaties are tem|>orary treaties ; because the object of such treaties is regarding the general principle of free trade as benieQcial to all people, to open the results of the industries of nations to each other. The men who made the treaty may have miscalculated tlie industries affected by it. It may occur that on account of a want of adaptation on the part of the people or ignorance of the markets, the ltecii>roeity Treaty does not turn out advantageous, and therefore sucli a treaty is only made for a short term of years. But if it is a reciprocity treaty giving extended comniercial facilities, you have to put every one as an equivalent against another. If you put the Washington Treaty on that footing, then our right to use your inshore fisheries is balanced by your right to use our inshore fisheries, and the advantages are equal. That is the only way in which you can deal with the question if you view the treaty as one of reciprocity. But if you consider the treaty as an ex change to a certain extent of properties, then I understand tliat youcan apply another principle. For example, if I were to exchange with some one a farm in Prince Edward Island for a house in Halifax, and agreed to submit to a board of arbitration the question of the difference in value, that board could meet and ascertain the market value of the laud and AWABD OF THE FI8HEBY COMMISSION. 1569 bouse respectively and decide the questioo. Bat according to the theory of the British connsel, whenever we got before the board of arbitration Mr. Tbomson wonld say : " Now, thia house is valuable as a honse, and it is also valnable as a base of operations, for if yon did not have the boose and there was bad weather yon would have to stay out in it ; con* geqaently that point has to be taken into consideration." The rapty would be, '' When I bought the house I bought it for these things." So when ve come to calculate the value of the fisheries, we expect that all these incideotal advantages go along with the calculation. Mr. Thomson. That is what we are contending. Mr. Tbescot. I beg your pardon ; that isjust what you do not do. Toa jast make an elaborate calculation of the value of your fisheries as flshO' ries, then you add every conceivable incidental or consequential possible advantage, whether of the fisheries or our enterprise in the use of them, and add that estimate to the value. You contend that we shall pay for the house, and taen pay you additionally for every use to which it is [wssible to put the house. Mr. Thomson. Do you admit that the value of the fishei ies is enhanced bv those advantages! Mr. Tbescot. I do not. I do not believe that your alleged advan- tages are advantages at all. We can supply their places from our own resonrces as well and as cheaply. Now, with regard to the treaty itself tbere are only two points which I propose to submit to the Commission. I contend in the first place that if the interpretation for which the British coausel contend is true, viz, that by the Treaty of 1818 wo were excluded trom certain rights, and by the Treaty of 1871 we were admitted to them, then we must fiud out from what we were excluded by the Treaty of 1818 and to what we were admitted by the Treaty of 1871. I contend that the language of the Treaty of 1818 is explicit. (Quotes from convention). Now, I hold that that limitation, that prohibitive permission to go into the harbors, wai« confined entirely to fishermen engaged in the inshore fishery. That treaty had no reference to any other fishery whatever. It waa a treaty confined to inshore fishermen and inshore fisheries, and we agreed that we should be allowed to fish inshore at certain places, and it we would renounce the fishery within three miles at certain places we should enter the ports within those three-mile fisheries which we agreed to renounce, for the purpose of getting wood, water, &c. The limitation aod |ienuis8ion go together, and are confined simply to those engaged in the tbreeniile fishery. 1 contend that to day, under that treaty, the bankers arc not referred to, and they have the right to enter any port of Newfoundland and buy bait and ice and transship their cargoes with- out reference to that treaty. I insist that it is a treaty referring to a siHicial class of people; that those people are not included who are ex- daded from the three-mile limil, and if they are not so included they have the right to go to any port and purchase the articles they require. In other words, while the British Government might say that none of the inshore fishermen should enter the harbors except for wood and water, yet the bankers from Newfoundland had a perfect right to go into port for any reason whatever, unless some commercial regulation be« tveen the United States and Great Britain forbade them. With regard to the construction that is to be placed upon the articles of the Treaty of 1871, Mr. Thomson seems very much surprised at the construction ve hare put upon it. Here is the arrangement. (Quotes from conven- tion of 1818 and Treaty of 1871.) Does that take away the prohibition? Surely if it had been intende I to remove that prohibition it would have been stated. In addition to 99f 1570 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. '■'41 ■ * m your right to fish on certain coasts and enter certain harbors odIt for wood and water, that treaty says yon shall hare the right ^'to take fi$h of every kind, except shell fish, on the sea-coasts and shores ami in tb^ bays, harbors, and creeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, ami New Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward Island and of tiie several islands thereto adjaoent, without being restricted to aDv distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts and shoi^ and islands, and also upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose g( drying their nets and curing their fish." " Drying their nets aud caiin^' their fish." That is all ; that is the whole additional treaty privileg^^ and I can see no power of construction in this Commission by which it can add to treaty stipulation the foreign words "and bay ice,' bait, soft- plies, and transship." And yet the British counsel admit that witboot these words our interpretation is indisputable. We had a certain rigti and certain limitations of that right by the Treaty of 1818, and the Treatr of 1871 says in addition we give you the farther right to take, drr, anil cure fish and nothing else. The reason is very obvious. It is rerr evident that when the treaty was drawn, for every advantage ontsttk of that clause we were to be called on, according to the theory of th« British counsel, to pay compensation. We never had been tilled on to pay for the privilege of buying bait and ice, aud we had received no notice from the Colonial Government of any intention to makesodi claim, which was contrary to the whole policy of Great Britain and would not be sustained. SVhy should we have to pay for that pririlege! We did not insert it in the treaty because we did not intend to pay for it; that is the reason it is not there. I leave any further reply to the learned counsel who will follow me. I am anxious as to your decision. I have not desired to conceal aod 1 have not concealed the fact that the people and Government of th« United States regard this claim of $15,000,000 as too extravagruit fix serious consideration. 1 know at the same time that they sincerely wish for a final settlement of this irritating controversy. And then-fort I earnestly ho|>e that yon will be able to reach a decision which will limit within reasonable proportions a claim which, as it stands, it is simply idie to discuss. You start from a point we can never reach. A day or two ago, darin; the session, I happened to go into the Commission cousaltiug-room anap^ whidi was turned down I found a reference to some South Sea Islanders. I believe, who had such a gigantic inshore fishery that "they mad^ lumber of the fish-bones." I am afraid that the British counsel hav« been consulting this book as an authority. Mr. Dana. May it please your excellency and your honors, the qae$- tion now before the tribunal is, whether you have jurisdiction toiiscertais and declare compensation because of American fishermen buying bait, ice, and supplies, and transshipping cargoes within British territory. Your jurisdiction, as has been well said, finds its charter in the Tmty of Washington. Without rereading the words which have been T«ad. v»que ad nauMeam^ I thiuk I give truly the substance and meaning of them when I say that there having been mutual cessions relating to fisheries, and one side claiming that it has ceded more thau it hM r^ ceived in value, it is agreed that your honors shall determine strictly this, whether Great Britain has ceded more valuable rights to the United States than the United States has ceded to Great Britain. Yoor hon- ors are not to determine or to inquire what rights Great Brit;un ba« AWARD OF THE FISBEBY COMMISSION. 1571 nermitteil fbe United States to exercise iadependently of the treaty, however nearly tbey may be connected with the fisheries, and however important tbey may be to fishermen. It must be something which Great Britain has ceded by the Treaty of 1871, or you have nothing to do with If vbatever was done, at however great a loss to Great Britain, and faoVever great a benefit to the (Jiiitcd States, you have but to compare :be two matters which have been ceded by each side in the Treaty of 1S71, and find whether one is more valuable than another, and if so, bow'niocb more valuable. Therefore we are brought to this question : iKjes the Treaty of 1871 give to the United States the right to buy bait, ce, provisions, supplies for vessels, and to transship cargoes within I'.ntish dominions f If the Treaty of Washington does give that to i>, then it la an element for you to consider in making up your pecu- iiiarv calculation. If the Treaty of Washington does not give that to jii. then I congratulate this high tribunal that it may put these matters rutir^iy out of mind, and save many days of examination and cross- (^lamination, and some perplexity of mind. Because your excellency and your honors will remember that if you are to fix a value upon them, that is, tbe value to the United States of the right to buy bait, ice, and }irovisions, and to transship cargoes, that will not be all you will have to do. You will have also to ascertain the value to the provinces of the (tirrespondiug right which they would have in the Unite in substance : Whereas, you have certain advantages given to you relating to tbe inshore fisheries, under the Treaty of 1818, in regard to catchiug fish, drying your nets, and curing your fish on certain shores, we i extend territorially these same privileges. And I have the honor to wntend that the Treaty of Washington is simply a territorial extension (fctrtaiii specijic rights — the right to catch fish, dry nets, dry fish, and cait tisb. Tbe subject-matter of that part of the Treaty of Washington i« tb« catching fish inshore, within tbe three-mile limit. Before the Treaty of Washington, this right of catching fish within three miles of >iiore,and of landing to dry and cure fish and dry nets, was confined 'ntrtaiu regions. In other places we could not fish or land within the i 'iuw mile limit. The Treaty of Washington extends territorially these j lights over all British America, and there the Treaty of Washington ♦^nds, so far as the fisheries are concerned. There is not one word in it of tbe creation of new rights. It is a ^territorial extension [of long- kMwn siHicified rights. iidoes not say that whereas by the Treaty of 1818 you renounced the jngfattofish within the three-mile limit, provided, however, that yon can Uointobuy wood and get water, we add to those rights the right to buy 1672 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. •fkv P'.f ir«^i. ll.ft , ice. bait, aud other supplies. If there had been the least intention br either party to extend the rights to new subjects it would certainly hare been stated in the treaty. If, when the representatives of Great Britain and the United States had come together, the Joint High Commission had understood that we should not enter British American ]yoTt& except those we were allowed to enter under the Treaty of 1818 for any purpose except for shelter, and to buy wood and water, and the British nation had proposed to add to these subjects so as to include the riglit to buy bait and ice and to transship cargoes, why inevitably they would hare said so; inevitably the new rights would have been siiccitically iiidudnl in the matters on which your honors were to base your culculatioiig. England might have said to the United States (I deny the position, but England might have taken the position) that American flKlicrnicn have no right to enter our waters except under the Treaty of 1818, and then not to buy anything but wooil and water, and now we arc o])enin(r to them the great privilege of buying bait, ice, and supplies, and trans shipping cargoes, which will add immensely to the value of their tisiierles. The argument would have been made, which has been made here, in the form of «]ue8tions put to exi)ert witnesses: '^ Is not all that essential to A. lerican flsheriest" But, on the contrary, the treaty sivys nothinj; about it. Wo hear of it for the first time when the counsel of the British Government are getting up their case for damages. We iniiuc diately protest against it as something not included in the jurisdiction of this court, and our Agent, Mr. Foster, on page 32 of tlic Answer, distinctly states — That the various iiicicleiilol and rcciprnral ndvautnges of the treaty, hiicIi at tli> privileges of trnftic, jMirchaHiiig bait, and otiier sniiplies, are not the Buiijt'ct of mm- pensation, beruuKC t lie Treaty of ^VaRhington confers no such rif^litn on the inhabit- nntH of tlie Uniteil States, who now enjoy them merely by sufTerauce, and who can at any time be deprived of them by the enforcement of existing laws or the rc-cnactoient of former oppressive statutes. Moreover, the treaty does not provide for any (xiwiblt compensation f« r such privileges ; and they are far more imiwrtsnt and vuluablt) to the subjects of Her Majesty than to the inhabitants of the United States. The passages which the British counsel have referred to as an argu- ment that the Agent of the United States had admitted that those |irivt leges came by treaty, all refer to something quite different. A passage on page 9 of the Answer of the United States has been quoted : • • • While practically both fishing and commercial intercourse have been ciir- tied on in conformity with the treaty ever since it was signed, May H, 1871. That "commercial intercourse" means the free inqwrtation on each side of the articles of commerce, the only articles of coniiwerce the treaty refers to, fish and fish oil. On page 14, section 2 of the Answer, it is stated : The incidental benefits ar'sing from trnffic with American fishermen arc of vital im- portance to the inhabitants of the British maritime provinces. These are benefits which the British people get from us, and they are said to be only incidental, and are only introduced as a set off, if Great Britain claimed to have the right to receive compensation for the privi- lege of trading in bait, &c., with her people. May it please your honors, it is clear to our minds that the Treaty of Washington does not give us those advantages. That subject has been elaborated by the Agent of the United States and by my learned friend (Mr. Trescot). In the first place it has been said in answer to that con- tention, or rather it has been suggested, for it was not said with earnest- ness as if the counsel for the Crown thought it was goiug to stand as an argument, that those were treaty gifts to the United States, and though AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1573 ire of vital ini- thev conUI not be found in any treaty, yet they were necesfiarily implied in the Treaty of Wishington. Take the Treaties of 1783, 1818, 1854, and 1871, and they are nowhere referred to according to any ordinary intcrpretaiion of language. The only argument I can perceive is this: You bavo oiijoyed those rights. They do not belong to you by nature orbv usage, and must tlicreforo bo treaty gifts; though wo cannot find the language, yet thoy must have been conferred by the Treaty of 1871 and tiie Treaty of 1854. May it please this learned tribunal, we exer- cised nil those rights and privileges before any treaty was made, except the oUi treaty which was abolished by the war of 1813. Almost the very Isuit witness wo had on the stand told your honors that before the Keciprocity Treaty was made wo were buying bait in Newfoundland, and several witnesses from time to time have stated that it is a very ancient practice for us to buy bait and supplies and to trade with the ])eople along the shore, not in merchandise as merchants, but to buy supplies of bait and pay the sellers in money or in trade as might be must convenient. Now, that is one of those natural trades that grow up in all countries; it is older than any treaty, it is older than civilized »Uttes or statutes. Fisheries liava but one history. As soon as there are places peopled with inhabitants, fishermen go there. The whale- tisliertnen of the United States go to the various islands of the Pacific which are inhabited and get supplies. To be sure the whale fishery does not need bait, but the fishermen get supplies for their own support ami to enable them to carry on the fishery, and they continue to do so until those islands come to be inhabited by more civilized people. So it is with the (ircenland fisheries. Then come restrictions, more or less, sometimes by treaty and sometimes by locial statutes, which the foreign fovernments feel therrselves obliged to respect ; if they do not it be- comes a matter of diplomatic correspondence, and might be a cause of war. The history of this matter is that the custom for fishermen to obtain supplies ami bait from countries at various stages of civilization is most ancient, most natural, most necessary, most humane, and one for which no compensation has ever been asked bj* any civilized nation, because it is supposed to be for mutual benefit. It is for the benefit of the fisher- men to get his supplies, but the islanders would not sell them unless thev thought it was also beneficial to themselves. So statutes do not create the right, but only regulate it. So do treaties. They regulate and sometimes limit the rights, but they seldom if ever enlarge them. in looking at this subject your honors will find such has been the history of the lisheries on the northeast coast of America. The fishermen began, long before these islands were well settled, even before they had recognized governments upon them, to exercise all the privileges and rights which belong to fishermen in all parts of the world where they are not limited by statutes or treaties. It was a case altogether siii Hmm. Fishing is an innocent passage along the co«ist. It is an inno- cent use ; and an innocent Hse und transit are always allowed. The French claimed and the British claimed the Newfoundland fisheries, and at last a treaty settled their claims. It did not give rights, but adjusted them. And so it was with us. While we were part of Great Britain, ^e had all the privileges of British subjects ; but the British in New- foundland had very few claims which were not contested, and some w^ere entirely in the hands of the French. When we were severed from the Crown, the question arose whether there was any reason why we should not continue to fish where we had always fished. We did not 8Wk to make any claim in regard to property in the islands ; we did not 1574 AWA(.D OF THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. 1. P ask for aay privilege not a fishing privilege. The question arose whether we had not still the right to fish as an innocent pursuit, even though within the limit of three miles ; and the three-mile limit and what is meant was not then settled. We must, however, discuss this subject as if there had always been an exact law, from the times of Moses down, relating to the three-mile limit and what the powers were. All this haa grown up within very recent times, and indeed there are very few per sons now who know what is meant by it. It was long coDtended that the right of all States over the three miles was for fiscal purposes, and purposes of defense only, and as the subject has been very fully argued in a recent case in England, nothing can probably be added to the rea sons given on each side. The matter continued iu that posilion. We fished without reference, and thought we had the right to do it. We knew it did no harm. The fishermen are by the law of nations a peculiar class, having special privileges. Their status is different iu time of war from that of a merchantman or man-of-war. Having this question of the three-mile limit to deal with, one which was long dis puted between the United States and Great Britain, and one which was always looked upon as disputed, which had bad a slow and steady growth for many years, and about which no one can dogmatize, they have en deavored to arrange it as best they could. Your honors will find that in the very first treaty, that of 1783, it is stated : It is agreed that the people of the United states sball continue to enjoij UDmolesteil the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other Banks ot Newfoundland ; also iu the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and at all other places iu the in where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to Mi. That was looked upon as dealing with existing rights, the exact lini itations of which must rest olely in agreement. It was not a gift, a the French gave Dunkirk to England, or as Mexico gave Galitornia to the United States. It was like an adjustment of disputed territory, The only question settled in the first treaty, that of 1783, was that we should fish as before; nothing was said about the three-mile line. When we come to the Treaty of 1818 we find it stated: "Whereas difler ences have arisen," &c. By that treaty it is agreed that on certain parts of the coast we shall have the right to take fish, that on certain parts we shall have the right to dry and cure fish, and that at other parts wc shall not have such rights. Then came the Treaty of 1851, which said nothing about any of those rights of which I am speaking, but merely dealt with the question of our right to fish within three miles, where we could exercise it and where not, and our right to cure and dry fish and to dry nets, In Article 18 of the Treaty of 1871 the question is taken up again in the same way. It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that in addition to the liberty secured to United States fishermen bv the convention between the United States and Great Britain signed at London on the 20th October, 1818, for taking, curing, and drying lisli ou certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein named, the inbabii- ants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjectsof Her Britannic Ma- jesty, the liberty, for the term of ten years mentioned in Article ',V3 of this treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea coasts and shores, in the bays, bar- bers, and creeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and col- ony of Prince Edward Island and the several islands thereunto adjacent, without beini: restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coast'*, shores, and islands, and also upon the Magdaleus, for the purpose of drying their nctj and curing their fish. Then it is stated that whereas it is claimed that Great Britain there by has given the United States more valuable fisheries than they bad before, there is something to be paid. Now, if the treaty did not give AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1575 US the right to do so, bow came we to be buying bait t Why, we have always (lone it. From the time there was a man there with bait to sell, there was an American to buy it from him. We have never asked for the right to buy bait. You cannot find a diplomatic letter anywhere in which we have complained that we were prohibited from buying bait. After the Treaty of 1854 had expired, it is true, the Canadians, who felt gore about the matter, undertook to say we should not buy any bait ; that if we did, we would be punished therefor. They were immediately stopped by Great Britain, who, without saying in terms that the Amer- icans had a right to buy bait by the Treaty of 1817 or irrespective of all treaties, declared it to be against ^he policy of the nation to prohibit it; and they stopped this petty persecution of American fishermen. I care not what line of reasoning induced the British Government to take that coarse with their Ganadian subjects. I do not care whether they considered that the Treaty of 1818 gave it to nn (I do not see how they could), or whether, as is more probable, they, being large-minded men, who hiul studied the subject, considered it something which, not being prohibited, belonged to us, and they did not intend to prohibit it. Now, who are the men who buy the fish for bait f They are not the men who fish within the three-mile limitation. We do not buy bait here to catch mackerel. The bait we buy is for the Banks and deep-sea cod fishery. There is no pretense from any evidence that our mackerel fishermen cooie here to buy bait ; it is only the Bank cod-fishermen who do so. I respectfully submit to this learned tribunal that it can have nothing to do with how the fishermen on the Banks see fit to employ themselves. The Treaties of 1818, 1854, and 1871 related solely to fishing within the three miles. The Treaty of 1783 recognizes the right of Ameri- can fishermen to fish on the Banks, on the high seas, a right which had always belonged to American fishermen, never ceded to them by any treaty, but which they hold by the right of common humanity. These Dien come into Ganadian ports to buy bait. What has this tribunal to do with them ? Have not American fishermen fishing on the high seas the right to run into British ports by comity, by the universal law of nations, if they are not specially excluded on some ground which the United States admits to be proper and right f Have they not the right to come in and buy bait and other necessaries ? Great Britain possesses the power to put any regulation on them it pleases, to require them to cuter at the cus- tomhouse, to be searched to see whether they are merchants in disguise, and to levy duties upon them ; but in the absence of a prohibition, there is no right to prevent those fishermen buying bait or supplies. I next come to the question of shelter, repairs, purchasing ice and other articles, and transshipping cargoes. I do not propose to admit that we have not these rights, or that we are exercising them simply because we are not punished for doing so, or that because the Treaties of 1818 or 1871 have not given them to us, we do not possess them, and that it is within the power of the provinces to exclude us from them altogether. That depends upon considerations which are not necessary for us to take in view. If your honors should decide that you have no right to recognize, among the elements of compensation, those rights of ^hich I speak ; then if the colonies should pass a law which should pun« ish every American fisherman from the Grand Banks or inshore fisher- ies who should buy bait or ice or refit is guilty of an offense, it would theu be a question for Her Majesty's governor-general to determine whether that was not an imperial question, and, if so, to refer it to Her Majesty in council to determine. I have no fear that any such statute 1576 AWARD OF THE FI8HEBY COlfHIfiSION. 41 I : ;;l wonld be passed, becaase the namber of persoos interested in tbat tr«r- fie with American flshermen is very great, and they are voters ; they have even in Newfoundland broken their chains and become a sober and saving people since they came to have cash of their own, from their trading with Americans. I doubt whether the Canadian Government will be encouraged, how- ever strong may be the wave of politics, to meet the people of the various constituencies and insist on this American traflio lieing entirely cut off. If they do it, I doubt whether Great Britain would sanction it, and if Great Britain did allow it, then it becomes at once a qaestion between the two governments. Is that a course fair and right, in ac- cordance with the comity of nations, in accordance with practices which are earlier tLan when the first Disciples threw their nets into the sea of Galilee — is not such a course an interference with a right practiced from earliest times, and without good reason for the prohibition T Yoo may put regulations on us so that our fishermen shall not be smugglers iu disguise, and so that merchants shall not come in the disguise of fisher- men ; but to prohibit American fishermen from purchasing bait and supplies, not in case of necessity merely, but as part of the plan of their trade, and transshipping cargoes, would be a violation of the spirit which has governed the commercial relations between the two empires. I would therefore present a summary of the matter thus: The only matter of dispute between Great Britain and the United States in the Treaty of 1783 related to the inshore fisheries, I mean the right to catch fish more or less near the British coast, and in addition to tbat to care and dry fish. The Treaty of 1783 acknowledged the general right. The Treaty of 1818 gave us certain places, which were named, where we could exercise those fishing rights, and stated certain places where we could not exercise them ; but it did not undertake to deal with the commercial side of the fisheries question. The Treaty of 1854 was the same; it gave a general right to fish within these Dominions, and to land and dry them in certain places. The only question of late has been whether Great Britain has the right, without any treaty, to exclude us from three miles of the coast. That was Mr. Adams's famous argnmeDt with Earl Bathurst. We said iu the Treaty of 1818 that, as a right, ve no longer claimed it. That is the meaning of the treaty— tbat having claimed it as a right inherent in us, either because we did not lose it at the time of the lievolution, or from the nature of fisheries, or on some other ground, we no longer claimed it as a right which cannot be taken away from us but at the point of the bayonet. But while we say we will not go within the three miles to fish without permission, it must not be held that vessels cannot go there for shelter and repairs and for wood and water, but may be put under such regulations as will prevent ns from doing anything further. It is entirely a matter for Great Britain to determine what regulations we should be placed under, in those re- spects, and she has seen fit to make none. The Statute 59, George III., passed to carry out the Treaty of 1818, prohibited fishing or preparing to fish in certain boundaries. A decision has been rendered iu one province that buying bait was *< preparing" to fish. In another province other a decision was rendered directly the way. That, however, is a local matter altogether. The decision rendered in New Brunswick was that the prohibition of " preparing to fish" most apply only to those who intended to fish within the prohibited degree; that the buying of bait, whether it was a step in preparing to fish or not, was not an offense unless the fishing itself would be an oflfense. If an American bought bait here to go off to Greenland or to the Mediter- ranean to fisb, it could not be considered an offense. Great Britain can- AWARD OF THE FISHEBT COMMISSION. 1677 not Dialer a statute which would alter onr rights under this treaty nor fevire an old statnte to do so. The learned Judge was oarefal to say that be did not mean to apply his decision one step beyond the point of taking bait for the purpose of fishing within prescribed limits. Sir Albxandbb Oalt. I desire to ask the learned counsel (Mr. Dana) if 1 noderstood him to say that no seizure or confiscation of American figiiingvessels took place before 1854. I think there were confiscations) and I shonld like to know whether those confiscations were confined to Tessels catching fish and that alone, within the three-mile limit. Mr. Dana. So far as I am concerned, I assume that there has been no condemnation for " buying bait." Sir Alexander Oalt. I do not refer especially to the purchase of bait, but to anything except catching fish. Mr. Thomson. There have been several convictions for catching bait. Mr. Foster. I never had my attention called to any conviction or attempted conviction, except for fishing inside, the case of the Nicker- SOD, before Sir William Young, at Halifax, in 1870, and still later the decision in New Brunswick in the case of the White Fawn. The first was the only case I have heard of in which there was a con- viction for " preparing to fish." Sir Alexander Galt. I do not specially refer to " preparing to fish," becaase there are other offenses created by the statute. Mr. Foster. I have here a list of vessels seized up to 14th December, 1370, and the following are entered as their offenses : "Actively fishing; tbe men on board in the act of hanling iu their lines." "At an- chor preparing to fish, and a quantity of fresh-caught herring in the hold; taken on the spot, having been previously warned off." "Smuggling." "Fishing seven days inGa8p6 Harbor, and preparing to fish at time of seizure." "At anchor ; lines set, on which were six halibut." " Throwing out bait, and crew casting their fishing-lines." " " Having fished in the cove, and actually found with mackerel wet and drippiD^, and hooks baited with fresh bait ; also fresh-iisb blood and mackerel offalq on deck. "Smuggling." "Having fished at Three Islani iog to fish at Head Harbor, Campo Bello." Islands, Grand Manan." " Prex>ar- Thelast was tbe case in regard to preparing to fisb, and where the learned judge discharged the vessel in oppositiou to the decision of Sir William Young iu tbe case of the Nickerson. Mr. Thomson. In the case of tbe White Fawn, decided at St. John, the decision, as 1 understand it, is not in conflict with that of Sir Will- iam Yoang. Sir William Young condemned the Nickerson because it was fishing, or preparing to fish, within the prescribed limits. In the St. John case tbe libel was framed expressly for buying bait within the barber, with the intention of fishing. It was shown that the fisherman had purchased bait, but evidence that he went in there witli the inten- tion of fishing was wanting. Mr. Thomson. The question is whether there has ever been a convic- tion of an American vessel for taking bait. I call your attention to the fact that tbe Java, Independence, Magnolia, and Hart were convicted in 1839 of being within the prescribed limits and cleaning fish on deck. In 1840 the Papineau, Alms, and Mary were seized and sold for pur- chasing bait on shore. Mr. TiiEscoT. The judgment went by default. There was no defense made. TuvRSBAY, Septe.nler 0. Tbe CoDference met. ArgQDieDt resumed. Mr. Dana. Mr. Foster will state the results of inquiries male respect- I iDg the condemnation of American vessels. 1578 AWARD OF THE FISIIEBY COMMISSION. if ■' Mr. Foster. The substance of the facts, as we understuiul tbem.wir be found in a dispatch from Judge Jackson to llou. Bancroft dIivI dated March 11, 1871, which is as follows : ^' Unitkd States Conhulatk at Halifax, Nova ."cotia, Sir: I have the honor to inform you that, after examination and ini|iiir.v, I hiveim- been able to find a single acyudioated oaae in thia provinue whicii can Uo cit«: schooners Java, Independence, Magnolia, and Hart in is:ii>, and suhootittrH Papinean and Mary in 1840, were condemned by the vice-admiralty court in default of the apwsr- aiio0 of defendants upon ex-)»arte affidaviU. From the small sums for which the vessels sold, it is not improbable tliat tlicy were bought in for the benefit of the owners. Although it is stated in the allidavits on the files of the court that the nia8tor« of mm* of the vessels had purchased bait, yot it is specially noticeable that tlie chMgn maik against the schooners Java, Independence, Magnolia, and Hart by the Heii!in;;-of!ic<-r, Capt. J. W. E. Darby, as the ground of such seizure, was in the foUowinn lauKaai;i> " The deponent saith that he believes that the sole object of the maHten of the saidm»-l, toot to procure Jith, and that they were, at the time ot their seizure, proparin;; to Mu" In the ease of the schooners Papineau and Mary, seized in June, HIO, for a riolatloa of the fishery laws, the same soizing-ofllcer set forth in his affidavit, as the K<°'> other purpose whatever." The seizure and condemnation of these several vessels — four in 1S39 and two is 1810 — cited in the pamphlet referred to, in support of the unusual and extreme mfa< urea of last summer, in relation to American fishing-vessels, aft'urd, as will be »m from the facts here stated, no legal justification for such measures, and caimot Ih n- garded in any respect authoritative acUudications upon the points iu coutrovenr between the United States and Great Britain respecting the fisheries. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant. Hon. J. C. Banckokt Davis, Assistant Secretary of Stale, IVashington, 1). C. M. M. JACKSOX, Unili'd litaks t'onml Referring to the paper which was put in by the British counsel, on page 12 of document No. 31, there i» a memorandum of all the vessels seized and condemned by the vice-admiralty court of Priuce Edward Island, and it is stated at the end of each case : " £ cannot fiud from any papers in this case, at present in the registry of this court, that { this vessel was ever interfered with by government officers for trans shipping fish or purchasing supplies." As to the New Brunswick cases, j of which there is a statement at the top of page 10, documcDt 21, 1 am not able to ascertain because we have not access to the papers. There were not many cases in New Brunswick ; seven between 1822 and 1852. There is also at the foot of page G, document No. 15, a record of the cases condemned at Halifax. Mr. J. S. D. Thompson has made a uiem orandum of each of those cases, and there is no case where a vessel was forfeited for buying bait or other supplies, or for transshippiDg cargo. The statement of 59 George III is the same in substance witli the colonial statute. By that statute vessels are libeled and forfeited in the admiralty court for no other offense than that of being found fishing, { or having Ash on board, or preparing to fish. The fourth article imi poses a penalty of £200, recoverable by action at common law, on a I fisherman refusing to depart from the territorial waters when warned I by the party authorized to do so. Among the Halifax cases it will ap- j pear that some are marked as restored, and two others at least were f AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1579 restoi-ed upon payment of the expenses, namely, the Shetland and Eliza. Xlje Wasliiii^ton was paid for; and in no instance, as I am informed, vas there a condemnation for anything except fishing or preparing to tijb' aiiil at^^B indicative of preparing to fish are always shown to be some nets of immediate preparation, like having bait ready on board. Theu we come in 1S71 to Sir William Young's decision, where he for- feited a vessel for buying bait, holding that buying bait was a prepar- ation to flsli. That was* the case of the Nickerson. The vessel was ^\m\ iu 1H71, and forfeited the following year. About the same time a similar case was tried in New Brunswick by Judge Hazen, who held the reverse of Sir William Young's decision. Judge Hazen held that tbe parchase of bait, unless it was proved to have been purchased to use iu illegal fishing, was not a preparation to fish illegally, and that a vessel that came into Halifax or St. John to buy bait to fish on the Baiikiiof Newfoundland, was not violating any treaty. It was always felt by tbe United States that the distinguished judge, Sir William Vounj;, bad overlooked the fact that in the case before him the vessel that bougbt the bait did not buy it to fish for mackerel in territorial waters, but on tbe coast of Newfoundland. There is that one authority tor holding that it was (;ontrary to law to come in here for f;od and bay bait fur outside fishing, and, so fur as I am aware, there are only these two cases on the question, and opinions are equally balanced. Mr. Thomson. In the case of the White Fawn, tried by Judge Hazeu, tbe vessel was libeled for taking bait in our waters, with the iateution of fishing there. She was not charged with the offense against tbe treaty of purchasing bait within three miles of the shore, but she ns distinctly charged with obtaining bait with the view of llshing there, and Judge Hazen held — and I apprehend properly held, for he is an able lawyer and sound judge — that the evidence did not support the allegation. The evidence probably showed that the intention was ta take tbe vessel and fish on the Banks of Newfoundland, where it had no doubt a right to fish, and therefore the case failed, because while ibe offense was complete, the allegation did not support it. Mr. FosTEK asked for further explanations. Mr. TnoMSON. What I say is this : that while this was a distinct olteiise under the treaty, and while the statute expressly covered that offense, and while a vessel could be libeled and condemned for buying bait on our shores, yet the fraiuer of the libel had been pleased to frame it not simply for the offense of buying bait, which he might have done and had tbe vessel condemned, but for buying bait with the intention to fish in these waters, and he failed to prove the latter allegation. Mr. Foster. Our answer to that contention would be that there is no statute. There is a statute to cover the cases of vessels fishing and preparing to fish : II. And le it further enacted, That from and after the passing of this act it shall not beljwful for any person or persons, not being a natural- born subject of His Mi^jesty, in any foreign ship, vessel, or boat, nor for any person in any ship, vessel, or boat, other than such as shall be navigated according to the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to fish fo»", or to take, dry, or euro any fish of any kind whatever, within three marine miles of any coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors whatever, in uy part of His Majesty's Dominions in America, not included within the limits ipecilied and described in the first article of said convention, and hereinbefore re(;ited ; Md that if any such foreign ship, vessel, or boat, or any persons on board thereof, shall befonod tiahing, or to have been fishing, or preparing to fish within such distance of such coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, within such parts of His Miyesty's Dominions in America out of the said limits as aforesaid, all such ships, vessels, and boats, together *ith their cargoes, and all guns, ammunition, tackle, apparel, furniture, and stores, Wb« forfeited. 1580 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. either be AHbing or ^ "i ^m ■ . . ., 1 T i , 1 li'i To come within the statate the fisherman mast preparing to fish within three miles of the coast. Mr. Thomson. It is a qaeslion of construction. It is preparioi; u> fish or fishing within these waters. The preparing to fish is a compleu; offense in itself, and it is by no means necessary to fish in theiie wat«n> Mr. Foster. The expression is " within that distance." You tbioii the "preparing to fish" is preparing to fish within the limits, or aoT where. Sir Alexander Galt. The reason I made the inquiry was with n f^ard to the argument of the learned counsel (Mr. Dana), who was liolii ng, as I understood him, that no interference had been made Dpon these fishing-grounds with American fishermen. It was because I wu under the impression that the official corre8i)ondence would show that vessels had been seized and condemned that I made the inquiry. Mr. Dana. After the long time given me yesterday I feel I ought t'l do no more than to give a summary of the poiuts upon which I suppose this question will be determined. In the first place, then, this tribunal. in computing compensation, can only take into consideration tbe valor of what is accorded to the United States by the Treaty of 1871, and bv the eighteenth section of that treaty. Then the tribunal shall take into consideration the value of what is accorded to Great liritaiu by the nineteenth and twenty-first sections, debiting the United States with the value of what she gains under the eighteenth section, and cmlitin: the United States wilh wliat she accords under the nineteeutb and twenty-first sections. The court will perceive how very close aud fine this arrangement was made. This tribunal is not to ascertain what the United States possessed bv treaty or otherwise in 1870, and charge us for what we have gained in addition thereto, by whatever means, or to draw general infereoetj from the whole treaty, what we may have got and Great Britain may have given, but your honors are to assess the value of specific libenies and rights accorded by the eighteenth section and charge tbein to the United States, and assess the pecuniary value of certain specific riglits and privileges accorded in the nineteenth aud twenty-first sections, aud credit us with them. Moreover, it must be something accorded to us in addition to wb;u we had under the Treaty of 1818. Under that treaty tbe United States had the right to fish, aud to land and dry nets, on certain portions of the coast of Newfoundland ; on the shores of the Magdalen Islands; on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks in certain parts of Labrador: and to land and cure fish in any of the bays, &e., in Newfoundland and Labrador. The treaty of 1871 simply gives a territorial extension to those rights. It adds no new rights either in terms or by implication. No doubt this tribunal will be exceedingly careful not to assess com- pensation for any right or privilege which is not clearly so given, and which, after compensation has been assessed, may be matter of diitpate between the two countries. If there has been a want of clearness as to what has been conceded to Great Britain or conceded to us, neither side can expect to obtain compensation for matters left in doubt. No treaty ever made between the United States and Great Britain on the subject of the fisheries biu noticed the purchasing of anything by the fishermen, except it be the Treaty of 1818, which says American fishermen shall have tbe right to purchase wood and procure water. I suppose the reason why the claow was inserted in that form was to show it was not intended that we sboold have the right to cu»: wood. If your honors will examine tbe treaties AWARD OP THE FISHERY COXMISSION. 1581 froa that of 1783 to that of 1871, you will flod they oever bad for tbeir Mpe or parpose any provisions regarding trading or purchasing, but MJaMd solely to the right to fish, and to use the shores for the purpose of drring and curing. In framing the Treaty of 1871 care was taken to oaM the rights. It gave the right to fish. What kind of fish f Not »bellft8iit Dor Mlmon, nor river fish. Care is taken also to describe for vbat parpose American ilsbermen may land. It is to dry nets, cure and drv fisb. There is no reference to purchasing anything except in the TRSty of 1^18, in regard to purchasing wood, and that subject has been iDteDtioDslly left oat of all treaties, or it would be more accurate to say that toiDcIiide such matters in a treaty was never considered as apposite. Tlie Treaty of 1871, as I have said, grants a territorial extension of speci- fied, loDg-existing rights, and the only question in dispute between the iDiled States and Great Britain has always been as to the territorial (iteot of the right of fishing. Ttie question arose, can we fish on the Grand Banks ? England said •NVbut she gave up that contention in 1783. Then England said that American fishermen could not fish within three miles of its coasts from a line drawn from headland to headland. Dispute arose again as 10 the correctness of that territorial designation, but the subject-matter fu the drawing of fish from the sea. At last it became settled that ie8hoald not fish within the three miles unless with the consent of Great Britain expressed through a treaty or otherwise. Then occurred tbe qaestioa as to what couiiUluies three miles — three miles from what f Alvavs tbe dispute was as to the territorial extent of a si>ecified right, the right to fish, and all the treaties were made for that purpose. In- cidentally there was always brought in the question of places, not being [mrate property, where the fishermen could land for the purpose of dry- idj; nets and curing and drying fish. These were the subject-matters of every treaty, tbe occasion of every dispute, and these were all that lete settled by tbe Treaty of Washington. Great Britain gave to the Uoited States an extended territoriality, up to the very banks, up to iiigh water mark everywhere; and tbe United States gave the same ex- tended territoriality to Great Britain, to fish in the United States north- tard of 39th parallel. Then there were certain extensions of territory fb Government to do those acts, whether it be from comity, from regard to the necessities of fishermen, from {lolicy, or from some other reasMi. I know not, and so long as we are not disturbed we are content. If we are disturbed, the question will then arise, not i)efore this tribanal, bat between the two nations, whether we are properly disturbed by Great Britain ; and if we should come to the conclusion on both sides, that there being a dispute on that subject which should be properly settled. then it is to be hoped that the governments will find no difficalty i& settling it ; but this tribunal will discharge its entire duty when it de^ Clares that under Article 18 of the Washington Treaty no such rigiiti or privileges are conceded to the United States. Mr. Thomson. I do not propose to answer Mr. Dana's argnment at present, but I will call the attention of the Commission to tbe fact that It was an original argument and not a reply. In view of tbe fact that there are a number of witnesses waiting to be examined, and tb« short time the Commission has to sit before it takes an adjourn nient, 1 do not propose now to offer any observations in reply to tbe leaurced counsel, but no doubt before the case is through, pievious to that tine. 1 will take occasion to answer the arguments. Mr. Dana said the announcement of the learned counsel seemed as if be assumed the right to make an indefinite adijournment of the heahDg< and at some future day to reply to the arguments. Mr. Thomson said he did not desire to interfere with an immediau AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1585 decision, and his remarks were made simply tbat Mr. Dana's argument might not be considered as having been passed on the part of the couu- clf.ir the Cro wn mb silentio. Mr. Foster asked for an early decision on the motion. The Commission retired to deliberate, and on their return the Presi- dent read the following decision : The Coininission bavins considered the motion 8iibniitted by the Agent of tlio United tatiiif; tliat, if such inconveniences arise, they are matters which prop- er!) tall within the control and judgment of the two governments, and not within that of this Commission. On the other hand, I cannot fail to «eetbat, while this is admitted, a remote and contingent inconvenience, a Ten important ditticulty, and one of a very serious character, would arise if from any cause this Commission were to exceed the powers which aresiveii to the Commissioners uiuler the Treaty of Washington. Tlieilifliciilty would at once arise that any award whatever which it matle. he it good or bad, be it favorable to the one party or to the other, 'oulti have heen vitiated by our having acted ultra rirts. I do not find, Ktlier, that there would be any ready escape from such a position. The treaty atibrds no machinery by which this question in regard to the tish- eriesiai) be adjudicated upon if this Commission should, from any unfor- toiiate cause, be allowed to lapse; therefore, with regard to the two iaiMuveiiiences in (juestion, the one which strikes at the root of the whole treaty is that which ought to weigh with me, if I were placed in such a iHtsitioii as to be obliged to weigh such inconveniences; but, as I shall 1 ''tale before I conclude, there are other and stronger considerations pres- |w to my mind. I have in common with my colleagues entered into a ^leDin »»bliil»lt weight, every due weight, to whatever may be said on either I >i«ie.aml I certainly have hitherto endeavored to do so, and 1 have done I *iii tbiscase. 1 shall eudeavor to pursue the same course, acting under 100 P 1586 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. kit '*'-2 ris4, » the same considerations, in the future. At the same time, I wmfpssfo a great feeling of disappointment that such an important part of the question connected with the settlement of the fisheries dispute shnnid apparently be removed, or partly removed, from the possible coiisidt-iii. tion and adjudication of this tribunal, and I am bound to sjiy tlint niv conviction of the intention of the parties to the Treaty of Waahingtoii is that this was not their purpose at the time. I have listened with very great attention to the arguments |)ros<'i)te(l on behalf of the United State's, but I do not think that tlicy Imve cur. rectly stated the position of the two i)artie8 at the time when tlie Treiitv of Washington was entered into. The history of this case be«;iiis. jh has been stated by counsel, as far back as 1783, but by common consent the Convention of 1818 is the treaty by which the fishery riglits of the two countries have subsisted. Under the Convention of isi.S certain things were forbidden to the United States flsbermeii, and the Unitetl States renounced the right to do anything except what tlioy were \w- mitted to do by the words of that treaty. They renounced forever any liberty of taking, drying, or curing fish, etc., "provided that the Anieriraii fishermen shall be permitted to enter the said bays or harbors for tlie imr pose of shelter, and of repairing damages therein, of purch'sinj; wood ami obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever." By the iinpcrial Act 59, George the Third, Chapter 38, and by several colonial .statutes, restrictions and definitions were imposed or were established with re. gard to otteuses arising from infringeiaents of those privileges conferred upon American citizens, though it has not been shown that the seizmes which took place prior to 1854 were for trading or for obtaining' supplies. or for any other benefit referred to in the motion, still it is iindoubted that arising out of this legislation great irritation arose between the t'.vft countries, and this resulted in the adoption of what is known as tlie Iteciprocity Treaty in 1854. That the lieciprocity Treaty was iimler stood to have removed all those restrictions is nnfpiestionai)ly shown to be the case, to my mind, by the action taken by Great Britain and the colonies when the tre;ity came into force. immediately afterward, all statutes which had operated njrain.st the American fishermen were suspended, and the greatest possible freedom of intercourse existed tluring the continuation of that treaty. At the ter- mination of the Iteciprocity Treaty, and in support of the view that it was supposed to have given those privileges, we find the whole of tlicse eii actments revived, and we also find that subsequently more strinseiit statutes were passed by the Dominion of Canada in this relation. Now. it is important in the history of this ea.se to consider what etlectwas produced by those statutes; and we find in a most imi)ortant piiltln' document, that is the annual message of President Grant to Congress, in 1870, that this legislation on the part of the colonies was made the j subject of the gravest possible complaint. The President states that:! The coiirBe piirsue'.l by the Canadian anthnrities toward the fishermen of flie I nM States dnriug the last season has not Wen n)arked hy a friendly feeiiiit article of the Convention of lril8, between Great Britain and tlie United States, it was agreed that the inhabitants of the United States should have forever, in common with Hritish subjects, the right of taking fish in certain waters therein detined. Iiitbo waters not included in the limits named in the convention, within three nnlfsof jiiM j of the British coast, it has been the cnstoui for twenty years to give to iiitrinlintrti* eruien of the United States a reasonable warning of their violation of the teimiif' I rights of Great Britain. The Imiterial Government is understood to have deleffiif' the whole or a share of its jurisdic ion or control of these inshore fishery H"""""'! '" I the colonial authority, known ns the Dominion of Canada, and this Nemi-indeiiemlfiit but irresponsible agent has exercised its delegated powera in an unfriendly »»»v— *"' I Bels have beeu seized without notice or warning, in violation of thecutttouipreviuu;!. i AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1587 nrcrallinjt, an vi'8»«!l»c<)ii<>'"""« statutes of tlie Dominion of Canada assume a still broader and more untenable Mir'sdictloii over the vessels of the United States ; they authorize otlicers or persons to liiiiiL' vessels lioveriiig within tliree marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or lurbiirsof Ciiiiada into port, to search the cargo, to examine the master on oath touch- in>' the cargo and voyage, and to inllict upon him a heavy pecuniary penalty if true ansnerH are not given, and if such a vessel is fonntl preparing to tish within three ma- rine miles of any of such coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, without a license, or after ;lii' expiration of the period named in the last license granted to it, they provide that ihe vessel with her tackle, &<;., sliall be forfeited. It is not known that any condem- nations bavc lieeii made under this statute. Should the authorities of Canada attempt loeiifDrce it it will lieconie uiy duty to take such steps as may be necessary to protect till' rights of the citizens of tlie United States. Tbe President further goes on to say : It lias been claimed by Her Majesty's otlicials that the fishing- vessels of the United States have no right to enter the open ports of the British possessions in North Amer- ica, exeept fur the purpose of shelter and re[niiring damages, of purchasing wood and (ilitaJDiiig water ; thiit they ha^e no right to enter at the British custom-houses, or to traile there, except for the purchase of wood or water, and that they must depart with- in tweiity-foiir hours after notice to leave. It is not known that any seizure of a fish- mgvesael currying the Hag of the United States has been made under this claim. These were complaints which were made in the annual nie-ssage of President Giant in 1870; and he concludes by suggesting to Congress the course tliat should be taken in reference to this matter, in the fol- lu«iiig words : Anticipating that an attempt may possibly be made by the Canadian authorities in tlindiiMiigseason to rejieat their unneighborly acts towards our lisliernien, I recominenil Tiiii •)(i)iit'er npoii the Executive the power to suspend by proclamation the operation I'filie laws anthiirizing tlie transit of goods, wares, and nierchaudise in boiul across the triritdry uf the Uiiitt-d States to Canada ; and further, should such an extreme meas- ure lirrdiiie necessnry, to suspend the operation of any laws whereby the vessels of the Iviiiiuion of Camilla are permitted to enter the waters of the Unite|iosed that, as in the case of the Reciprocity Treaty, so in the case of I tlie Wasbiiigton Treaty, the rights of tratfic and of obtaining bait and |sii|)|)lies were conferred, being incidental to the fishing privilege. It "lid scarcely be otherwise, because in the case of the lieciprocity Treaty I foniiiiercial advantages were the compensation which the United States coMed to Great Britain for the concession of the privilege of fishing in ^j 1588 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. lier waters; while, by the Washington Treaty, compensation in monev exclusively of the free admission of flsh, is to be made the measure lit the difference in value; therefore I quite believe that the intention of the parties to the treaty was to direct this tribunal to consider all tlie points relating to the fisheries, which have been set forth in tlie liritish case. But I am now met by the most authoritative statement an to what were the intentions of the parties to the treaty. There can be no stronger or better evidence of what the United States proposed to accinire under the Washington Treaty than the authoritative statenieiit wliicli 1ms been made by their Agent before us here, and by their (sounsel. \Ve are now distinctly told that it was not the intention of the United Static. in any way, by that treaty, to provide for the continuation of these in' cidental privileges, and that the United States are prepared to take the whole responsibility, and to run all the risk of the reenactineut of the vexatious statutes, to which reference has been made. 1 cannot resist the argument that has been put before me, in reference to the true, rigid, and strict interpretation of the clauses of the Tieaty of Washington. I therefore cannot escape, by any known rule concern ing the interpretation of treaties, from the conclusion that the contention offered by the Agent of the United States must be acquiesced in. There is no escape from it. The responsibility is accepted bviiml must rest upon those who appeal to the strict words of the treaty as their justification. I therefore, while 1 regret that this iribiinal does not find itself in a position to give full consideration to all the points that may be brought up on behalf of the Crown, as proof of the advaii tages which the United States derive from their admission to tish in Briti»«h waters, still feel myself, under the obligation which I have in curred, required to assent to the decision which has been coinmunicatei' to the Agents of the two governments by the president of this tribunal. IV. CLOSING ARGUMENT OF HON. DWIGHT FOSTER ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. Gentlemen of the Commission : It becomes my duty to open the discussion of this voluminous mass of evidence, which has oucupieil your attention through so many weeks. It is a satisfaction to know that many topics, as to which numerous witnesses testified, and over which much time has been consumed, have been eliminated from the investigation, so that they need not occupy the time of counsel in arjiii ment, as they are sure not to give any trouble to the Commissioners in j arriving at their verdict. The decision of the Commission, made on tlie (ith of Sei)tember, by which it was held not to be competent for this tribunal to award compensation for commercial intercourse between the two countries, or for purchasing bait, ice, supplies, &c., or for permission to transsliip cargoes in British waters, is based upon the principle— the obvious principle, perhaps, I may properly say — that no award can be made by this tribunal against the United States, except for rights which they acquire under the treaty; so that, for the period of twelve years j they belong to our citizens, and cannot be taken from them. For ad j vantages conferred by the treaty, as vested rights, you are emnowerea to make an award, and for nothing else. The question before you is whether the privileges accorded the citizens j AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1589 of tlie Uoited States by the Treaty of Washinsfton are of greater value than those accorded to the subjects of Htr Britannic Mijusty; and if so, lioff imicli is the difference, in money ! The concessions made by each jjnvernineiit to the other in the treaty were freely and voluntarily made. It it 8boul*l turn out (as I do not suppose it will) that in any respect the loakiiip of those concessions has beeu injurious to the subjects of Uer Miiifsty, you are not on that account to render an award of damages iiiriiiiist tiie United States. The two governments decided that they '\m\V\ prant certain piivileges to the citizens of one and the subjects of theotber. Whether those privileges may be detrimental to the party by whom they have been conceded is no concern of ours. That was dls- posetl of when the treaty was made. Our case before this tribunal is a case, not of damages, but of an adjustment of equivalents between con- cessions freely made on the one side and on the other. It follows from ihisconsiiieration, gentlemen, that all that part of the testimony which lias been devoted to showing that possibly under certain circumstances American lishermen, either in the exercise of their treaty rights, or in trespassing beyond their rights, may have done injury to the tishing jroiimls, or to the people of the" provinces, is wholly aside from the sub- ject inatter submitted for your decision. TUe question whether tlirow- iiijj over gurry hurts lishinggrounds — the question whether vessels lee- lioiv boats — and all matters of that sort, which at an early period of the iiivesligatioii loomed up occasionally, as if they might have some impor- tance, may be dismissed from our minds; for, whether the claims made in tbat respect are well founded or not, no authority has been vested in this tribunal to make an award based upon any such grounds. That wliicii you have been empowered to decide is the question, to what ex- tent the citizens of the United States are gainers by having, for the term flt twelve years, liberty to take tish on the shores and coasts of Her Majest.v's dominions without being restricted to any distance from the land. It is the right of inshore fishing. In other words, the removal of a restriction by which our fishermen were forbidden to come within tliree miles of the shore for fishing purposes ; and that is all. No rights tiido anything upon the laud are conferred upon the citizens of the United States, under this treaty, with the single exception of the riglit tu dry nets and cure fish on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, if we (lid not possess that before ; no right to land for the purpose of seining from the sliore ; no right to the <• strand fishery," as it has been called; nori^ht to do anything except, water-borne on our vessels, to go withiu tlie limits which had beeu previously forbidden. Wben I commenced the investigation of this question I supposed that it was probable that an important question of international law MukI turn out to be involved in it, relative, of course, to the so-called headland question, which has been the subject of so much discussion taween the two governments for a long series of years; but the evi- dence that has been introduced renders this question not of the slight- est importauce, and inasmuch as it is a question which you are not em- IWffered, except incidentally, to decide, a question eminently proper to bepassed upon between the governments directly, 1 presume you will rejoice with me in finding that it is not practically before us, and that «eueed not trouble ourselves concerning it. If it had appeared in this Msethat there was fishing carried on to any appreciable extent within the large bays, more than six miles wide at the headlands, and at a dis- tance of more than three miles from the contour of the shores of those %i, the United States would have contended that their citizens, in commoQ with all the rest of mankind, were entitled to fish in such great 1590 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 't\ bo(1ic8 of water a» long as they kept themselves more than throe mi1e<) from the shore. In short, they wouhl have contended, as it iias been <;ontende!unieiit other views should be brought forward, or if it should seem to your honors, iu uonsideriug the subject, that the question has an importance which it has not in my view, then I can only refer you to the brief that has been tiled, and insist upon the principles wlii;li the United States have heretofore ntaintained on that subject. For the prweiit, 1 congratulate y«Mi, as I do myself, that no {jrave and vexed question of international law need trouble you iu coming to a conclu- fliOII. I think it is necess.iry to go somewhat, yet brietiy, into the historical aipectsof the tishery question, in order to see whether that which has been tlifl 8ul>je«t of diplomatic controversy and of public feeling in the niistis really the same thing which we have under discussion today. 'flie (|iiestion has been aske inackerti fishery was unknown. It was the cod-fishery and the whale tislim that called forth the eulogy of Burke over a hundred years a^jo. It was the cod fishery and the whale-fishery for which the first and second Adams so strenuously contended ; and, inasmuch as it was found iiiipos Bible in the treaty at the end of the war of 1812 to come to any iidjiist ment of the fishery question, all mention of it was omitted in tlio tmitv, The treaty was made leaving each party to assert his claims at some future time. And so it stood ; Great Britain having given notice that she did not intend to renew , he rij;ht8 and privileges conceded to the Uiiitt'd States in the Tr'' a ty of 1783, and the United States giving notice that they regarded the privileges of the Treaty of 1783 as of a pcrma- iient character, and not terminated by the war of 1812; but no oonchi- sion was arrived at between the parties. What followed 1 Tiie best account of the ,y a claim on the one hand and a resistance on the other with reference to the ocean Hsheries, to the cod fishery, the whale fishery, the (leepsi'ft li^liL^ry, three leagues, fifteen leagues, sixty miles from the shore; and after the Convent on of 1818 had been formed, if it had been loiistnied as the British Government construe it to day, there would have licen no more controversy on the subject. The controversy that arose alter the Convention of 1818 sprang from the unwarrantable and extrav- agant pretensions, not so much of Her Majesty's home government, as oFtbe colonial authorities. In order to understand the importance that lias been attributed to this subject, it is indispensably necessary that voii should know what was claimed to be the interpretation of the Con- vention of 1H18 down to a very recent day. The provincial authorities claimed, in the first place, to exclude United States vessels from navi- pitinjjthe Gtitof Canso. Nobody makes that claim now. In the second Jilace, they claimed the right to exclude them from Ashing anywhere in the Bay of Fundy. That claim was insisted upon until, on arbitration, it was decided against Her Majesty's Government. Not only was the kaiiiand doctrine asserted as to the great bays, but, under its guise, the )irovinciid authorities claimed the right to draw a straight line from Kast Point to North Cape of Prince Edward Island, and make the exclu- liioQ three miles from that point. I have had marked on the map annexed to the British Case two or three of the principal lines of exclu- iiiouastbey were then insisted upon, that you may know what it was tbatniir people regarded as important. The claim to treat East Point and Xortli Cape as headlands, and to exclude us a distance of three miles from a line drawn between them, is a notion that has not departed from the popular mind to the present day. The affidavits from Prince Edward Island were drawn upon the theory that that is the rule, and in two or three of them I have found it expressly stated, " that all the mackerel were caught within the three- mile line; that is to say, within a line three miles from a straight liue drawn from East Point to North Cape." Now, those affidavits are all in answer to one set of questions, they are all upou one model, and it is quite obvious that they were all of them colored by that view of the tlireeniile limit, as two of them expressly say that they were. At all tvents.that was the claim that was made down to a very recent period. Tlieclaim also was made to exclude United States fishermen from North- nmberland Strait. In the case of the Argus, seized by British cruisers, tbe ground of seizure was, that a line was to be drawn from Cape North to the northern liue of Cow Bay in Cape Breton. It is marked there in red on the map. The evidence of that claim, which was the basis of ^ the seizure of the Argus, is to be found in the correspondence between Mr, Everett and Lord Aberdeen on ihe subject. See Mr. Everett's letter I to Loril Aberdeen, quoted from in the tTuited States brief, on page 21. I They likewise claimed to draw a liue from Margaree to Cape St. George. ion will And that down there. Those claims were not merely made on tbe quarter deck, but they were made, some of them, iu diplomatic cor- wiwndence, some of them in resolutions of the Nova Scotia legislature. They were made, and they were insisted upon, and uuderstanding this, lltliinkyou will be prepared to understand why it was that exclusioa 1594 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Mi t from HiKili limits was r(>};>irt1e«1 as important to our HsliertiuMi. Vod wjh remiMnber that one of our ohlent witii«s»es, Ezra Turner, tosriiii'il fii^t the captain of the cruiser " tohl me what his orders were from llilir.u anil he siiowed me his marks on the chart. I well recollect tlnvi> nMrk" One wiis from Marf^areo to Cape 8t. George, and then a strai<;lit Ijn,- from Kast Point to Cape St. George, a na.sli*»|. n tueir report, say : " The American citizens, under the treaty. li;»Vf ni right, for tlie purposes of the lisliery, to enter any part of tii(» iViy of St. George, lying between the headlands formed by Cape Goorj,'!' on tin- one side and Port Hood Island on the other.'* Such were the claims made, and how were those claims enfonv-i ! They were enforced l>y the repeated seizure of our vessels, tiit-ir (li-tcn. tion until the Hshing season was over, and tli n their release. It a|»|)ears by the returns that have been made in how many instances our tl.sliiii<; vessels were released without a trial after they had been detaiiifil mini their voyages were ruined, and. as our skippers said in their testimonv. it made no diflference whether the seizure was lawful or unlawful, tli- voyage was spoilt, and the value of the vessel almost entirely ( lest n. veil . There were repeated instances of which you have testimony of cnibHrs levying black-mail upon skippers, taking a portion of their tisli by wa. of tribute from them, and letting them go on their way. Mr. Thomson. Instead of seizing the whole! Mr. FosTEii. Yes ; instead of seizing the whole. No doubt the poor and ignorant skippers were thankful to escape from the lion's jaws with with so little loss as that. Let me give an instance : There is a letter from Mr. Forsyth, the United States Secretary of State, to Mr. I'ox, tli' British minister at Washington, dated the 2-tth of July, 185".), in which Mr. Forsyth requests the good ottices of Uer Majesty's minister at Wash iugton with the authorities at Ilalifax, tosoeuretoa lislierrnai!, too |iiior to contend in the admiralty court, the restoK'tion of 10 barrels of her rings taken from him by the officer who had seized his vessel and with held the herring after the vessel itself was released. Well, what were the laws enacted to enforce these i>retensions ! A Nova Scotia statute of 1836, after providing for the forfeiture of any vessel found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing within three miles of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors, and providinfj that if the master, or person in command, should not truly answer the questions put to him in examination by the boarding officer, he siiould forfeit the sum of £100, goes on to provide that if any goods shipped on the vessel were seized for any cau.se of forfeiture under this act, and any tlisimte arises whether they have been lawfully seized, the burden of proof to show the illegality of the seizure shall be on the owner or claimant of the goods, ship, or vessel, and not on the officer or person who shall seize and stop the same. The burden of proof to show that the .seizure was unlawful was on the man whose schooner had been brought to hv the guns of the cutter. He was to be taken into a foreign port, ami there required affirmatively to make out that his vessel and its contents were not liable to forfeiture. If he attempted any defense, he was not permitted to do so until he had given sufficient security in the .sum of £60 for the costs. He must commence no suit until he had given one calendar month's notice in writing of his intention to do so, in order that the seizing-officer might make amends if he chose ; and he must bring his suit within three months after the cause of action accrued, aud if iie AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1595 * the art. (»li .'ill retH f.«ile" ^''*^ '^'''^ '^"'^ ^''^ preHitliii); .imltfe rertilled tlii»t there ,i!( |)mi>iil>l«' <;iiii.se ft>r tlie seizure, tie wan to Ih* entitled to no coHts, mul ie(iltic«ii' inakiiiK tlie seizure wan not to be liable to any action. That ly very .slij;htly nioditied, bat with most of it** otVensive provi.sions tHJiicd, was toun'irtiUice to the three-mile restrittion. We know to day that all this has passed away. We know tiiat such pretensions are as unlikely ever to be repeated as they are Mire never again to be submitted to. And why do I refer to them ? >"i)t. certainly, to revive any roots of bitterness; not, certaitdy, to com- jilaiu of anything so long gone by ; bat because it is absolutely indis- jHiisiible for you to understand the posture of this question historically, in onier that you niiiy be aware how ditlVrent the question wo are tryinjf to-day is from the question which has hati such importance heretofore. If the three-mile limit off the bend of Prince Edward Island, and liiiwii by Margaree, where our fishermen sometimes fish a week or two in ;be autumn (and those are the two jtoints to which almost all the evi- lieDce uf insiiore fishing in this case relates) — if the three-mile limit had l!oT to wrath, have ever been found to be a race "who know their nghts. and, knowing, dare maintain." But when these claims are aban- ^Mwl, as they have been now, there remains simply the question, what isthe value of fishing within three miles of the shore of the British ter- fitories! And this brings me to some of the immediate questions which »e liave to discuss. In tlie first place, I suppose I may as well take op the case of New- I MDdlaud. The case of Newfoundland, as I understand it, is almost h§-* 5« 1596 AWARD OF THE FISHEEY COMMISSION. >1:;;;ri h ''i^*r ^^.i.r entirely eliminated from this controversy by the decision wiiidh vrns made on the 0th of September. The claim, as presented in Ihr Mnj. esty's Case, is not one of compensation for fishing within the territorial waters of Newfonndland, but it is one of enjoying the privileges of coiii. mercial intercourse with the people of that island. Of territorial tisli. ing in Newfoundland waters, there is hardly any evidence to be foiiiul since the first day of July, 1873, when the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington took eft'ect, with one exception, that I will allutle to hereafter. There is certainly no cod-fish'ng done by onr peoi)le in the territorial waters of Newfoundland ; none has been proved, ami there is no probability that there ever will be during the period of the treatv or afterward. The American cod fishery is «5very where deep sea fisliin?. There is a little evidence of two localities in which a few halibut are saili to have been taken in Newfoundland waters — one near Hermitage Bav, aLi one near Fortune Bay. But the same evidence that shows that it once existe«l shows that it had been exhausted and abandoned before the Treaty of Washington was made. Judge Bennet testified that— The balibnt-lishing on the Newfoundland const is a very limited one, so far as I am aware. It. ia limited to the waters between Brunet Island in Fortune Biiy ami I'iw Island in Hermitage Bay. It is condueted close inshore, and wa« a very prolitic fislicrv for a number of years. Our local fishermen pursued it with hook anil line. I think about eight years ago the Americans visited that place for the purpose of fishing;, ami they fished it very thoroughly. They fished early in the season, in the month of Apiil, when halibnt was in great demand in New York market. They carried tliem there fresh in ice, and I know they have pursued that fishery from that time to within tlie last few years. I believe they have about exhausted it uow. Another witness testified that some years ago the halibut fishery wag pursued in that vicinity, but he went on to say that — American fishermen do not now fish for halibut about Pass Island as tUcr formcily did, because I believe that that fishery has been exhausted by the Americans. 1 knntr of no United States fish ing- vessels fishing within three miles of the shore, except at ainl about Pass Island, as already stated. — (Af&davit of Philip Hubert, p. 54, Uritish Ai- davits.) John Evans, p 52, British Affidavits, says : The halibut fishery, followed by the United States fishing-vessels alwut Pa.is Maml. bas been abandoned during late years. I have not heard of American fiiihiii;;- vessels trying to catch fish on the Newfoundland inshore-fishery. There has been a little evidence that occasionally, when our vessels go into harbors to purchase bait at night, some of the men will Jig a few squid, when they are waiting to obtain bait. All the evidence shows that they go there not to fish for bait, but to buy it. It shows also that when they are there for that purpose, the crews of the vessels are so much occupied in taking on board and stow- ing away the fish bought for bait that they have no time to ensAp much in fishing ; but one or two witnesses have spoken of a little jij:- ging for squid by one or two men when unoccupied at night. As to the rest, all the fishing in the territorial waters of Newfoundland is done by the inhabitants themselves. The frozen-herring trade, which was the ground of compensation chiefly relied upon in the Newfoundland case, has been conipletelv proved to bo a commercial transaction. The concurrent testimony of the witnesses on both sides is, that American fishermen go there with money, they do not go there provided with the appliances for fish ing, but with money and with goods. They go there to purchase and to trade, and when they leave Gloucester, they take out u permit to touch and trade, that they may have the privileges of tradirig vessels. Perhaps it may be said that the arrangement under which this bait is J' jfi AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1597 taken is snbstantially a flsbing for it. I have heard that snfjgestion biuted at in the course of our discussions, but phiiuly, it seems to me, it cannot be souud. We pay for herring by the barrel, for squid and cap- liii l)V the iiundred, and the inhabitants of the island will go out to sea as far as to tbe French Islands, there to meet American schooners, and to imlnce them to come to their particnlai' localities that tiiey may be tlie ones to catch the bait for them. It is true that the British Case ex- presses tiie apprehension that the frozen-herring trade may l>e lost to tbe inhabitants of Newfoundland in consequence of the provisions of the treaty. It is said that " it is not at all probable that, possessing therigbt to take the herring and caplin for themselves on all parts of tlie Xewfonndland coast, the United States fishermen will continue to niirebase bait as heretofore, and they will thus prevent tiie local fisher- men, especially those of Fortune Bay. from engaging in a very lucra- tive einployiuent, which formerly occupied them during a portion of the winter season, for the supply of the United States market." One of the British witnesses, Joseph Tieruey, whoso testimony is on page 371, in speaking of this matter of getting bait, says, in reply to the ques- tion, " Uow do you get that bait f " Buy it from persons that go and catcli it and sell it for so '!:ious of the treaty, for this herring trade is substantially a seining from the sbore — a strand fishing, as it is called — and we have no right auywhere conferred by this treaty to go ashore and seine herring any moietiiau we have to establish fish-traps. I remember brother Tbom- m\ and Professor Baird were at issue on the question whether we had a riKhtto do this. Brother Thomson was clearly right and Professor Baird was mistaken. We have not acquired any right under the treaty to go ashore for any purpose auywhere on the British territories except to dry nets and cure fish. I do not think that I ought to spend more time over the case of Newfoundland than this, except to call your attention to the circumstance that, in return for these few squid jigged at night, theishn)ders obtain an annual remission of duties averaging upwards of *rjO,U(>0 a year. We have been kindly furnished, in connection with tbe British afiida- vitstipou page 12.S, Appeudix A, with a statement showing: the duties ri'iiiitted upon exports from Newfoundland to the United States since tlie Treaty of Washington, and their annual average is made out to be *jn.!U(U.j. I .^-ubmit to the Conjmission whether we do not pay, upon auy view of political economy, a thousand fold for all tbe squid that our l*opleji}( after dark. Let it not, however, for a moment be supposed that because I took up tbecase of Newfoundland for convenience' s.tke, as it is presented sepa- rately, that 1 regard it as a distinct part of tbe case. The United States lias made no treaty with the Island of Newfoundland, which has not yet hoisted the tlag of the "Lone Star." When she does, perhaj>s we shall ^h\)\)y to enter into treaty relations with her; but we know at pres- ent only Her Majesty's Government. We are dealing with the whole 1598 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. aggregate of concessions, from the one side to the other, ami NevfoaDi land comes in with the rest. Leaving, then, the Island of Newfoundland, I come to th.' qnestion of the value to the citizens of the United States of the tvncft«*ions as to inshore flsheries in the territorial waters of the Domiuiou .f Can. adu — that is, within three miles of the shore — for the five annaal sea- sons past, and for seven years to come. In the first place, tber^ is tbe right concee able to fiud a onrrent coin of the reiilm sufficiently small in which to estimate com |>eus:itiou for saeii a concession. But, in point of fact, the thing is not done; there is uo evidence that it is douc. Ou the contrary, the evidence is that this practice belonge*! to the primitive usages of a by-gone generation. Seven- ty, sixty, i>erhaps lifty years ago, wheu a little fishing vessel left Mi<- sachusetts Bay. it would sail to Newfoundland, aud after c.itebiii^ a few tish, the skip|»er would moor his craft near the sLore, laud m a \m:. and dry the tish ou the rocks ; and wheu he had collected a fare of lish. aud tilleil his vessel, he would either return back home, or quite as irt^ queutly wouhl sail on a couunercial voyage to some foreign eoiiiim. where he would dis|>ose of the fish aud take in a return cargo. But nothing of that sort has happened within the memory of any liviu<; man. It is something wholly disused, of uo value whatever. And it must dw be said that under this concession we acquire any right tofis'a fromtbe shore, to haul nets from the shore, or to tish from rocks. Obviously, wt do not. I agree entirely with the view of my brother Thomson, as mani- fested in his converssition with Professor Baird on that subject. We come, then, to the inshore fishing. What is that ? In the fir>t place, there has been some attempt to show inshore halibut-tisbin^' id the neighborhood of Cape Sable. It is very slight. It is eontra«lu-kd by all our witnesses. No American fisherman can be found who iias ever known of any halibut-tishiug within three miles of the shore in tbt vicinity ; and our tishermen all say that it is impossible that there shonM be halibut caught in any considerable quantities in any place where tlie waters are so shallow. There is also some evidence that up in theGnlf of St. Lawrence there was once a small local halibut fishery, but tbe same evidence that speaks of its existeuce there sjMjaks of its tliseou- tinuauce years ago. The last instance of a vessel going there tofi>h for halibut that has been made known to us is the one that Mr. Svl vanus Smith testifies about, where ii vessel of his strayed upiiitothe gulf, was captured, and was released, prior to the Treaty of VV:isbinjr- ton. As to the inshore halibut fishery, there has been uo name of a ves- sel, fxcept in one single instance, when a witness did give the name of the Sarah C. Pyle as a vessel that had fished for halibut in thericiiiitT of Cai>e Sable. Wt have an affidavit from the captaiu of that schoooe:, AWABD OP THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. 1599 Benjarai" Swim, saying that he did not take any fish within many miles of tape Sable. He says he has been engaged in cod-fishing since April if tlii» y^i^r, and '^ has landed 150,000 pounds of halibut, and caught tliein ali, both codflsli and halibut, on Western Banks. The nearest to tbesbore that I have caught fish of any kind this year is, at least, 40 ^ile>_.(AtHdavit No. 242.) So mucb for the inshore halibut fishery. I will, however, before leav- iytr'n refer to the bitatemcnt of one British witness, Thomas K. Pattilo, \rbo testified that occasionally halibut may be caught inshore, as a boy iiijiv crttcb a codfish off the rocks ; but, i)ur8ued as a business, halibut are caught in the sea, in deep water. "How deep do you say ?" "The tislieiv iii most successfully prosecuted in about 90 fathoms of water, ami, later in the season, in as much as 150 fathoms.-' So mucb for the inshore halibut fishery; and that brings me to the inshore cod fishery, as to which I am reminded of a chapter in an old bistory of Ireland that was entitled " On Snakes in Ireland," and the nbole chai)ter was " There are no snakes in Ireland." So there is no inshore cod fishery pursued as a business by United States vessels iinvffliere. It is, like halibut-fishing, exclusively a deep-sea fishing. They caught a whale the other day in the haibor of Charlottetown, lint I do not suppose our friends expect you to assess in this award K^auist file United States any particular sum for the inshore whale Hsbery. Tbere is no cod fishery or halibut fishery inshore, pursued by oiir vessels, any more than there is inshore whale fishery. We knfl«' and our witnesses know where our vessels go. If they go near tlie British shores at all they go to buy bait, and leave their money in iwyiiiei t for the bait. Will it be said that the cod fishery is indirectly to lie iiiiiil for, because fresh bait must be used, an«i the cod fishery can- iiDt jirotitably be pursued without fresh bait ; and because we are here- after to be deprived of the right to buy bait by laws expected to be {Kissed, niid then shall have to stop and catch it, so that by and by, nbeiisoine new statutes have been en-icted, and we have been cut ott" fmm commercial privileges, we may be forced to catch bait for cod-fish- in;' ill British territorial waters i I think it will be time enough to meet tliat question when it arises. Any attempt to cut us oft' from the com- inertial itriviieges that are allowed in times of peace by the comity of civ- laz'.'d nations to all at i>eace with then), would of course be a«ljusted between tbe two governments in the spirit that becomes two imperial iiiiii Christian powers. I do not think that, looking forward to some niikiiowii time when some unknown law will be passed, we need antici- )i;ae that we are to be cut ott' from the privilege of buying bait, and tbeietore you should award compensation against us for the bait which ve may at tbat time find occasion ourselves to catch. But if it is worth vbile to spend a single moment upon that, how thoroughly it has been disposed of by the evidence, which shows that this practice of going trow the flsbing grounds on the Banks into harbors to purchase bait is one attended with great loss of time, and with other incidental disad- vaiitiiges, so that the owners of the vessels much prefer to have their tisiieriiien stay on the Banks and use salt bait, and whatever else they laii get there. Saint Pierre and Micjuelon are free ports; commercial iuieiniurse is permitted there; bait can be bought there ; and, as the liiiiish witnesses have told us, the trattic for bait between Newfound- !iiiiilaii(l tbe French islands is so great, and such a full supply of bait i^hrsi-'ut to tbe French islands, more than there is a demand for, that it is sometimes thrown overboard in quantities that almost fill up the iiaibor. Tbat was the slutemeut of oue of the witnesses. 1 do uut 1600 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. tluDk, tberefore, that I need spend more time, either upon the cod fl^h. ery, or the question of buying bait or procuring bait for cod fishing/' What shall I say of the United States herring fishery, allegtMl to exist ft Grand Manan and its vicinity! Three British witnesses te8tif\ to an annual catch of one million, or one and a half million dollars' worth by United States fishermen in that vicinity, all caught inshore. But these witnesses do not name a single vessel, or captain, or give tbe name of any place from which such vessels come, except to speak in general terms of the Gloucester fleet. These witnesses are McLean, McLeoij and McLaughlin. The fish alleged to be taken are chiefly lierring. f shall not stop to read their evidence, or comment upon it in di'tail. They are contradicted by several witnesses, and by several depositions filed in the case, which you will find in the supplemental depositious lately printed ; all of whom state, what we believe to he clearly true, that the herring trade by the United States vessels in the vicinity of Grand Manan is purely a commercial transaction ; tliat our fi.sliernieii cannot affoni the time to catch herring ; that their crews are too lari'e and their vessels too expensive to engage in catching so poor a fish as herring ; that it is better for them to bny and pay for them, and that so they uniformly do. The members of the Gloucester firms who own and send out these vessels tell you that they go without nets, without the appliances to catch herring at all, but with large sums of money; they bring back the herring, and they leave the money behind them. This question seems to me to be disposed of by the rei>ort of the Commissioner on the New Brunswick Fisheries for 187G. Mr. Venning, the inspector of fisheries for New Brunswick, quotes iu bis report on Charlotte County (pp. 266 and 267), from Overseer Cun- ningham, of the Inner Bay. Some attempt was made to show that Overseer Cunningham, although the oflicial appointed for the purpose, did not know much about it ; but it will be observed that his statements, as well as those of Overseer Best (whose evidence is next (jnoted), are affirmed by Mr. Venning, the inspector of fisheries for New Bruns- wick, and inserted in his report under his sanction ; and I think that with the minister of marine and fisheries, himself from New Brunswick, at the head of the department, erroneous statements on a subject relat- ing to the fisheries of his own province were not likely to creep into official documents and remain there unobjected to. I think we must ass ,me that these olficial statements are truer and more reliable than the accounts that come from witnesses. Overseer Cunningham says: The winter herring fishery, I am sorry to say, shows a decrease from the yield of last year. This, I believe, is owing to the large quantity of nets, in fact miles of tlieiii, being set by United States tishernien all the way from Grand Manan to Li'iireaii, and far out in the bay, by the Wolves, sunk from 20 to '25 fathoms, whiih kept the fish from coming into this bay. In this view I am borne ont by all the lisheniien with whom I have conversed on the snbject. Our fishermen who own vessels biive now to go a distance of six to eight miles otf shore before they can catch any. Tlie poorer class of fishermen, who have nothing but small boats, made but a pour catch. How- ever, during the winter mouths, tliere were caught and sold iu a frozen state to United States vessels 1,1)00 barrels, at from $4 to $5 per barrel. The price beiug souwwbat better than last year, helped to make up the deficiency iu their catch. Then he goes on to speak of the injurious effect of throwing over gurry, which, he says, is practiced by provincial fishermen as well as American, and says that, '' as they are fishing far off shore a week at a time, this destructive practice can be followed with impunity and without detection." And Overseer Best sjieaks of the falling off in line-fishing, but says that the yield of herring has exceeded that ot the previous year, disagreeing with his friend, Overseer Cunningham. He AAVABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1601 attributes the deflctency in line-flahing to the use of trawls. He goes on to say, *' The c atch was made chiefly iu deep water tliis year, as fiirontas five to seven miles oft' the coast, and no liue-fish have been taken withiu two miles, except haddock." He says : 7he winter fi brings me, gentlemen, to the question of the inshore mackerel fishe: ; ; i' at portion of the Case which seems to me, upon tbe evidence, to be the principal part, I might almost say the only part, r*^qniriii}rtu be discussed. Your jurisdiction is to ascertain the value of tliose Ish eries for a period of twelve years from July 1, 1873, to July 1, 188."). Of those twelve years, five have already elapsed ; one fishing .year has passed since the session of this Commission began. Inasmucli as the twelve years will terminate before the beginning of the tisbinjf jearin the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 1885, it is precisely correct to say, tbat live years have elapsed and seven remain. It is of no consf (luence how valuable these fisheries have been at periods antecedent to tbe treatv, nor how valuable or valueless you may think they are likely to become after the treaty shall have expired. The twelve years' space of time limits your jurisdiction, and five-twelfths of that time is to be judged of by the testimony as to the past. The results of the five years are be fore you. As to the seven remaining years, the burden of i)roof is upon Her Majesty's Government to show what benefit the citizeus of the United Statesmay reasonably beexpected toderive during that timefrom these fisheries. It will be for you to estimate the future by tbe iiast as well as you may be able. This is purely a business question. Although it arises between two great governments, it is to be decided upon the same principles of evi dence as if it were a claim between two men, as if it was a question how much each skipper that enters the Gulf of St. Lawreuce to fish tor mackerel ought to payout of his own pocket. We are engaged in j what the London Times has truly called a "great interuatioual law suit," and we are to be governed by the same rules of evidence that apply in all judicial tribunals, not, of course, by the tecbnicalities of any particular system of law, but by those great general prinoiples which prevail wherever, among civilized men, justice is admiuistereu.! He who makes a claim is to prove his claim and the amount of it. Tliisj is not a question to be decided upon diplomatic considerations; itisaj question of proof. Money is to be paid for value received, and he wboj claims the money is to show that the value has been received or wmj be. If there are extravagant expectations on the one side, tbat isnol AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1603 reason for awarding a sum of money. If there is a belief on the other side that the results of the treaty are injurious to a great industry, ffbich nearly all civilized nations have thought it worth while to foster 1)V bounvies, that is no argument against rendering compensation. \Vbatever benefit the citizens of the United States are proved to derive from the inshore mackerel fisheries, within three miles of the shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for that you are to make an award, having recard to the offset, of which it will be my duty to speak at a later wriod. The inquiry divides itself into these two heads : First, What Iiiis been the value from July 1, 1873, down to the present time ? and, setoiid, VVhai is it going to be hereafter ? I invite your attention to the proof that is before you as to the value of the mackerel fishery since the treaty went into effect. And here I must deal with the question. What proportion of the mackerel is caught in territorial waters, viz, within three miles from the shore? A great mass of testimony has been adduced on both sides, and it might seem to be in irreconcilable t'outiict. But let us not be dismayed at this appearance. There are certain landmarks which cannot be changed, by a careful attention to which I think we may expect to arrive at a tolerably certain conclusion. In the first place, it has been proved, has it not, by a great body of evidence, that there is, and always has been, in the Gulf of St. Law- rence, a very extensive mackerel fishery clearly beyond British juris- liictiou, as to which no new rights are derived by the citizens of the United States from the Treaty of Washington. It is true that the map filed in the British Case, and the original statement of that case, make no distinction between the inshore and the deep-sea mackerel fisheries. Tolook at this map, and to read the British Case, you would think that the old claims of exclusive jurisdiction throughout the gulf were still kept up, and that all the mackerel caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were, as one of the witnesses expressed himself, *' British subjects." But we know perfectly well that a IJnited States vessel, passing through tlie Gut of Canso to catch . mackerel in the gulf, will find numerous places where, for many years, the fishing has been the best, where the fish are the largest, and where the catches are the greatest, wholly away from the shore. The map attached to the British Case tells this stnrv, for all through the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the gentlemen who formed that map have put down the places whore mackerel are caught ; and if the map itself does not indicate th«kt seven-eighths of the mackerel fishing-grounds must be clearly far avay from the shore, I am very much mistaken. At the Magdalen Islands, where we have always had the right to fish as near as we pleased to the shore, the largest and the best mackerel are taken. At Bird Rocks, near the Magdalen Islands, where there is deep water close to the rocks, and where the mackerel are undonhtedly taken close inshore (within two or three miles of the Bird Kocks you will find the water to be twenty fathoms deep), all around the Magdalen Islands, the mackerel fishing is stated by tiie experts who prepared this map to be good the season through. Then we have the Bank Bradley, the Bank Miscou, the Orphan Bank, the Fisherman's Bank, and we have the fishing ground of Pigeon Hill ; all these grounds are far away from the shore, where there cannot be the least doubt that our fishermen have always had the right to fish, aside from any provisions of the present treaty. The most experienced and snecessful fishermen who have testified before you say that those have >)«en places to which they have resorted, and that there they were most successful. Look at the testimony of Andrew Leighton, whom we heard of from 1604 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the otUer side early as one of the most successful fishermen that ever was in the gulf. He speaks of the largest season's fishing any man ever got 215 barrels there, and went home." All the mackerel at Marf^aree he says, were caught within two miles of the shore, within the admitted limits. Kecall the evidence of Sylva^iiis Smith and Josejili IJowe, ex- perienced and successful fishermen, who tell you that tiiey cared little for the privilege of fishing within three miles of the laud ; that thev diil not believe that vessel-fishing could be prosecuted successfully there because it required deeper water than is usually foui.d within the dis' tance of three miles to raise a body of mackerel sutlicient for the tisher- men on a vessel to take the fish profitably; that boat-fishinj;- is a wholly distinct thing from vessel-fishing; that boats may anchor within three miles of the land and pick up a load in the course of a day, at (»iie s|)ot where mackerel would be too few and too small for a vessel with tit'tetii men to fish to any advantage. Almost all the evidence in this ease of fishing within three miles of the shore relates to the bend (if Prince Edward Island and to the vicinity of Margaree. As to the bend of the island it appears, in the first place, that many of our fishermen rejjard it as a dangerous place, and shun it on that account, not daring to come as near the shore as within three miles, because in case of a gale blow- ing on shore their vessel would be likely to be wrecked. It appears, also, that even a large pari of the boat fishing there is carried on more than three miles from the shore. Undoubtedly many of the tisherineii have testified to the contrary; many of the boat-fishermen from the island have testified that nearly all their fish were caught within three miles; still it does appear, by evidence that nobody can controvert, that a great part of the boat-fishing is more than three miles out. One of the witnesses from the island, James McDonald, says, in his depositiou, that from the middle of September to the first of November not one barrel in five thousand is caught outside the limits, and he gives as a reason that the water will not permit fishing any distance from the shore because it is too rough. But it is perlectly obvious that a man who so testifies either is speaking of fishing in the very smallest kind of boats, little dories that are not fit to go off three miles from the shore, and, therefore, knows nothing of vessel or large boat fishing, or else that he is under the same delusion that appears in the testimony of two other witnesses to which I referred in another connection. McNeill, who, on page 412 of the British affidavits, describes the three-mile limit thus : ^'A line drawn between two points, taken three miles off the North Cape and East Point of this island ;" and John A. McLeod, on page 228, wlio defines the three-mile limit as ''a line drawn from points three miles off the headlands." When a witness comes here and testifies that after September not one barrel of mackerel in five thousand is taken outside of the three-mile limit because it is too rough to go so far out, he is either speaking of a little cockleshell of a boat that is never fit to go out more than one or two miles, or else he retains the old notion that tbe headland-line is to be measured from the two points, and that three miles outside that line (which would be something like twenty-five or thirty miles out from the deepest part of tbe bend of the island) is the territorial hmit. Mr. ThOMSON. If you will read the other portion of his deposition, yoa will see that your statement is not quite fair. Mr. Foster. "That the fish are nearly all caught close to the shore, the best fishing-ground being about one and one-half miles from the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1605 shore. In October the boats sometiraea go off more than three miles from iand. Fully two-thirds of the mackerel are caught within three miles from the shore, and all are caught within what is known as the thieeiiiile limit; that is, within a line «lrawn between two points taken three miles oft' the North Cape and east point of this island." (McNeill, p. 42.) We will have this evidence accurately, because I think it sheds considerable light on the subject. "That nine-tenths of our mackerel are caught within one and one-half miles from the shore, and I may say the nliole of them are caught within three miles of the shore." (McLeod, p. 2-8.) Somewhere the expression " not one barrel in five tiiousand" occurs. It is in one of those affidavits ; perhaps in the first one. I have read the passage, so as to do no injustice to the statement of the wit- ness. Mr. Hall testified that for a month before the day of his testimony, that is to say, after about the first week in September, no mackerel were caiigiit within five or six miles of the shore; and he applied that state- iiieiit to the specimen mackerel which were brought here for our inspec- tion and our taste ; and Mr. Myrick, from Rustico, told the same story. Moreover, all their witnesses, in speaking of the prosperity of the flsh- ingbiisiuesa of the island, which has been dwelt upon and dilated upon so much, speak of the fact tiiat not only are the boats becoming more numerous, but they build them larger every year — longer, deeper, and bigjrer boats — why ? To go farther from the sliore. So said Mr. Churchill. I call that a pretty decisive test of the question, what proportion of the mackerel is caught within three miles of the shore. Wliat does Professor Hind say ou that subject ? In the report that has been furnished us, he says (page 90) : Mmkerel-catching is ;e miulit luv been anticipnted from that cuumo hns failed to bo roali/.ed. " The number of vessels eniLjajjed in the lislieries on the shores of this ciiloiiv li;is greatly diminished since the adoption of that treaty, ho that it ,» now liss tliaii (,ij,.. naif the former number. The restriction to three marine miles from tlic sliiiie (whji'h we imposed upon ourselves under a former treaty) has, I am assured, lint ii iVw. if aiiv ndvantajjes, as the best lish are cannht outside of that distance, and tin- vcsm-Im ari- filled in less time, from the fact that the nu-ii are liable to no loss of tinu! from ii||ii),r on the shore. Next take Appendix E of tlie British Case. Look at tlie report of the execntive conncil of Priuce Edward Island, made to the Ottawa (lov- eminent in 1874, with reference to the preparation of this very case. They are undertaking to show how large a claim can be made in bclialf of the inshore fisheries of the island, and what do they siiy (page 3 paragraph 8) I From the Ist of July to the 1st of October is the mackerel season around onr i oasts. dnring which time the United States fishing-lleet pursues its work, and as it lia.'. Ihth shown — I do not know where it has been shown — that in 1872 over one thousand sail of United States schooners, from 40 to Iihi tons, were engaged in the mackerel fishery alone. More than the whole number of the United States vessels licensed to pursue the mackerel and cod fisheries in that year; so that those static tics were large, and the gentlemen who prepared this statement were not indisposed to do full justice to their claims. They did not mean to understate the use made of the fisheries of the island nor the impor- tance of them to the United States fishermen. This fact, together with our experience in the collection of " light-money,'' now abolished, as well as from actual observation, a fair average of United State's vessels fishing around onr coast during the season referred to may be safely stated at three hundred sail, and as a season's work is usually about six hundred barrels per wm), we may fairly put dotvn one-third of the eatch as taken inaide of the three-mile limit. Such was the extent of the claim of the Prince Edward Island Gov- ernment with reference to the proportion of the inshore and off shore catch of mackerel when they began to prepare this case. After this, they may pile affidavits as high as they please, they can never do away with the effect of that statement. Those gentlemen know the triitb. The rest of this paragraph goes on to estimate that $5 a barrel is tlie net cost of the fish ; but I will not go into that. Mr. Thomson. You will adopt that whole paragraph ? Mr. Foster. Hardly. I adopt the statement that, in the judgment of the executive council of the island, the strongest claim that they could make as to the proportion of mackerel taken within three miles of tbe shore was one-third. But we have more evidence about this inshore fishery, for I am now trying to call your attention to those matters that lie outside the range of controversy, where you cannot say that the witnesses, under the pressure of excited feeling, are making extravagant statements. Let us see what the statement was in the debates upon the adoption of the treaty. Dr. Tupper, of Halifax, in giving an account of the state of the fisheries, says : *' The member for West Durham stated that if Canadii had continued the policy of exclusion, the American fisheries would very soon have utterly failed, and they would have been at our mercy. This was a great mistake. Last summer he went down in a steamer from Dalhousie to Pictou, and fell in with a fleet of thirty American fisiiiug- vessels, which had averaged three hundred barrels of mackerel in three AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1G07 weeks, and had never been within ten miles of the sliore." I am inclined to coiici'cle, for tlio pnrposes of the ar^jiinient, that of the ui.ickcrel canKht l,v boiits oil' tlio bend of Piinee Edward Island, about one-thiid are taken ,vitliin tince niiles of the .shore. I believe it to bo a very libenil estimate, and I liiive no idea that an.y such pniportion was ever taken by a s:n;;le I'liiti'd btiitcs vessel llsliing in that vicinity. I have already alluded to till' tact tliiit the boat-lishing and the vessel-Qshing are wholly dirterent tilings, iind to the necessity of a vessel being able to raise a great body of mackerel. Do you remember the testimony of Captain Ilurlbert, pilot ot tbe Spewlwell, certainly one of the most intelligent and candid wit- nesses that has appeared here ? He stated that you coidd not catch the luackeiel in any quantities on board vessels olf the bend of the island, ht'iiuise the water was not deep enough within three miles. Take the cliait used by Professor Hind in connection with his testimony, and see within three miles of the shore how deei) the water is. Ten to lifteeu latlioins is the depth as far out as three miles. You will hardly find twenty fathoms of water anywhere within the three-mile zone. Captain Iliirlbert gave, with great truth, the reason for his opinion, that there was not depth of water enough there to raise a body of mackerel necessary for profitable vessel fishing. My brother Davies felt the force of that, and cross examined him about the Magdalen Islands. I have been look- ing at the chart of the Magdalen Islands, and I have also considered the testiiuoiiy as to the tisbing in that vicinity. A great deal of the fishing at the Magdalen Islands is done more than three miles from the shore. Tlie place where the best mackerel are taken. Bird Rocks, will be found to have twenty fathoms of water within the three-mile limit. And when von come to that locality, where I honestly believe a larger proportion of niiickerel are caught within three miles than anywhere else — that is, off Miirgaree, in the autumn — you will find by the chart that the water there is deep, and that twenty fathoms is marked for quite a distance in a great many localities within three miles of the land. I have always anderstood the Byron Islands and the Bird Bocks to be a part of the Magdalen Islands, and they have always been so testified to by the witnesses. When they have spoken of the Magdalen Islands, they have indnded fishing in those two localities as within the Magdalen Islands fisheries. In speaking of localities, they name the Bird Rock, but they speak of it as part of the Magdalen Islands. That particular question ofgeography may deserve more attention hereafter. I cannot now pause to consider it. Right here let me read from an early report on this subject of fishing inshore. Captain Fair, of Her Majesty's ship Champion, in 1839, says that be passed through a fleet of six or seven hundred American vessels in various positions, some within the headlands of the bays and .so'ne along the shores, but none within the three-miles interdiction. While cruising iu the vicinity of Prince Edward Island, he states that there wsnot "a single case which called for our interference or where it was necessary to recommend caution; on the contrary, the Americans say that a privilege has been granted them, and that they will not abuse it." -(Sabine's Report on the Fisheries, page UO.) There is something peculiar about this Prince Edward Island fishery iind its relative proportion to the Nova Scotia fishery. As I said before, lam inclined to believe that the greatest proportion of mackerel caught anywhere inshore is caught off Margaree late iu the autumn. The l^nited States vessels, on their homeward voj^age, make harbor at Port Hood, and lie there one or two weeks; while there, they do fish within three miles of Margaree Island ; not between Margaree Island and the 1608 AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. mainland, but within three miles of the island shores; and just there U found water deep enough for vesstdlishing. Look at tlie clmrt, which fully explains to my mind the inshore fishing at this point. Mafarec is a i)art of Nova Scotia, and Professor (lind says there is an inunens^ boat-cateh all along the outer coast of Nova Scotia, and csfiinat*-.-* tiiat of the Dominion mackerel catch Quebec furnishes 7 per ceiir. (be (hx^s not say where it comes from), Nova Scotia 80 per cent., New Briuiswick 3 per cent., and Prince Edward Island 10 per «'ent. Considciin;; the fact that the preponderance of the testimony .'ganl to the mack erel fishery comes from Prince Edward Island, . . not straiijrc tint it does not furnish more than 10 per cent, of the Mitire catch ; that is, not more than 12 or 10,000 barrels of mackerel a year ? But this ammN with the report of J. C Tache, dei)uty minister of afjricultinc (pa^'esi; and 44), which is the most intelligible re])ort or statistical meinorandH ot the Canadian fisheries that I have found. It bears date iSTCt, ami ia narrow compass, is more intelligible to me, at least, than the separafo statements which I am obliged to draw from the largo vohnnes. Mr. Tache says that " the figures of the Fisheries" Iteport are a very groat deal short of the real quantities caught every year, as rcganl.-; cod auil herring, although coming quite close to the catch of mackerel. Tlie reason is, that it is specially from large commercial houses, which are principally exporters of fish, that the information is gathered by the fisheries oflBcers ; then it comes that mackerel, being principally obtained for exportation and held in bond by large dealers, is touiid almost adequately represented in these returns. "When I called Profe.s.sor Hind's attetition t esc statements, ami 1 about the i)laif> . .^iiied it was beeaibf If there has been aiiv remarkec' to him that we had not heard mu( where mackerel were caught in Nova Scotia, he there was an immense boat-catch on the coast, evidence of United States vessels fishing for mackerel within thne miles of the shores, or more than three miles from the shore of the outer coa>«t of Nova Scotia, it has escaped my attention. There is no consid- erable evidence, I do not know but I might say no appreciable evideno of United States vessels fishing for mackerel ot'^■ the coast of Nova Scotia (I am not now speaking of Margaree, but the co.ist of Nova Seotiaj. A< to Cape Breton, very little evidence has been given except in reteronci' to the waters in the neighborhood of Port Hood. You will observe that this estimate of the Prince Edward Island fish erics, ten per cent., must be nearly correct. It is larger than the retnnj> of exportation, a little larger than Mr. Hall's estimate, and 1 think if 1 say tliat from 12 to 15,000 barrels of mackerel are annually exportc"! from Prince Edward Islan, that we hold this investigation down to the period of the treaty: and that you have no right to make any award against the United States for anything anterior to the first day of July, 1S73, or subsequent to twelve years later than that. Now, 1 wish to present some figures relative to the years that have elapsed since the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington took ettect. I will begin with 1873. That year the Massachusetts inspectiou of AWAKU OF THE FISHEHY COMMISSION. 1609 III the i\ckerel was 185,748 barrels; the Maine ins|>ection was 22,193 barrels; je »w Hampshire inspection was l*,31»8 barrels. (I am quoting now trnni ApiMinlix O.) The total amount of the Massachnsetts, Maine, and >e« ilainpshire inspection, for the year 1873, is 210,.J3y barrels. That istbeeutire amount cau;j:ht bv United States vessels anil boats around oiir sliori'S coasts, and in the (lulf of St. Lawrence. Whatever comes iroin our vessels appears in the ins|)eetion. During that year, we are t,ivoiver cent, for loss by packing, which accords with the current of iLe testimony — the I'ort Mulgrave inspector estimates the loss by pack- ;iij.'to lie 7^ per cent., and he estimates 15 barrels off, but the current oi tbetestiiiiony makes it ten percent. — the aggregate was 79,211 packed hairels. Of the 254 vessels, 131 came from Gloucester. Of tln'se 254 ves>els, 25 were lost that year, a loss of ten per cent, of all the United Mates vessels that were in the gulf. One-tenth part of all the vessels iliatcame to the gulf that year wtie lost. That is the largest catch that our vessels have made since the treaty. Of that 79,211 barrels, wliidi were caught by United States vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, ;u tbc year 1873, what |)roportion are you i)repared to assume was (tii-br inshore .' Is not a third a liberal estimate ? Taking the j\lag- J.ikii Islands, taking Bank r>radley, t;iking Orphan Bank, taking Mis- Mi Bank, taking the Pigeon Hill grounds, taking the fishing off the W\n\ of the ishind, that i)iace wlu-re Captain Howe said he always found tlie best and largest fish, inside of >'ew London llefid, 12 or 15 miles I'll'— taking all tlie.se well-known localities into consideration, I ask wluiiier there can be any doubt that it is a very liberal estimate, indeetl, ;'j>,iy oiu'third was caught inshore ? 1 do not think that all the mack- i^iii taken by the United States vessels inshore, in all parts of the Gulf ut .>t. Lawrence, averages an eighth or a tenth of the total catch, but I will assume for the moment one-third, the proportion which the Kxecu- iivi- i'oniicil of Prince Edward Lsland thought a fair average for the ^lidies of their i.sland. That would make 2tJ, 404 barrels caught in British leiiitoiial waters in that year, the fir.<;t year of the treaty. What were iiie>f mackerel worth I M/\ Hall tells you that he buys thenx landed on >iioiv ttir .'i;;.; j a barrel. After they have been caught, after the time •itiie lishermen has been put int«) the busine.'is, he buys them for 83.75 aliiurel. If they are worth .*3.75 a barrel when they are caught, what I'loioitioii of that sum is it fair to call the right to fish for them worth .' ^'d may set your own figures on that. Call it one half, one-third, or i!iei|iiarter. J should think it was somewhat extraordinary if the right to !:>b in a narrow zone three miles wide was worth any large i)ortion 0' tlie value of the fish after they were caught and landed. But you My estimate that as you please. I wjil tell \ou how you will come out !■ you cliar;ie us with having «auiiht a third of our fish inshore that ywr.aiul with the full value that Mr. Hall pavs for them after they are wii^'bt. It is .*«Ut),015. That was the first year of the treaty, and there were imported into '■le United States from the Briti.sh Provinces 90,889 barrels, on which 1610 AWAliD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. E^'1 m.?, the duty of $2 a barrel would amount to $181,778. The value of tlie fish that our people caught is $9D,000, and the British dsliernieu gain in the remission of duties nearly $182,000. Look at it in another way. Does anybody doubt that, barrel for h.ip. rel, the right to import mackerel free of duty is worth more tiian the right to fish for them ? Is not the rigiit to carry into the United Stutts market, after they are caught, a barrel of mackerel, wortli as inmii as the right to fish for a barrel of mackerel off the bight of the island' Estimating it so, 90,889 barrels came in duty free, and there were can^hr in the gulf by American vessels, 79,211 barrels. That is the first veai of the treaty, and by far the best year. The next year, 1874, the Massachusetts inspection was L'.'t^oSO \m. rels. Since 1873 there has been no return from Maine. Tliere is m general inspector, and the Secretary of State informs us that the local inspectors do not make any returns. I suppose that if you call the Maine catch 22,000 barrels, the same as the year before, yju will do full justice to it, for the Maine mackerel fishery, according to the testimony, his obviously declined for years. The inspection in New Hampshire was .■),519 barrels. TLere was imported inio the United States that year from the provinces, 89,693 barrels, on which there was savetl a duty of $179,386. That year the Port Mulgrave returns show 1G4 vessels to have been in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, of which 98 came from Glonces- ter; 63,078^ sea-barrels, or 56,770 packed barrels, were taken. The Gloucester vessels caught 48,813 barrels. Take these 50,770 packed barrels as the aggregate catch in the year 1874 in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, by United States %'e8sels, and set them off against the 89,61)3 barrels imported into the United States, and where do you come out .' Pursuing the same estimate, that one-third may have been caught in shore — an estimate which I insist is largely in excess of the fact— there would be 18,923 barrels caught inshore, which would be wortii $70,001, at Mr. Hall's prices; and you have $70,961 as the value, after they are caught and landed, of the mackerel we took out of British territorial waters, to set against a saving of $179,386 oq American duties. That is the second year. Now, come to 1875. That year the catch was small. The Massachii setts inspection was only 130,064; the New Hampshire inspection, 3,415 barrels. The provincial importation into the United States is 77,538 barrels. That fell off" somewhat, but far less than the Massa chnsetts inspection, in proportion. The duty saved is $155,07«5. Fifty eight Gloucester vessels are found in the bay, as we ascertain from the Centennial book, and Mr. Hind, speaking of the mackerel fishery in 1875, and quoting his statistics from some reliable source, says, "the number of Gloucester vessels finding employment in the mackerel fish ery in 1875 was 180. Of these, 03 made southern trips, 117 fished off shore, and 58 visited the Bay of St. Lawrence; 618 fares were received. 133 from the south, 425 from oft' shore, and 60 from the bay." (Hinds Report, pp. 88, 89.) Fifty-eight vessels from Gloucester male 60 trip^. Now, where are the Port Mulgrave returns for 1875 f They were made, for we have extracted that fact. We L^ve called for them. 1 am sure we have called often and loud enough for the Port Midgrave returns uf 1875 and 1876. Where are they I . They are not produced, aUhongli the collector's attidavit is here, as well as the returns for 1877, wiiicli we obtained, and of which I shall speak hereafter. The inference from the keeping back of these returns is irresistible. Our friends on tho other side knew that the concealment of these returns was conclusive evidence that they were much worse than those of the previous year, 1874; and AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1611 vet tbev preferred to submit to tbat inevitable inference rather tbau have the real fact appear. Kather tbaii to have it really appear how uiiieh the 5S Gloucester vessels caught in the bay that year, they prefer to submit; to the inference which must necessarily be drawn, which is this— and it is corroborated by the testimony of many of their witnesses — that that year the fishing in the bjiy was a total failure. I can throw a little more lipht on the result of the fishing in the bay that year. There \vere5S vessels from Gloucester, whicli averaged a catch of IIH barrels, while 117 on the United States coast caught an average of 409 barrels. Ibis couies from the statistics for the Centennial: 11,078 barrels of mackerel taken from the iiulf of St. Lawrence in 1875 is all that we know aboni. What more there were our friends will uot tell us, because the ag^egiite of 11,078 barrels caught by 58 vessels, averaging 191 barrels a vessel, is so much better result than the Port jNIulgrave returns would show, that they prefer to. keep the returns back. I think, gentle- men, that this argument from the official evidence in your possession is oue that, under the circumstances, you must expect to have drawn. That year, so far as we know, only 11,078 barrels of mackerel came out ot the gulf; but double it. You will observe that more than half of the vessels have come from Gloucester every year. The previous year, there were 98 out of 164. Let us double the number of vessels that came from Gloucester. Suppose that there were as many vessels came from other places, and that they did as well. The result would give you L'3,156 barrels. Take the actual result of the Gloucester vessels; sup- [tose as many more came from other places, when we know that the previous year a majority came from Gloucester, (I want to be careful in this, for I think it is important), and about 23,000 barrels of mackerel were taken out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the year 1875, against aa importation of 77,538 barrels into the United States from the prov- inces, ou which a duty was saved of $165,076. In the year 1876, by the official statement, which was lost, 27 trip* were returned to the custom house as being made by Gloucester vessels to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I cannot verify that; it depends merely upon memory. We have not had the Port Mulgrave returns. I give my friends leave to put them in now, if they will do so, or give us an opportunity to examine them. I invite them to put them in now if they thiuk I am overstating the result. There were 27 Gloucester »essels (I maj be in error about this; it is mere memory) came to the gulf in 1876. The Massachusetts insi^ection was 225,041 barrels ; the New Hampshire inspection was 5,351 barrels. The United States importation was IC..J38 barrels. Duty saved, $153,076. To be sure, they will say that ISiund 1876 were poor years. They were poor years — no loubt about that-but average them with 1873 and 1874 and see if th» lesult is in the least favorable ; see if thsy are able to show any considerable bm- eflt derived by our people from inshore fishing, or anything which com- pares with the saving in respect to duty that they make. When we began this investigation nearly every witness that was ex- amined was asked whether the prospects for the present year were not wj goml ; whether it was not likely to be an admirable mackerel year ifltlie gulf, and they said " Yes." They said the gulf was full of mack- Someliow or other that impression got abroad, and our vessels fttl. came down here in greater numbers than before for several years. One fitness has seen 50 or 75 vessels there. I think 76 came from Glouces- ter. There may have been 100 there in all. You will recollect that one i^itness said the traders in Canso telegraphed how tine the prospects '^W, with a view probably to increase their custom ; but they did ex- 1612 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. pect that the fishing in the Galf of St. Lawrence was to be l»erter than it had been for a long time. Let us see what has happened tbus year We have a part of the Port Malgrave returns ; down to the ij'th of September, 1877. There is another page or half a page wbieh onrfiieDd^ have not furnished us. I invite them to put that in nonr. I would lik^ it very mnch. Bnt so much as we were able to extract pnxliu'ed tli following result: 60 vessels; 8,365i barrels; an average of LSVi sea. barrels or 125 packed barrels ; and one of our affidavits s;»y8 that the tish on one vessel were all bought. The John Wesley got ilH) bari^is, very much over the average, and the witness said he went to the frulf. could not catch any mackerel, and thought he would bny some ofihe boatmen. But 125 packed barrels is the average catch." and s.3iij:^jj the total number of barrels. Now, multiply that by the v.due of the mackerel after they are lauded and see what is the result. It is about «31,370. I will not stop to do that sum accurately, because it is too small: but I will call your attention to the results of the imi)ortatiou this year. The importations into Boston, to October 1. from Nova Scotia au«l Xe^r Brunswick, were 30,570 barrels; from Prince Edward Island. U.-jiiii barrels; in all, ol.l2oh barrels, which would amount in duty sjiveti tii ^102,251, up to the 1st of October. It is not strictly evidence, and if my friends object to it, it may be stricken out ; but here is the last rejwt of the Boston Fish Bureau, that came yesterday, which gives later results. I'p to November 2, there had been 77,017 barrels imporletl into Bostou from the provinces, more than double the amount that was iai|K>rteeen this great fall ing off in the vessel fishery in the gulf — it is a total failure to-day— ibere has been double the catch by boats, and double the catch by the I'rov iucial fishermen. They have saved 8155,234 of duty as against some thing like 830,000 worth of fish, when they are caught. It may l»e said that these returns will not represent the average, but we had a witiie>« here, the skipper of the schooner Eliza Poor, Captain William A. Dickie, who testified on |)age 204 of the American evidem^e, that be had 11> sea-ban-els, or 100 packed barrels, lie was one of those men who hap- l)ened into Halifax, on his schooner, ami upon cross-exauiinatiou it was dravvn from him by Brother Doutre, that Mr. Murray, the collector at 31ulgrave, told him thjH he had an average or moi"e than an avenijreof the catch of the United States tleet. lie saw fifty L'uitetl States vessel* in the gulf. In the absence of more complete returns, that is the lte?t account I am able to give of the condition of tlie mackerel tishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence since the Treaty of Washington was enaoteoken incidentally of the amount of duties s;»ved ujh^ii the Pixv vincial catch. On the subject of duties I propose to speak >eiwrately by an«l by ; bnt I do not wish to leave this branch of the subject with out calling .vour attentitm to what strikes me as evitlence so wnvincing that it admits of no answer. We have shown you how, under the oi^r ation of the Treaty of Washington, or for natural causes, the mackerel fishery of the United States vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence haslwn dwindling down ; that hardly any profitable voyages have l>cen made to the gulf since the treaty. Certainly there has" been no year when the AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1613 fisbing of our vessels in the gulf has not been a loss to the fishermen. Let me call your attention to the fisheries of the provinces. In 1869, Mr. Vetiniug, in making his fishery report, after speaking of the falling offiu tbe mackerel catch, went on to say : "This may be accounted for chieflv by stating that a large proportion of our best mackerel catchers ship on board American vessels on shares, and take their fish to market in those vessels, and thus evade the duty; but after selling their fish, lor the most part return home with the money." The Hon. S. Campbell, of Nova Scotia, in the debate on the Eeci- procity Treaty, says : Under the operation of the system that had prevailed siine the repeal of the treaty (,f i-:i4 the fislieriuen of Nova Scotia had, to a large extent, become the tishernien of the United States. They had been forced to abandon their vessels and homes in Nova Sotia and shij) to American ports, there to become engaged in aiding the commercial enterprises of that country. It was a melancholy feature to see thousands of young and bardv tishenuen compelled to leave their native land to embark in the i>ursuits of i foreifin country, and drain their own land of that aid and strength which their pres- ence wonld have secured. Mr. James K. McLean, one of our witnesse.s, was asked whether the coudition of things was not largely due to want of capital, and he said : It was owin;^ to this reason : We had to pay §2 a barrel duty on the mackerel we ^Dt to tL« United States, and the men would not stay in the Island vessels when they iiiw that the Americans were allowed to come and fish side by side with the British vessels, aud catch an equal share of tish ; of course, this was the result. The tishermen crtDseiineutly went on the American vessels ; onr best men did so, and some of the very bfst tishernipn and smartest captains among the Americans are from Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Captain Cbivirie, the first aud favorite witness called on the British side, says : Q. What class of men are the sailors an I fishermen employed among the Ameri- CMS?— A. I would say that, for the last iifteen years, two-thirds of them have been foreigners. Q. What do you mean by the term " foreigners " f — A. That they are Nova Scotians, U(l that they come pretty much from all parts of the world. Their iisberuien are piclifd pretty much out of all nations. Q. If the Americans were excluded from onr fishing privileges, what do yon think these men would do f — A. They would return to their native home and carry on fishing itere. Q. Have many of them come back 7 — A. O, yes. We have a number of Island men Thohave returned. A large number have done so. A great many come home for the niDterand go back to the States in the spring ; but during the past two years many (if this class have come down to remain. This year I do not know of more than a dozen, out of three hundred in my neighborhood, who have gone back. They get boata and fish along tbe coast, because they find there is more money to he secured by tbi^plan of operations. The fisheries being better, the general impression is that they ue all making towards home to fish on their own coast. James F. White says in his affidavit, put in on the British side : The nnmber of boats fishing here has trebled in the last three years. The reason of this increase is that other business is depressed, and fishermen from the United States, N'ewfoaudiaDd, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia are coming here to settle, attracted bnhe good fishing, so that we are now able to get crews to man our boats, which formerly we were unable to do. Another reason is that tbe year 187.5 was a very good \ yeai, aud owing to the successful prosecution of the fishing that year, people's atteu- I tioD wag turned to the business, and they were incited to go into it. And another of their men, Meddie Gallant, says in his affidavit : In the last, five years, the number of boats engaged in fishing in the above distances hk at leaat doubled. At this run alone there has been a very great increase. Eight Ueais ajjo there wore only eifjht boats belonging to this run, now there are forty-tive. TiKboatBare twice as good in material, fishing outfit, in sailing, in equipment, in rig- png. aud in every way, as they were five years ago. There is a great deal more money itmted in fishing now than there was. Nearly every one is now going into the bnsi- M« about here. The boats, large and small together, take crews of about three men twh. That is, besides the men employed at the stages about the fish, who are a con- Merable number. 1614 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. So then, while the mackerel-fishiiifr of our vessels in the <>ult' has been diminishing, theirs has been largely increasing. What ! all this and money too! Is it not enough that two, three, or four times as I'nucli fish is taken by them as before the treaty ? Is it not enoujjh that tbev are prosperous, that those who have left thern are returning home auil everybody is going into the business ? Can they claim that they are losers by the Treaty of Washington ? Is it not plain that the.v have in consequence of its provisions, entered upon a career of unprecedented prosperity ? ' At this point Mr. Foster suspended his argument, and the Commis- sion adjourned until Tuesday, at noon. Tuesday, November G, 1877. The Commission met, according to adjournment, and Mr. Foster re- sunu'd his argument. Gentlemen of the Commission : At the adjournment yesterday, I had been giving some description of the quantity of the mackerel tisliiiig since the Treaty of Washington by American vessels in the Gulf of St! Lawrence and in the vicinity of British waters. For the years 1873 and 1874, 1 am content to rest upon the information derived from the Port Mulgrave statistics. With reference to the subsequent years, 1875, 1870, and 1877, there are one or two pieces of evidence to which I ought, per haps, specifically to refer. Your attention has already been called to the fact that the Magdalen Islands and the Banks in the body of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, of which Professor Hind says there are many not put down on the chart ("wherever you find banks," he says, -'there you expect to find mackerel"), have been the principal fishing grounds of the United States vessels for many years. The disastrous results of the great gale of 1873, in which a large number of United States vessels were lost, and in which more than twenty Gloucester vessels went ashore on the Magdalen Islands, show where, at that time, the principal part of the mackerel fleet was fishing. In 187G, the report of the Comniis sioner of Fisheries for the Dominion speaks of the number of vessels that year found at the Magdalen Islands. He says, "About one hundred foreign vessels were engaged fishing this season around the Magdalen Islands, but out of that number I do not calculate that there were more than fifty engaged mackerel fishing, and, according to the best iuforma tiou received, their catch was very moderate." We have also the statement of one of the Prince Edward Island wit nesses, George Mackenzie, on page 132 of the British evidence, who, after describing the gradual decrease of the American fishery by vessels, says, " There has not been for seven years a good vessel mackerel fishery, and for the last two years it has been growing worse and worse." He esti- mates the number of the United States vessels seen off the island at about fifty. We have also the testimony of Dr. Fortin on the subject, who spent a number of weeks this year, during the height of the fishing season, in an expedition after affidavits, that took him all around the gulf, where he could not have failed to see whatever American vessels were fishing there. He says he " may have seen about 25 mackereling and sailing about," and that he heard at the Magdalen Islands there were seventy. According to the best information that I can obtain, that is not far from correct. Joseph Tierney, of Souris, says that there were twenty or thirty at Georgetown, fifteen or twenty at Souris, and he should thiuk wheu be left home there were seventy-five. Ronald Mac- AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1615 I iiiild of East Point, says that he bas uot seen more than thirty sail this veai at one time together ; that last year he saw as many as a dozen I perhaps tifteen or twenty sail at a time. The number has dimin- i bed very much, he says, for the last five or six years, until this year. \'(,^^ gentlemen, this is the record of the Ave years during which luiteil' States fishermen, under the provisions of the Treaty of Wash- iiiston, bave derived whatever advantages they could obtain from the iiisbore fisheries. I have heard the suggestion made that it would have beeu better if this Commission had met in 1872, because there might have then been evidence introduced with reference to the wiiole twelve vears of the Treaty of Washington ; and I have even heard it said that it ffonbl liave been fair to estimate the value of the privilege for the twelve years according to the appearance at that time. That is to say, that it would have been fairer to estimate by conjecture than by proof, bv anticipation than by actual results. It seems to me, on the contrary, jjeiitlemeu, that the fairer way would have been either to have the value ot tbis privilege reclvoned up at the end of each dshing year, when it coulii be seen what had actually beeu done, or to have postponed the {leterniinatioii of the question until the experience of the whole twelve vears, as matter of evidence, could be laid before the Commission. Wbat shall we say of the prospects of the ensuing seven years f What reason is there to believe that the business will suddenly be revolu- tionized ; tliat there will be a return to the extraordinary prosperity, the great number of tish, and the large catches that are said to have lieeu drawn Irom the gulf twenty-five, twenty, fifteen years ago ? We were tohl that the time for the revolution had come already when wo met here, but the result proves that the present season has been one of the worst for our fishermen. What chance can you see that a state of things will ensue that will make the privilege any more valuable for the seven vears to come than it has beeu for the five years already passed ? Have you any right to assume that it is to be better without evidence ? Have you any right, when you are obliged to judge of the future by the past, to go back to a remote past, instead of taking the experience of recent years i Would it be just for you to do so ? This Commission, of course, does not sit here to be generous with the money of the Gov- ernnieut of the United States, but simply to value in money what the citizens of the United States have under the treaty received, and are proved to be about to receive. It is, therefore, to be a matter of proof, of just such proof as you would require if you were assessing a charge upon each fishing vessel, either as it entered the gulf or as it returned with its mackerel. We think there have been, heretofore, quite good standards by which to estimate the values of the inshore fisheries. For four years a system of licenses was enforced. In the year 1860 the license-fee charged was odI.v fifty cents a ton, except at Prince Edward Island, where it seems to have been sixty cents a ton. In 1867 it was raised to a dollar a ton, and $1.20 at Prince Edward Island. In 186S i ■^vas two dollars a ton, aud >i2.U\ at Prince Edward Island. The reason for the additional price on the island I do not know, but it is not, perhaps, of much consequence. Our fishermen told you that the motive that induced them to take out tbese licenses was twofold. In the first '^lace, they desired to be free from dandier of molestation. In the next | ice they did not desire, when there was an opportunity to catch fish within three miles of the shore, to be debarred from doing so; and if the license-fee had remained at the moderate price originally charged do doubt all of our vessels would liave continued to pay the license as they did the first year. Three hun- 1616 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. dretl aud flfty-fonr was the number of licenses the first year; but when the price was raised to a dollar a ton, half the number of vessels foniid it expedient to keep where they had always been allowed to jjo- to fish remote from the shore; even to avoid doubtful localities; to keep manv miles out on the banks rather than pay a sum that would ainount on the average, to $70 a trip; and when the price was raised to two dollars a ton hardly any of the vessels were willing to pay it. The reason why they would not pay it was not that they were contumacious and deSant They were in a region where they were liable to be treated with crcat severity, and where they had experienced, as they thougiit, very hostile and aggressive treatment. They desired peace; they desired freedom They did not wish to be in a condition of anxiety. Neither tlie captains of the vessels on the sea, nor the owners of the vessels at liome, hal any desire to feel anxiety and apprehension. The simple reason wliv they did pay when it was fifty cents a ton and ceased to pay when it became one dollar or two dollars a ton, was that the price exceedod, in their judgment, the value of the privilege. There were not mackerel enough taken within the inshore zone to make it worth their while to give so much for it. Whatever risk they were subjected to, whatever inconvenience they were subjected to from being driven off the sliore. they preferred to undergo. If a license to fish inshore was not worth a doliar a ton in 18G8 and 18GD, in the halcyon days of the mackerol lisb- ery, can anybody suppose it really is worth as much as that now? But fix the price of the license fee as high as you please. Go to this ques tion as a question of computation, on business principles, pencil in hand; estimate how much per ton it is worth, or how much per vessel it is worth, and see to what result yon are brought by the figures. Nobody thinks that for some years past there have been in the Gulf of St. Law- rence three hundred vessels from the United States fishing for mackerel. The average tonnagie is put by no one at over 70 tons. That is about the average of Gloucester tonnage, and the vessels that come from Gloucester are larger than those that come from other places. Three hundred vessels, at $70 a vessel, $21,000 per annum. Put whatever you please per ton, and state the account; debit the United States with that, and see what the result is when you come to consider the dnties. If it is called two dollars a ton, the highest price ever charged, it will be about $42,000 a year. Is there any prospect whatever that the mackerel fishery for Araeri- cati vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence will ever become prosperous f In order that it should do so, there must concur three things, of no one of which is there any present probability. In the first place, there must be much poorer fishing oflF the coast of the United States than usual, for as things have been there for some years past, nutil the present year, the fishing for mackerel was so much more profitable than it bad ever been in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that there was no temptation for our vessels to desert our own shores ; and off the shores of the United States seining can be pursued, which never has been successfully followed in the gulf. Seining mackerel is about the only really profitable mode of taking the fish, as a business out of which money can be made to auy considerable amount. The days for hook-and-line fishing have passed away, and seining is the method by which the fish must be taken if money is to be made. That has never yet been done, and is not likely to be done, in the gulf. The bottom is too rough ; the water is too shal- low. The expedient that we were told at the beginning of the bearing had been adopted turns out to be impracticable, for shallow seines alarm and frighten away the fish. The seines are not made shallow to AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1617 accommodate themselves to the waters of the gulf. Year by year they are mudc longer and deeper, that a school of tish may be more success- fully (.iiveloped by them. Then there must also be much better tishiug in ihe gulf than has existed for several years past. It has lieen going down ill value every year since the treaty went into effect. It has gotdoffii to an average by the Port Midgrave returns (L mean by the portion of the returns which we have) of 125 barrels a vessel this vpiir, nnd, according to the verbal statement of the collector of Port ■jliilgrave, KKS barrels is quite up to the average. If any one takes the troiiltlf to go through the returns we have put into the case and analyze tliein,it will appear that 108 barrels is quite as large as the average this vfiir. Some vessels have come out of the gulf with nothing at all, and some with hardly anything at all. In the next place, in order to induce American vessels to go for mackerel to the Gulf of St. Lawrence in any ooiisiderable numbers, mackerel must have an active market at remuner- ative prices. There must be a different statu of things in the United States in that respect from what has existed for many years past, for, by all accounts, the demand has been declining and the consumption lias l)een diminishing for ten years past. Without stopping to read at length the testimony on that point, there aretwoor three of the British witnesses who in a shott compass state tlie truth, and to their testimony I wish to call your attention. Mr. Har- riii|;toii, of Halifax, page 420, says, in answer to the question, " There lias not been as much demand for mackerel from the United States for the last five years as formerly {" "Notsogreat." And in reply to the question, "There nnist be an abundant supply at home, I suppose?" he says, " I slioiild say so, unless the people are using other articles of food." Mr. Xiible, auotiier Halifax witness, page 4i0, being asked the same ques- tion, says, " I think for the past two years the demand for mackerel has been quite as good as before." Mr. Uickson, of Bathurst, is asked this ' question, -'Fresh tish are very rapidly taking the place of salt mack- erel ill the niarket, and the importance of salt mackerel and other cured tisli is diminishing more and more every year. Is not this the case f His answer is, " That is my experience in my district." '' And owing to the extension of tiie railroad system and the use of ice-cars, pickled, salt, and smoked fish will steadily become of less consequence f " Cer- tainly."' Mr. .lames W. Bigelow, of Wolfville, NoVa Scotia, on page «3(it' the British evidence, states very em|»liati(!ally the practical con- dition of the business. He says, " The same remark applies not only to ciiil tisliiiig, but to all brantjhes of the fishery : within the past ten years tlie consumers have been using fresh instead of salt fisli. The salt-Qsh business on the continent is virtually at an end." He is sorry to say that lie states this from practical knowledge of this business. He then goes on to say that fish is supplied to the great markets of the United States "from Gloucester, Portland, and New York; but from Boston liriiicipallv." " And the tish is sent where f " To every point West, all over the Union ; the fish is principally boxed iu ice." Then he goes on to state that if the arrangements of the Treaty of Washington should hmmie permanent, instead of being limited to a term of twelve years, withtlienew railroad communication with this city that has been al- ready opened, the result will be to make H.ilifax the g:reat fish-business wiiter of the continent; that the vessels will come iu hert^ with their i frwb tish instead of of going to Gloucester or Boston or New York ; I that a great business, a great city, will be built up here; and he [says that, notwithstanding the treaty is liable to terminate iu seven [ ywrs, he is expecting to put his own money into the business, aud es- 102 p 1618 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. tabliHli bini8elf in the fresh-fl^li basiness here. Our own witnesses— the witnesses tor tbe United States — bave given a fuller and more detailed explanation of this change tbat bas taken place in the markets. It re quires no explanation to satiety any person, with the ordinary or^ratmof taste, tbat one who can get fresh fish will not eat salt mackerel. Every- body knows tbat. Creile experto. Our witnesses tell yon thai fresl] tish is sent as far as tbe Mississippi, and west of tbe Mississippi, in a8<;r(Mt abundance as is to be found on tbe seaboard. It is just as easy tuliave fresh tish at Chicago and Saint Louis, and at any of the cities lyiug un tbe railroad lines one or two hundred wiles west of tbe Mississippi, as it is to have fresh fish in Boston or Philadelphia. It is only a question of paying tbe increased price of transportation. Salt tisU has to be transported there also, and it costs as much to transport the salt lisli hs tbe fresh fish. Tbe result is, that people will not and do not eat salt tisii nearly as much as formerly. Then there is a great supply of lake ben in^' — a kind of white-fish — from tbe northern lakes. Tbe quantity is so great that tbe statistics of it are almost appalling, altbougb they come from tbe most authentic sources. This lake herring being sold at the same price as tbe inferior grades of mackerel — being sold often lower than tiie cbeai)est mackerel can be afforded — is taken in preference to it. People find it more agreeable. At tbe South, where once there was a large mackerel demand usually, there bas grown up an immense mullet business, both fresh and curcil, tbat bas taken the place of salt mackerel there. And so it has come to pass tbat there is a very limited demand in a few 1 rge hotels for tbat kind of salt mackerel which is the best, the No. 1 fat mackerel— a demainl that would not take up, at tbe usual price in tbe market, $2U a barrel, more than from five to ten thousand barrels all over tbe country, wliile, if you go down to the poorer grades of mackerel, few will buy tbem until they get as low as from $7 to $8 a barrel. I am not going o\er the testimony of Proctor, Pew, Sylvanus Smith, and our other witnesses on this subject, because what they have said must be fresh in tbe \\\mh of all of you. It comes to this : people will not eat the mackerel unless they can buy it at a very low price. It comes into competition, not with other kinds offish alone, but with every description of cheap food, and its price can never be raised above the average price of other staples in the market of equivalent food-value. If it is to be impossible to dispose of considerable quantities of these fish until the price is brought down to about $S a barrel on the average, what inducement will there be to come, at great expense, to tbe Gnlf of St. Lawrence, to have such results as for years past have followed from voyages here? The truth, geutlemen,^ is simply this: whether it is a privilege to you not to see United States vessels here, or whether their presence here has some incidental benefit connected with it, you are going to find for years to come that they will not be here. The people in the Strait of Canso who want to sell tbem supplies, will find them not there to buy supplies, and the unhappy fishermen who sutiler so much from having them iu tbe neighborhood of the island will be ex empt from all such evil consequences hereafter. Once in two or three years, if there appears to be a cbance of a great supply here, and if there happens to be a great failure on our own coast, a few of our ves- sels will run up in midsummer to try the experiment. But as to a large fleet of United States vessels fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there is no immediate prospect that such will ever be tbe cuKC. Forty years ago fishing for mackerel died out in the Bay of Fuu- Iv. According to the witnesses many years ago mackerel were ex- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1619 tremely abundant in the waters in the vicinity aronnd Newfuundhmd. Tbev li''^^^ disappeared from all of those plaues, thoii^^h, strant;e to say , one scliooiier did Ret a trip of maclterel in a Newfoundhkud bay this glimmer, olf the French coast, so that we are not oMiged to pay for it ill tbe award of this Commission ; it was in waters where we had a right to fish before the Treaty of Washington. But this business, notoriously precarious, where no man can foretell the results of a voyage, or the re- sults of a season, will pretty much pass away, so far as it is pursued by United States vessels. Tliey will run out on our own coast; they will catch what tiiey can and carry them to market fresh, and what cannot bo sold fresh they will pickle. They will, when prospects are good, make occasioaal voyages here, but as for coming in great numbers, there is uo probability that they will ever do it again. Our friends in Nova Scotia and upon the island are going to have the local fishery to them- selves; I hope that it will prove profitable to them ; I have no doubt it will prove reasonably profitable to them, because they, living on the cDHst, at home, can pursue it under greater advantages than the men of Massiicliusetts can. They are very welcome to all the proHts they are to make out of it, and they are very welcome, if they are not ungener- ous iu their exactions from us, to all the advantages they derive from seudiiig the fish that they take in their boats or vessels in Nova Sijotia aud Prince Edward Island to our markets, all they can make by selling them there. I am sure no one will grudge them. I come now to a branch of this case which it seems to me ought to decide it, whatever valuation, however extreme, may be put upon the quantity of mackerel caught by our vessels in the territorial waters of the provinces. I mean the duty question ; the value of the remission of duties in the markets of the United States to the people of the Dora in- ioD. We have laid the statistics before you, and we find that iu 1874 there was $3i3,18l saved upon mackerel and herring, and $20,000 more saved upon fish-oil. There was, therefore, $355,972 saved in 1874. In 1875 there was a saving of $375,991 and some cents; in 1876, $353,24J. I get these figures by adding to the results of table No. 4, which shows the importation of fish, the results of table No. 10, which shows the fish oil. The statistics are Mr, Hill's. In table No. 5 you will find the quan- tiiiesof mackerel aud herring. The dutiable value of mackerel was t»'o dollars a barrel ; of herring, one dollar a barrel, and of smoked her- ring, five cents a box. We are met here with the statement that the consumer pays the du- ties; and our friends on the other side seem to think that there is a law of political economy as inexorable as the law of gravitation, accorlaud — the tisherineii and dealers in tliiigeproviiiuot) l>eiu;; forced into competition, in United States luarlcets, under serious (iiidvaiitiiKos, side Ijy side with the American freecatuh talcen out of our own waters. Yes, " taken out of their oion waters." I am not afraid of the words. Iftiiecoiisuiuer pays the duties, it would not make any difference out (it ttbat waters the fish were taken, which brought on competition, would it! I am discussing now the proposition that there is a law of political K'onoiny, of universal application, aud particularly applicable to the iiiackeiel which go from the provinces to Boston, by which whatever tax is imposed in the United States is forthwith added to the price and has tobH paid by the man who eats the mackerel in the States, and it makes DO (litlen^iice where the competition arises from. Mr. Mitchell's state- meut, tberetbre, is absolutely to the purpose. He continues : At the same time, other producers are subject to equally heavy charges on the agri- cuUiirai, mineral, and other natural products of the United Provinces. Tile direct extent to which such prohibitory duties atfect the fishery interests of these pruvtnces may be stated in a few words. During the year 1^6(5, for example, the i>^vcral pruviiices have paid in gold, as castomdutyon provincial-caught lish exported to the Uuited States, about $220,000. This amount was paid by the provinces in 1866, the year after the Reciprocity Treaty ended. Then, in a note, he says : More forcibly to illustrate the unequal operation of the present system, suffice it tiO iostance the following cases: A British vessel of 71 tuns, built aud equipped lastsea- wn at St. John, N. B., costing $4,>jO0, expressly for the mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Bay of Chaleurs, took 60U barrels of fisn, which sold in Halifax and Boston for $6,000. After paying expenses (including $9.86 in gold for custonis) a profit ol $1,200 accrued to the owners. An American ve-tsal from Newbury port, Miiss., of 46 tons burden, took a license at Port Mtilgrave, N. S., paying $46. The whole cost of ves-sel and voyage was $3,200 or $2,400, Halifax currency. She fished 910 barrels of mackerel, wliich sold in Boston fur $13,000, about $U,ll6 in gold, leaving a profit of |ii,7l0. After speaking of the question of raising the license fee to higher fig- ures, Mr. Mitchell continues (p. 6) : It is recommended that the rate be $2 per ton, the mackerel fishery being that ia ^hich Americans chiefly engage, and as mackerel is tho principal fish marketed in the United States by Canadians, ou which the tax is $2 per barrel, this rate amounts to a chari^e of but 20 cents per barrel, still leaving them an advantage of $1.80 uu each bar- rel, besides the drawback allowed on salt. Did Mr. Peter Mitchell think that the $2 a barrel duty was got back by the fishermen of the provinces! During the session of the Joint fligli Commission at Washington, when the American Commissioners made an oft'er to purchase the inshore fisheries in perpetuity, which was not coupled with any offer of free adipission to our markets, the British Oonimissiouers replied "that the offer was, as they thought, wholly inadequate, and that no arrangement would be acceptable of which the atliiiission into the United States, free of duty, of fish, the productioa 1622 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. of tbo British fisheries, did not form a part." And after tiie Treaty of WasbiiiRton had been ratified, Earl Kiinlierly vrrote to Lord lJK{;ar:'>'it cannot be denied that it is most important to the colonial tislicniK'n to obtain free access to the American markets for their fish and fish oil." Yon can explain the lan^ua{;c of these statements only n|»nn the theory that they knew and understood that the duty was necessarilv a tax npon the fish production of the provinces. How idle to have tuiide observations of the kind that I have been reading except u|h)ii tliHt plain hypothesis! In the debates on the ratification of the treaty it was Haid by Sir John A. Macdonald that — The only market for the Caftadian No. 1 mackerel in the world t» the United SIhIh. Tint is our only market, and we are practically excluded from it by the present dutii The coii,(. quence of that duty i» that our Ji»hermen are at the mercy of the American tiihermni. Thi are made the hetcera of trood and drawers of water for the Americang. they are obliged iv sell their Jitih at the Americ^iua' own price. The Anutican Jiahtmten purvhane thtirjukat a nominal value and control the American market. The j^reat protitH of t \ni trade are liaodeil over to the American fisbermeu or the American merchants engaged in the trade, aiiil they profit to the loss of oar own iuduHtry and our own people. And here let me call yonr attention to a striking fact, that from tbe beginning to the end of these negotiations the people ol' the maritime provinces, who own the inshore fisheries, have been the people who have been most anxious on any terms to have the duties removed in tbe United States markets. It was said in this debate by some one (I do not remember the name of the speaker) that "it is harsh and crufl for the people of Ontario, for the sake of forcing a general reciprocity treaty, to injure the fishing interests of the provinces by pieventing them from getting a free market in the United States." A gentleman from Halifax — Mr. Power — who is said to have devoted his whole life to the business, and to understand all about it, tells the story in a more practical way : In tbe spring of each year some forty or fifty vessels resorted to tlieMiii;i1a1eD Islnndii for herring, and be had known tbe number to be greater. These ves^eU carried ao average of 900 barrels each ; so that the quantity taken was genernllj in tlie iifjgk- borhootl of 50,000 barrels. Dnring the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty uol'nittil States vessels went after these fish. All the vessels engaged in that fitthery belonged to some one of the provinces now forming this Dominion. Since the abrogation of tlie treaty and the imposition of the duty of $1 per barrel by the United States tbe ciM had become entirely changed. Vessels still went there, but they were nearly all American. Mow, under this treaty, we would get that important branch of trade back again. You will remember that I said yesterday, got ' -"on, that herring— a fish so poor and so cheap that Acerir i vest^ei--. camiDt aftord to en- gage in the fishery, it is far uior" «« ..Pigeons for them to purdiase than to catch — would be, by a « i $1 a bari<. entirely exclnde»8' ngton. See how Mr. Power deals with this question of whether the con.sumer pays tbe duty: Be had heard it said that the consumer paid the duty. Now, whilst this miyi 'he Mft with sovte articles, it was notso with the article of our fish. In our case, in thin ^..mm«*, o»r fishermen fished side by side trilh their American rivals, both carrying the proieedn of tktir catch to the same market, where our men had to contend against the free /••<* of tjx Jmw'- can fishermen. Let him illustrate this: An American and a provincial vesntl took 300 bamU of mackerel each ; both vessels wre confined to the same market, where they nold at '*' m"' wice. One had to pay a duty of $1,000, while the other had not to do so. Who. '' " , paid '« f 1,000 f Most certainly not the purchaser or consumer, but the poor, hard woi I Jitbrrmei of this Dominion— for this $1,000 was deducted from his account of sales. Those wbocoii- tend that in this case the consumer paid the duty ought to be able to show tbatif th« duty were taken off in the United States tbe selling price there would be reducuu b; AWARD OP THE PISRERT COMMISnON. 1623 ft,^ amonnt of the duty. There was nothlnn in the nntnrn or flxistinff oircnmstiinneti f till- trade to caniw any |i«ntnn who undfnitanilit to tielieve that tlilit woiilil Ite the " . g^^^ tktrefore, it would be teem that al pment o»r finkeriHtn labored under diiadvan- L««'if*i<'* mttdf it almont impoit*ible for tkem to comprle with their riruU in the United K^lft a»i llmt the removal of the rfn/y, an propotrd fcjr thin treaty, would he a great boon, and tithtfthem to do a good businet* where thru "O"' "''*''' ^"l ttrugifUng or doing a losing trade. And the next npeaker, after depicting; in glowiug terms just tlie con- dition of pro8|)erity that the island of Prince Edward is enjoying now, as a result sure to follow from the ratification of the treaty, goes on to sav that uo men can compete with the provincial tishermen on equal terms, because their fishing is at their own door, and asserts that only aa equal participation in the markets of the United States is necessary to give them the monopoly of the whole hasiness. Another speaker tells the story of the flet't of Nova Scotia fishing-ves- j;el3 built up under the Reciprocity Treaty, which were forced to aban- (loll the fishing business when the Ueciprocity Treaty ended and a duty HAS put upon Hsh. S »mewhere I have seen it stated that vessels were lelt unfinished on the stocks when the Ueciprocity Treaty terminated, btiau!ie, being in process of construction, to engage in the fishing busi- ness, their owners did not know what else to do with them. Are we to be told that these men were a'd mistaken — that the consumer paidtlie duty all along — that nobenefit was realized to the provincial fisher- icen from it? Why, even the Reply to the British Case concedes that when the duty existed some portion of it was paid by the provincial fisher- luen. It is to be remembered, too, gentlemen, that in considering this question of what is gained by free markets, yon are not merely to take iuto account what in fact has been gaineiy aoavoidaDly operated as a diacoaragement to those whom the higher tax affected 1624 AWARD OF THE FISHERT COMMISSION. If one merchant was charged two shillinKS for the same species and quantify of iroo(1» on which another was charged only one shilling, it was evident that lie vrbu 1^1,1 the highest dnty must either lose the market, or smuggle, or m-l\ lii< jr„(Hi!, ,^^ an inferior protit. In other wordH, the difT^rauce in the rate of the tax would f.,]! on the merchant liable to the highest duty and in cases of competition vruuld always drive bin; out of the market, (p. 187.) Then he goes on to say, on a subsequent page: We may su; .>08ea tax to be laid on in a department where, in the progress of wealih profits were about to be lowered. If this tax was just equal to the reduction of tlin rate of profit that was about to take place, then common rivalship would iudiicHtbe dealers to pay the tax and yet sell their goods as heretofore, (p. 217.) He says tVrther, on page 242: Let us suppose a brewer to have one thousand barrels of strong ale upon Laid. That a tax of one shilling per barrel is laid upon the ale, and that he may raise tlieprlie just so much to his customers, because they will readily pay the tax rather than want the ale. In this case, the brewer would be directly relieved from the tax. But if. on the other hand, he found after advancing the lax he could not riise the ]iiiee nf his ale abr)ve what it was formerly, and yet was under a nei-esHity of diMposing nf it, though this may drive him froiu the market or unite brewer.s to stint the !*ii|i)'ly, sons to biiug up the price, on some future occasion, yet in the mean time the trader wuniil snflFer ; nor would ho immediately derive, by any of his ordinary transiictinn.s, aii ef- fectual i el ief from the loss he had thus sustained by paying tbe t.ix. AVIieu, there- fore, a trader advances a tax upon a great qnantity of goods, he can receive no etfect- ual relief trom such a tax, but in a rise of tbe price of the article, adequate to the tn which he has advanced. » * ♦ It follows that all speculatio is whose object is to show on what fixed fund or tlass taxes must fall are vain and unsatisfuctoiy, and will be generally dispioveU (aa thiy almost always have been) by experience, (p. 257.) A dealer who can evade such a tax will soon possess a monopoly if the tax is paid by his competitors. It will be to him a kind of bounty for carrying on his biisiniM, and this must drive his compeittors either to evade tbe ta.v also or to relinquish the employment, (p. 288.) I am almost disposed to hand to the reporters the extracts, ratlin than trouble you to read them ; and yet 1 ieel it my duty to press this subject, because, if I am right in it, it is decisive. Sir Alex. Galt. I think you had better read them. Mr. Foster. Mill says, and he i.s the apostle of free trade, in volume 2ot his " Political Economy," page 113: If the north bank of the Thames possessed an advantage over the sonth bank in the production of shoes, no shoes would be produced on the south side ; the shoeiimkers would remove themselves and their capitals to the north bank, or wouhl have esiah- 1 shed themselves there originally, for, being competitors in the same market wiih thi'seon the north side, they could not compensate themselves for theirdisadvimtageiit the expense of the consnmer ; the amount of it. wouhl fall entirely on their protiln. and they would not long content themselves with a smaller profit, when by simply ctuMi- ing a river they could increase it. A»*ply that statement to the evidence in this case, and remeaiher Low, w ben the Keciprocity Treaty ended, the tishermeii of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island took refuge on board United States vessels, for the purpose, as one of the official documents that 1 read tioni yes- terday says, of evading the duty. It might be a curious qiustioii, it it were important enough to dwell upon it, whether, in assessing ajjaiiist the United States the value of the privilege of fishing inshore, you «er« or were not to take ' ito account tiie faci, that half of the iieopie who fish on shares in United States vessels are subjects of Her Majesty, auil having disposed of their half of the fish, having paid half ut tlu> Lisii for the privilege of using the vessel and its equipment, tlioy sell tbe other half of the fish, and bring the proceeds home; and whetlieritis a just claim against the United States if British subjects go in (J"it»''i States /essels, to require the United States to pay money because they do so. AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1625 Mill says in another passage, in volume 2, page 397 : We may suppose two islan 's, which, being alike in extent, in natural fertilitv, and industrial advancement, have np to a certain time been e<|iial in population and capi- tal and have bad equal rentals, and the same price of corn. Let uh imaKi'i*' ^ tithe inipoBed in one of these islands, but not in the other. There will be immediately a dillcrence in the price of corn, and therefore, probably, in profits. I am almost through with this tediouaneas, but there is a gootl Scotch book on political economy , by John McDonald, of Edinburgh, published j„ i)j;i_aneti'ors. Impose ailiitj of soiue shillings a cwt., without altogether destroying the i)ecullar aen to him was so distant or otherwise disadvantageous \ht it would be preferable to pay the tax ; or, thirdly, if the only available place for ptMuring conjinoditiesof vital moment to the importing country, was the country im- |H«>in); the duty. Wherever the profits are such as to admit of a diminution without tailing belu'.v the usual rate, it may be possible for a country to tax the foreigner (j.iai). I was interested some years ago in an article that I found translated from tbe Etvue de Deux Mondes of the 15th of October, 1809, on " Pro- tection aud Free Trade," by a gentleman of the name of Loui.s Alby. 1 do not kuow who he is, but on pages 40 and 41, of the pamphlet, he not ODJy states tbe doctrine, but he illustrates it : The free-traders believe — and this is the fonndatiou of their doctrine — that when tie iiiiport duty on an article of foreign merchandise is reduced, this re its last transforiu- •tion, i:i iu no wise benefited. The real consumer of wl;e-it is neither the miller nor llie bakiT, hut he who eats the bread. The real consumer of wo«j1 is neither tbe dra{)er MMhe ttiilor, hut he who wears and uses the clothes. This diKcrfpaucy bt-tween the variations of custom-house dnties and the selling prices eaiiiinf !)(■ denied, and since the commercial treaty the experiment has lieen tried. All prohiUtiouH Lave been removed and all duties reduced ; but what article is there the I'Hce of which has been sensibly lowered for consnmi)tion ? When economists «le- MUiled the free importation of foreign cattle, they hoped to see the price of nwai lowmd, and lor the same reason the agriculturists resisted with all their strength. Ahsixiii lis the duties were removed, the graziers from tl)e northern and .istern de- panmeiits hastened to the market on the other side of the frontier; but the sellers »«! on their guard and held firm, and, competition assisting them, prices roee instead 0 falling. All the advantage of the reduction of duty wai for fureign raisers of cat- tlf.Md meat is dearer than ever. The same result followed in reference to the wools «( AlgiwH; and on this point I can give the opinion of the head of one of the oldest loiisfsin Mai-seillcs, an enemy, moreover, to protection, like all the merchants of sea- !*ftt««ns: "When the dnties on Algerian wrols were removed," he f-aid to me, "ire wppwd that Ihii trmild cawmc wool to sell cheaper in France, but Ike contrary happened. . '.^ '**" "'ore eagerness for i>urchasing in Africa; there was more compi-titiiMi, and wdifienintc iii the duties wan employed iu paying more lor the wool to make sure of t 1626 AWARD OF THE FISHEBT COMMISSION. getting it. II U mot. Hum, tke F^renck manitfacturfr who has profittd hg fhe rfmoro} of ■ t( u the Arab alone." Thns the interest of the consumer, at>oat which $(i mnch ooi is made, far fn>m being the prioeiiml element in the question, only plays a srcuodarv part, since the redaction in the tariff only profits him in a small mea:»ite. Now, we are iu a conditiou to uuderstand prtHiisely the lueaning of what one of our witnesses said, Mr. Pew, that the prire of niacktrel tsed, and the fishing business of the provinces would gradually die out of existence. It is not a case — let lue repeat it, liecause tbere has been so mnch apparent sincerity iu the belief that that tax would n>uie out of the consumer — it is not the case of a tax put upon the whole of the comnioility, or the greater part of the commmlity, but it is a tax put U|)on the smaller part of the commodity in the only uiarket to which both producers are cDUfined; aud you might just as well say, if two men made watches, one here and one in Boston, which were just ex- actly alike, and their watches were both to be sold in Boston, that you could put a tax of twenty-five or fifty per cent, on the imiwrtation of | tbe Halifax watch into Boston and then raise the price. Tbe only instance iu which the imposition of a tax u|)ou a part of tbe j production of an article results in raising the price of the whole, loj where the demantl is active, where the supply is inadequate, and where | AWARD OF THE FISHEST COMMISSION. 1627 there is no equivalent tbat can be introduced in the place of the taxed article. It nii{;lit just as well be said that a wood lot ten miles Irom town is worth as umch as a wood lot five miles from town. Wood will sell for a certain price, and the man who is the farthest oft", and who has tbe greatest expense in hauling the wood to market, is the man who cets tbe least profit. It was estimated in the debates on the Treaty of Washington that tlietasoD mackerel at that time amounted to fifty per cent. It was triilv stated to be a prohibitory duty. You will remember that Mr. Hall has also given you a practical view of this subject. Mr. Hall, Mr. My- lick and Mr. Cimrchill located on Prince Edward Island. To be sure it is'tbeir misfortune not yet to be naturalized British subjects. Detract whatever you cboose from the weight of their evidence because they are Aiuericaus, but give to it as much as its intrinsic candor and reasonable- uess require at your hands. What do these gentlemen tell you of their practical condition ? Mr. Hall says that when the duties were put on, atlirst, the people on the island were helped by a good catch, a good quality, and by a short catch in the United States, and by the condition cf tbe currency, but when they began to feel the full eft'ect of the irapo- sitiou of the duties they were ruined. His partner confirms the same story. Mr. Churchill, the other man, whose business it is to hire by the Qoiitb the fishermen of the island, and pay them wages, says he could Dflt afford to hire the men if a duty was put up on the fish. Do you sup- pose be could ? The fish landed on the shore of Prince Edward Island are worth $3.75 a barrel; that is what they are sold for there. Tbe fish- rtmenearn for catching them from $15 to $25 a month. Put a tax of a ou to $3.75 worth of mackerel and can there be any doubt of the result! If this subject interests you, or if it seems to you to have a bearing apon the result, I invite your careful attention to the testimony of Hall, Myrick, and Churchill. Do they not know what the result of putting a tariff upon their mackerel would be? Do not the people of Prince Edward Island know ? If they have been stimulated to a transient, delusive belief that they may in some way get the control of the markets of the I United States for the eighty or ninety thousand barrels which, at the I utmost, is produced in tbe provinces and put the price up as high as evertbey please, do you think that that delusion will be dissipated, and that tbeir eyes will be most painfully opened, if it ever comes to pass I that a duty shall be reimposed ? It may be said that this question of duties is a question of commercial I intercourse, and that it is for the benefit of all mankind that there should be free commercial intercourse, no matter whether one side gains and tbe other side loses or not; no matter where the preponderance of ad- vantage is, we believe in untrammeled commercial intercourse among theffhole human family. I am not at all disposed to quarrel with tbat doctrine. But that is not the case we are trying here. We are trying Jcaseundera treaty where there has been an exchange of free Hsh against free fishery, and you are to say on which side the preponderance of benefits lies. We have no right, then, to indulge theories as to uni- versal freedom of trade, because we are bound by a charter under which he are acting. You are to have regard to this question, so the treaty Kys. Everybody has had regard to it since it first began to be agitated ID botb countries. Statesmen, public writers, business men — they have •11 considered it of the utmost consequence, and certainly this uumuiis- son, enjoined in the treaty to have regard to it, are not going to disre- JMditaud leave it out of consideration. 1628 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Now, am I not right in saying tliat the whole value of whatever flsh ■we catch in the territorial waters of these provinces, wheu himled oii the shores of the provinces, or landed on the decks of our vessels, is of far less pecuniary magnitude than the direct pecuniary gain resultiutr from free importation into our markets! And that is a gain that is cou- stantly increasing. Twice as large a quantity has gone from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to Boston this year as wcDt last year up to the same date, and, making a moderate allowance for the vkm. tudes of the business, ^nd for one year being a little worse than another there has been a continued-development of the fishing business and fish- ing interests of these provinces ; and what has it sprung from ? Do not these gentlemen ujiderstand the sources of their own prosperity ! Do they not know when they speak of the business having developed that it is the nnirket that has developed the business! They cannot eat their mackerel ; they have too good taste to desire to eat tliem, ai)par- ently, after they are salted. The only place wliere they are able to dU pose of them is in the United States. There is no evidence that the price of the fish has lieen lowered to the consumer by the circumstance that any more comes from the provinces than did formerly, when the diitv was imposed upon it. The price to the actual consumer has remained tlie same. If it could be shown that there has been a trifling reductioa to the consumer, is that of any consequence compared with this direct and overwhelming advantage which the provincials gain! Why, it is not only in this fish business that the control of the United States mar- kets bears with such tremendous power upon the productions of the Dominion. In 1850, when the subject of reciprocity was being dis- cussed, Mr. Crarapton, then British minister at Washington, requested Hon. William Hamilton Merritt, a Canadian of distinction, to prepare a memorandum on the subject, which I have here before me. He is speaking of the eflfect of duties in the United States on Canadian pro- ducts generally. He says: The imports from Canada since 1847 have in no instance affected the market in New York. The consumer does not obtain a reduction of prices; the duty is paid by the fjrrowf r, as shown by the comparative prices on each side of the boundary, which have averaged in proportion to the amount of duty exacted. The Canadians, in their fishing industry, as I have said over and over again, have very great natural advantages over the fishermen of the United States in the cheapness with which they can build their vessels and hire their crews, and the cheapness of all the necessaries of life. This increased cheapness is virtually a bounty upon the Canadian fish- eries. It gives them the effect of a bounty as compared with United States fishermen. While there was a duty upon imported fish in the United StiMs it counteracted that indirect bounty. Jfow that the duty baa been taken away, this immense development of the fishing interests | of the provinces, of which they are so proud, and of which they have said so much, has taken place, and out of this salt-mackerel business it | seems to me that they are quite sure eventually to drive the American fishermen. Everybody is going into the business, in Prince Edward j Island, as their witnesses say. Out of three hundred tishermeu from one port who used to be in our vessels, and who have returned, hardly twelve are going back to the Unite«l States. They are going to havea monopoly of this branch of the fishing industry. It has been of great value to them; it will continue hereafter to be of greater value to them; and it is a value that no vicissitudes in the business are likely to take from them, because there is a certain quantity of mackerel which they will be able to catch near houie which they can aliurd to sell iu the mar- AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1629 kets of the United States at low prices, and from which they cannot fail to derive a very great and permanent advantage. Gentlemen of the Cointniasion, I have tried to mnko a business speech on a business question, and I shall spare my own voi(;e and your patience neromtion. I hope I have established to your satisfaction that the exchau^e of the right to the inshore fisheries for the free uiiirketsof the United'states leaves the preponderance of benefits and advantages lately oil the side of the Canaerial Parliuiiieut, in the course of wnich opinions might be ex])ressed by members which might irritate the people of Canada, and might moreover encourage the Fenian leaders in the United States, who have not ceased their agitation. There is, in the opinion of the committee of council, a mode by which their hands' might i)e so materially strengthened that they would be enabled not only to abaiuloi" all claims on accoant of the Fenian raids, but likewise to propose, with a fair prositecC of success, the measures necessary to give effect to those clauses in the Treaty of Wash- ingtou which require the concurrence of the Dominion Parliament. That mode is by an imperial guarantee to a ]>ortion of the loan which it will be necessary for Canada to raise in order to procure the construction of certain important public works which will be highly beneficial to the United Kingdom as well as to Canada. }iow, I ask if, iu tbe face of that official demaud for a guarantee of that loan iu coiupensatlon for tbe sacrifice of tbe fisberies, wbicb demand was recoguized as just, and granted by tbe British Government, it is possible to claim that tbose interests were not sacrifices wbicb were compeusated, or wbetber any construction is just, wbicb, isolating tbe articles of this treaty, and converting it into a separate negotiation, tleterniines that tbere were certain Imperial advantages gained by tbe British Government iu return for tbe sacrifice of tbose fisberies, and tiieDclaiius that that compensation should be made part and parcel of the consideration in a case like this? 1 beg you to understand distinctly tliat 1 do not contend that this Commission is not bound to equalize tbe tffoexchanges which have been committed to them. That is their duty. But I mean to sa^ that, in making that equalization, they are bound to consider nothing but the specific value of the articles exchanged, and that the question whether or not equalization is compensation for any sacrifices made by the treaty is one with which they have nothing to |>lo; the question which is submitted to them is the value, and nothing flse.of tbe two exchanges. It is not tbe duty, nor is it within the power ot tliis Commission, as the British counsel seem to suppose, to make tbe treaty of 1871 an equal treaty, but simply to equalize a specific exchange of values under a special provision of that treaty. It is precisely, as far I as you are concerned, as if, instead of the exchange of fishing privileges, "it treaty had proposed an exchange of territory. For instance, if that 1636 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. '"ftS treaty had proposed the exchange of Maine and Manitoba, and the United States had maintained that the value of Maine was much larger thau Manitoba, and referred it tofou to equalize the exchange. It \» verv manifest that to New England, for instance, it might not only hedis advantageous, but very dangerous ; but the only question for you to con- sider would be the relative value of the two pieces of territory. 80 here, I do not care what the consequences may be. It may Im) that when you have e(iualized these privileges so as to make theVxchauge of privileges precisely even, that then the consequences of tiie exchaiij;e of fisheries might be the destruction of all the fisheries of Prince Ed- ward Island, the entire destruction of the fishing industry of the niari time ])roviuceR. But that is a matter with which you have nothing to do. This is a consequence of the treaty, and not a coui^equeuce of the difference in value between the two articles of exchange which you are called ui)on to appraise. The same principle would lead to this result also, that with the con sequential profit or loss of the fisheries you have nothing to do. You have a right to measure the value of the fisheries as they are, and what they are, but you have no right to put into that estimate a calculatiou of the enterprise, industry, skill, and capital which the American pat^ into the fishery ; that is, brains and money and experience, which is cd tirely foreign to the fishery, as a fishery. It is free to be employed any where else, and you have no right to calculate that. The fish in the water have a certain value, but the skill and capital and enterprise which are required to take them out does not belong to the fishery, as fishery ; and it is not a matter that you have any right to take into cal culation. Take, for example, the extraordinary principle that is stated in the British Case, on page 34 : A participation by fisbermen of tbe United States in tbe freedom of tiiese waters mnst, notwitbstandinfr tbeir wonderfully reproductive capacity, tell materially od the local catcb, and, wbile uflbrding to tbe United States fishermen a profitable euiployment. mnst seriously interfere with local success. Is that a principle of calculation which you can only apply to a case like this? Was there ever a case of such absolute forgetfuiness of that homely old proverb, over which every one of us has painfully stumbled in his walk through life, that "you cannot eat your cake and have it too'! Why, take that favorite and apt illustration of the British Case, a ten ancy for shooting. If I exchanged a grouse moor in Scotland for a pheasant preserve in England, and my friend. Her British Majesty'^ Agent, was arbitrator to equalize their values, what would be think of the claim that the grouse moor was the more valuable^ because I used a breech-loader, carried two keepers with extra guns, shot over dogs cost iug 100 guiueas apiece, and bagged a hundred brace, where the other sportsman stuck to the old muzzle-loader, carried no keeper, shot over ; an untrained pointer, and only bagged twenty-five brace, or to the still j more extraordinary complaint, that tbe freedom of the moor, notwith- standing its wonderful reproductive capacity, must tell materially on j the local shooting, and while affording the lessee profitable aud pleasant employment, " must seriously interfere" with the pot-shooting of the boys of the lessor's family t And this is j ust precisely the argument that our friends have made. They undertake, not to decide the value of the fishery, but they undertake to put into arbitration here what we do with j the fishery. That is, we are to pay, not only for tbe privilege of goin? mackerel-fishing in the bend of Prince Edward Island, but we are to j pay for every dollar of capital and industry we employ, and for the nienj AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1637 employed, and the rcsalt of that combination is the money to which they are entitled. So'also with the consequential damages, with regard to the destruc- tion uf flab, trawling, seining, and all those things with which you have nothing to do. I think I can reply to the whole of that by a very pithy sentence, nttered by one of your citizens, who was very famous, the late Joseph Howe, in a 8|)eech made in my country in regard to the tisberies here. He said, " As for the destruction of the fisheries, when oue tboiigiit that the roes of thirty cod supply all the waste of the American, British, and colonial fisheries, it was not worth while to dis (ttss that question'*; and I do not think it is, either. Because all those arguments apply to the treaty. They are very good reasons why the e!chun{!:e never should have been made at all, why American fishermen never should have been admitted at all, why the treaty should never have been made; but they are arguments which cannot be employed in the consideration of the question submitted to you — the value of the fishery. And now, with regard to this question of consequences, there is but one other illustration to which I will refer, and I will be done. I find, at the cbse of the British testimony, an elaborate exhibit of IGG lights, fog-whistles, and humane establishments used by United States fisher- men on the coast of the Dominion, estimated to have cost in erection, from the Sambro lighthouse, built in 1758, to the present day, $S32,L38, and tor annual maintenance, $268,197. I scarcely know whether to con- sider this serious; but there it is, and there it has been placed, either as the foundation for a claim, or to produce an effect. Now, if this Dominion has no commerce, if no ships bear precious freight upon the dangerous water of the gulf, or hazard valuable cargoes in the straits vbich connect it with the ocean, if no traflfic traverses the imperial river which connects the Atlantic with the great lakes, if this fabulous fishery, of which we have heard so much, is carried on only in boats so !roportions and its most odious form, upon Qs, and upon us alone f But that is not, perhaps, the question I should ask you. I should ask, and I do ask, where do you find, in Article 18 of the treaty, among the advantages which the Treaty of 1871 gives us, and authorizes you to value, any such "advantage" as the use of light-houses and fog- thistles? And if you decided, and properly decided, that you could not take into consideration the advantages of commercial intercourse, purchasing bait and supplies, and the privilege of transshipping, be- cause they were not given by the treaty, identified as they were with 1638 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the use of the fishery, how can yon be asked even to take this prepos. terous claim into consideration ? If the principle laid down by the British Case (p. 13) is true, " It is submitted, that in order to estimate the advantages thereby derived, respectively, by subjects of tiie Uoited States and of Great Britain, the following basis is the only one wbicb it is possible to adopt, under the terms of the first portion of Article 18 of the Treaty of Washington of 1871, viz, that the value of the privi leges granted to each country, respectively, by Articles IS, 19, and 21, of that Treaty, tchich were not enjoyed under the 1st Article of the Conveniion of the 20th October^ 1818, is tbat which the Coraraissiou is constituted to determine"; if this principle of interpretation be true, liow can such a demand be made until it is shown that, under the 1st Article of the Convention of 1818, the i>rivilege of using the lighthouses and fog. whistles, that is, the privilege of seeing a light or hearing a sound, was not enjoyed ? Illiberal, unjust, and narrow as was the policy of tliat Convention, it has not yet been charged with so grievous an offense against humanity. It might stop our fishing, bat it did not assume to stop our sight and hearing at the three-mile limit. And in leaving this question of "consequences," I may say, in jiisfi!!. cation of the length with which I have dwelt on it, that this "conise queutial'' — I might almost say "inconsequential" — reasoning pervades the whole British Case, and infects the whole cross examination of counsel on the other side. The eflFort has been studiously made to create an atmosphere in with the uncertain and doubtful advantages of the treaty would loom out so largely as to deceive the inexperienced eye as to the exorbitant value that was sought to be attached to tiieru. I have but one other consideration to 8ngg«»at before I come to tbe history of this question, and it is this: If you will examine the treaties, you will find that everywhere it is the " United States fishermen,'" the " inhabitants of the United States," the citizens of the Uiiit.'d States who are prohibited from taking part in the fishery within the three mile limit. Now, I say — remember, I am not talking about local le^is lation on the other side at all, I am talking el>out treaties— I say, there is nothing in any treaty which would forbid a Nova Scotian or a Prince Edward Island citizen from going to Gloucester, hiring an American vessel with an American register and coming within thethrw- mile limit and fishing — nothing at all. If such a vessel be manned by a crew half citizens of the United States and half Nova Scotiatis, who are fishing on shares, recollect, and who take the profits of their owu catches, where is the difference? The United States citizen may vio- late the law, but are the citizens of Nova Scot'a doing so? They arc are not the " inhabitants" or " fishermen of the United States" cxcliidtd from fishing within the three-mile limii. Take the analogy suggested by the British Case. Suppose, for instance, there was a law forbidding shooting in the Dominion altogether by any one not a citizen, might not a citizen of the United States lend a gun to a citizen of tlie Dooiiii ion who wanted to shoot game and pay him for the game that he shot! It comes to this, that when Nova Scotia fishermen fish in an American vessel within the three-mile limit, alvcays supposing that they engage in the business on shares, they aro simply using an instrument ia\vt'tillv under the treaty, that the American part of the crew are using unlaw fully — that is all. I do not press this legal view, because it is one which. one of these days, will have to be taken up and decided ; I simply say that that is common-sense opinion, that if, out of 6,000 fishermon, 2,iXKl are British subjects, and fishing in American vessels, taking their own catches, making their own profits, in that case you cannot in eqnitv AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1659 : assume to ami justice consider that as part of the privilepje givtn to the fisheriueu or iuliabitants of the United States. 1 am glacl I am furnishing taj friends sonietbinj?; to think of, even if it amuses them. Mr. Thomson. You are. Mr. Trescot. I thought I was. The three points which I make, are these: 1. That in valuing the exchange of privilege, the extent to which the oriviiege is offered is a fair subject of calculation, and that a privilege onened to "all British subjects" is a larger and more valuable privilege iban one restricted to only the British subjects resideiit iu the Dominion. 2. That in valuing the exchange oC privilege, only the direct value oau be estimated, and the consequences to either party cannot be taken into accoaut. 3. That so far as British subjects participate in the inshore fishery in I'uited States vessels up in shares, their fishery is in no sense the fishing oftishennen of inhabitants of the United States. With regard to the history of these treaties, there are two subjects in that counectifrti which I do not propose to discuss at all. One is the Leadland qnestion. I consider that the statement made by my distin- gaished colleague who preceded mo has really taken that question out ot this discussion. I do not understand that there is any claim made here that aity portion of this award is to be assessed for the privilege of coining within the headlands. As to the exceedingly interesting and very able brief, submitted for the other side, I am not d'sposed to quar- rel with it. At any rate, I shall not undertake to go in o any argument upon it. It refers entirely to the question of territorial right, and the question of extent of jurisdiction — ipiestions with which the United States has nothing to do. They have never been raised by our govern- ment, and probably never will be, because our claim to fish within the threeaile limit is no more an int'irfereuce with territorial and jurisdic- tional rights of Great Britain than a right of way through a park would t)e an intertierence with the ownership of the property, or a right to cut timber in a forest would bean interference with the fee-simple in the soil. Mr. Thomson. Do you mean to say ihere would be no interference t'iere f Mr. Foster. Certainly not. It would be simply a sf-rvitude. You do Dit. mean to say that my right to go through your farm interferes with the feesiniplo of the property ? Mr. Thomson. It does not take away the fee-simple, but it interferes with my enjoyment of the property. Mr. Tke.scot. That is another question, because compensation may be found and given. I simply say that it does not interfere with the terri- torial or jurisdiction right. That is the view I take of it, at any rate, ami 1 thiuk 1 can sustain it, if it ever becomes necessary. Tlieu, with regard to the character of the Couvention of ISIS. I wish to put on record here my profound conviction i.hat, by every rule of diplo- matic interpretation and by every established precedent, the Convention of 1818 was abrogated by the Treaty of 1854, and that when that treaty wa8 ended, in 18«i(3, the llnited States aud Great Britain were relegated to the Treaty of 1783 as the regulator of their rights. That proposition I'^ill maintain whenever the proper time arrives. But certa nly I am Dot at lil)erty to take that ground here at all, and for this reason : that by the action of the tWo governments aud by the formal incorporation, » to speak, ..' the Treaty of 1818 in the Treaty of 1871, that treaty is made 'tit practical rule of decision iu this case ; consequently, we have noth- k .**„ r:'¥\.,:,,: 1640 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ./ ' f' ing to do with that, except t4> say this : that the Treaty of 1818 depends for its validity and its existence upon the headland question ; that the two stand or fall together ; because the Convention of 1818 was a relin- quishment of certain rights upon certain conditions, and if those condi- tions are not understood in the same sense by the parties to .lie contract. the contract ends or is to be submitted to arbitration. If,then.thetreatv of 1871 should end, with nothing else to supply its place, it would be ab- solutely necessary either that the headland question should be settled or the Convention of 1818 should be considered as annulled. 1 cannot enter into the history of the treaties as fully a« I could wish.* The subject is not only one of great historical intereiit, but in certain contingencies would be of direct consequence. It cannot, however, be treated briefly, or without traveling too far from the immediate qaeetion at issue. I will, therefore, only summarize those conciM-iwus which are relevant to the present investigation. And I refer to V em in this connection ivecausi*, iiaderlyin«: the whole British Case, just like the consequentini argument to wliich I have already referred, there runs the assumption that in all tli-«:. rii,.,j.. tions the policy of the United States has tveen one of t-ti. roatMiiK ind invasion, while the conduct of Great Britain Um^ l)een that oi geue ii> concession. Never was there an assumption more entirely the reverse of historical truth. The Treaty of 1783 ascertains and defines what were th ^ oriiorinal rela tions of the parties to this controversy. I need not rea \i< jit visions. but I do not think I will be contradicted when I say that :^i were sim- ply the recognition of absolute and equal rights. The separation of the Colonies rendered necessary not only their recognition, but the definite and precise adjustment of their territories and possessions ; and among the latter was recognized and described, not as a grant or coucession. but as an existing right, the use of the fisheries, not only as they had been used, but as they ever sLould be used by British subjects. Keserv ing the territorial and jurisdictional rights on the adjacent shores to the owners of the laud, the fisheries, the right to use the waters for the pur- pose of fishing, was made a joirt possession. At that time the only parties in interest were the citizens of the United States and the British owners of a few fishing settlements along the coasts. The parties who are now the real complainants were not Mien even in existence. Speak of encroachments! Encroachments o[H)a whom t AVhy, in those days, where was Newfoundland, who come* here to-day as an independent sovereignty and invests her distinguished representative with a measure of ambassadorial authority ! Not even a colony — a fishing settlement, owned by a British corix>ration, gov emed without law by any naval oflBcer who happened to be on rhe coast with a marline spike in one hand and the articles of war in the other: no Englishman allowed to make a home on the island, and th( number of women permitted to reside there limited, so as to prevent tlie growth *Tbe Britidh Case, refcrriujj to the Treaty of 17d;{, says : "' The rights c«ii) ceded to tbe United States fishermen under this treaty were by no means so great as thi se which, as British subjects, they had enjoyed previous to the war of Indei»endeDce : l.>r they were not allowed to land to dry and cnre their tish iu any p.trt of Newfoundlaud. and only iu those parts ot'Nova Scotia, the Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, where no Biiiish nettle- ment had been or m>ght be formed, expressly ext-lading Cape Breton. Prince Edward Is- land, and ot her places." There is no express exclusion of Cape Breton and Prince Edwant Island in the treaty. Both were acquired l>y the Treaty of 17iW. and were formally annexed to Nova Scotia. It was not nnti' 1770 thj»t Prince Edward Islniid hivi a *pa I'ate government a« an exneriment. »vi^ a verv i><«»r ex<»erin»ent it tiTiuii oat to lif. To the American negotiators of 1783; Nova Scotia included both Cape Breton aui Prince Edward Island. ^ ^ ^m^^ AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1641 of a native population. Where was Prince Edward Island, which speaks today through a ]>remier and assembly ! Why, in the early years of the Revolution, an American skipper, not then having the fear of the three-mile limit before his eyes, entered that famous bend, of which we have beard so much, tishing for men instead of mackerel, and he caught the governor and the executive council — a catch which, I am sure, my friend on the other side will admit to be all " number ones" — and car- ried them to General Washington, who, not knowing what use to put them to, treated them as our witnesses have lold us the fishermen treat Toang cod, threw them back into the water, and told them to swim home again. Why, the very names with which we have become so familiar in the last months — Tignish and Paspeb' ic, Margaree and Chetticamp, Sciminac and Scatterie — had not then risen from the obscurity of a ralgar geography, to shine in the annals of international discussion. There was then no venerable Nestor of Dominion politics, to whose experienced sagacity the interests of an empire might be safely in- trusted; there were no learned and dignified queen's counsel to be drawn up iu imposing contrast to the humble advocates who address voufroin this side of the table. There was no minister of marine, with one hundred and sixty-five fog-whistles at his command, ready to blow a blast of triumph all along the coas^ upon the receipt of this award. Tbere were no rights to invade, and the maritime provinces and the Dominion came into existence subject to the conditions of national life which that treaty created. When they did come into these waters they toond us there. Our rights and the character of our rights, under the Treaty of 1783, we never questioned or disputed for over «. quarter of a century, not nntil the war of 1812, and then the question was made only as an effort of diplomatic finesse. The Treaty of 1783 had given to British subjects the right of navigation on the Mississippi River, under the belief that the boundary line between the two countries touched the sources of that river. By 1814 it was discovered that this was not so, and as the right to use the territory of the United .'^tates to reach the river had not been given, the right to use the river was not available. Then was invented the theory that the war of 1812 abrogated the Treaty of 1783, and by it the British Government were enabled to propose ta renew the fishery articles, if we would remodel and make effective the article as to the Mississippi. We denied the theory. I will not, of course, trouble yon with any detailed account of the negotiations. The correspondence between Mr. Adams and Lord Bathurst and the negotiations of the Treaty of Ghent are matters of familiar history. The question thus raised was left unsettleti, both governments main- tainiug their positions until the Convention of 1818. Two things are evident from that convention. First, that our r. ht, as we maintained it, to the iushore fisheries was recognized, bee?. <^e Great Britain ac- cepted from us the relinquishment of a portion of it, and by accepting what we gave recognized our right to give. Second, that we relin- 'Hiished this right because our fishing was at that time entirely a deep- sea fishing, and because the settlement of the coasts of the maritime prov- inces and the deVv^lopuitMit of local colonial fisheries, anticipated in the Treaty of 1783, were yow being realized. That convention was a friendly amlliberal concession on the part of the United States, and when we are required to-day to ray for the restoration of the former condition, )^e are simply made to pay for our own liberality. For what are the I'renticsof 1^51, and ISTl but a ro!»torationof the conditions of the Treaty m •'j.t' -^K ii^^^ ""It ■ A\\ ^^v'}Jtf-v 1642 AWARD OF THE FISHERY C0MMI8SI0N. of 1783, accompanied by that freer commercial iotercoarse which the in- terests and the iDtelligence of both countries demand. I had proposed to trace the negotiations from 1818 to 1854 aud thence to the protocol and Treaty of 1871. But these latter were somewhat fully discussed in the argument upon the motion formerly made on be- half of the United States, and my colleague has fully explained to you how and by what agencies the restrictions of the Convention of 1818 became so odious to our people. I need not do more than refer you to the instructions of the British Government to the negotiators of the Treaty of Washington, aud recog- nise, as I do most gladly, the wisdom and liberality of their spirit, aud I now turn to the practical question which that treaty submits to your decision. I come now to the questions which that Treaty of 1871 raises, and they are simply these : What is the diflference in value gained by us and the advantages gained by you; that is to say, what is the ditference in value between the right to fish within the three-mile limit, on one side, and the right to fish on the United States shores, on the other, coupled with the right to send fish and fish-oil to the United States market free of duty. With regard to the fisheries. The fisheries with which the Treaty of 1871 is concerned are the cod, the herring, the mackerel, the hake, the haddock, and halibut fisheries, within the three-mile limit. For the pur- poses of this argument there will be, T think, a general agreement that we can dismiss the hake, haddock, and halibut fisheries. It is admitted, also, that the cod fishery is essentially a deep-sea fishery, aud does not, therefore, come within the scope of your examination, especially as the question of bait and supplies, which alone connected it with this discus- sion, has been eliminated by your former decision. We have left, then, only the herring fishery and the mackerel fishery, As to the herring fishery, I shall say but very few words. The herring fishery on the shores of the Magdalen Islands we claim of right— a few scattering catches elsewhere are not appreciable enough to talk abont; and we have, therefore, only the herring fisheries of Newfoundland and Grand Manan. The former is essentially a frozen-herring business, and I do not believe there exists a question that this business, both at Newfoundland and Grand Manan, is entirely a mercantile business, a commercial transaction, a buying and selling, not a fishing. The testi- mony on this subject is complete, aud is confirmed by Mr. Babson, the collector of the port of Gloucester, who has told you that the Glouces ter fleet, thekrgest factors in this business, take out licensee to tench and trade, when they go for frozen herrings, thus establishicig the char acter of their mercantile voyage. The only open question, then, as to the herring fishery, is the tishery for smoked and pickled herring at Grand Manan, and in the Bay of Fundy, from Latite to Lepreaux, and whether that is conducted by United States fishermen within the three-mile limit ; a question, it seeuis to me, rery much narrowed when you come to consider tliai from Eastport, in Maine, to Campobello is only a mile and a half, and troin Eastport to Grand Manan is only six or »*ven miles. Mr. Thomson. Twelve or fourteea miles. Mr. Trescot. Not according to the statement of the witnesses. But call it ten miles; still it leaves a very small umrgin to make a.i e>tiraate upon. I will not dwell upon that. The open queatiou is whether there is fishing at Grand Manan that is participated in by American fisher AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1643 ;^ii men witbia the three-mile limit, and what advantages they derive from it and what element that will make in the calculation of the award. The testimony lies in a very small compass. There are three or four vritnesses on either side. You saw and heard thorn ; and 1 am very willing to leave that whole Grand Manan business to you without one word of comment upon the testimony, except to ask you one simple qnestiJD, as plain, practical, business men. Were you compelled to- morrow to invest money in the herring fishery of Grand Manan and the adjoining mainland and islands, to whom would you go for information, npon whose judgment would you rely ; upon Mr. IVIcLean, who esti- mates the value of that Lilliputian fishery at f 3,000,000 annually, one- lialf of which is the unlawful plunder of United States fishermen — a fish- fry which, according to his estimate, would require, instead of the few uu- kiiowii vessels which cannot be named, a fleet which could not sail from any port without being registered, and making it more than one-third of all the fisheries of the United States, of all the fisheries of the Do- luiuion, and everywhere recognized; or would you go to Mr. McLaugh- lin, the keeper of one of those 165 light houses, for which we are to pay, aiii fish- warden, who says it is his duty to make inquiries of every fish- erman of his catch, but who adds that every fisherman of whom he in- quired deliberately lied to him, in order to evade the school tax, and who then proceeds to fill out the returns from his inner consciousness of what the returns ought to be, and makes that return double his own official return to the minister of marine ? Would you not go to the very men whom we have placed on the stand ; men who, and whose fathers have, for sixty years been engaged in purchu:ing all these fish, famishing supplies to all these fishermen, directing and controlling the whole business, and whose fortunes have been made and preserved by their precise and complete knowledge of the value and condition of this very fishery. And now as to the mackerel fishery. There are two singular facts connected with it. The first is, that valuable as it is represented to be, lying, as it is claimed to do, within an almost closed sea, the mackerel Cshery of the gulf has been until within a few years the industry of strangers. It has not attracted native capital, it has not stimulated na- tive enterprise, it has not developed native ports and harbors, while you claim and complain that it has built up Gloucester into established mlth and prosperity, and supplies, to a large degree, a great food- market of the United States. I find the following remarks in a report olComnmnder Cochran to Vice-Admiral Seymour in 1851: The curious circiiiiistance that about one thousand sail of American schoouors find livery reniiiut'iative to pursue the herring and mackerel fisheries on the shores of our Pitliern prdviiices, while the inhabitants scarcely take any, does indeed appear straujte, and apparently is to be accounted for by the fact that the colonists are want- H ill capital and euergy. The Jersey uierchants, who may be said to possess the rtoii' labor market, do not turn their attention to these branches. The business of ilie Jersey houses is geneially, I believe, with one exception, carried on by agents; tDesf persons receive instructions fro'u their employers to devote their wl\ole time and energy to flic catching and curing of cod. Such constant attention to one subject ap- pears at le,ist to eageuder a perfect apathy respecting other branches of their trade. liiey are all aware, I believe fully aware, of the advantages to be derived from catch- ups th'j herring and mackerel, when these come in shoals within a few yards of their awrs, but still nothing is done. Commercial relations of long standing, never having engaged in the trade before, IWMible wMt of the knowledge of the markets, and the alleged want of skill among , • Ml'TDien of the metho8t instances small. It will probably be diflBcalt to HI about the Bay of Chaleurs and Oaspd any fishermen not engaged by some one of I m ■J.v ■Mik-iSi ^>4'- .**'5«. ^'*^":^ / / n ry 1^': m-'^nr 1644 Award of the fishery commission. the naiierous Jersey hoaf^es, and it may be said that a new branch of industry woulil much 1. erfere with the cod-fishery, but so lucrative a trade as the herring and mack erel one would prove would enable higher wages to be given than are done for end In fact, I believe that very small, if any, wages are given at all, the money dun to the fisherman for his summer labor being absorbed in food and clothing for liinmelf and fam- ily, repairs of boats and fishing-gear, almost always deeply in debt in tlie spriog, or at any rate sufficiently so to insure his labor for the ensuing summer, and ho niore per. sons would be induced to resort here the summer season. — (Confidential OWcial Cor respondeuce, pp. 4 and 5.) This is precisely the testiinotij' of the Gaspe witnesses who were put upon the stand. The great Jersey houses, which do represent the capi tal, enterprise, experience, and skill of the country, do not touch the mackerel fisheries. As they did a quarter of a century ajjo, so they do today ; they abandon, neglect utterly what has been called the Califor nia of the coast, and make and maintain their fortunes by giving up mackerel-fishing, and confining their attention exclusively to codtisbiiiff, The other fact which strikes me is this: thr*- whate/er (levelopmeul there has been — and it has been chiefly, if not entirely, on Prince Edward Island — has come since 1854, and has grown larger and richer under the Eleciprocity Treaty. In 1853, the legislative council and as- sembly of Prince Edward Island, in colonial parliament assembled, ile clared that "the citizens of the United States have an advantage over the subjects of Your Majesty on this island which prevents all sucess ful competition, as our own fish caught on our own shores by strangers are carried into their ports by themselves, while we are excluded by high protective tarift"." — (Confidential Official Correspondence, page 5.) From 1854, two years only after this declaration, there was a large and prosperous development of the Prince Edward shore fishery. This point has been insisted on and reiterated over and over again by the British witnesses. And yet we are asked now to pay $15,OOO,0i}0 for the twelve years' use of the very privileges given by that treaty un- der which this prosperity was developed ; for, as far as the fishing arti- cles and the fisheries are concerned, the provisions and privileges of tbe Treaty of 1871 are almost identical with the treaty of 1854, the treaty under which this fishery which now demands $15,000,000 compensation, was, I may almost say, created. Passing by these topics, however, let me ask you to consider the dif ference in the character of the testimony upon which the two cases rest. I do not mean to institute any comparison between the veracity of the witnesses, or to imply that one has more than another deviated from the truth. But I can best illustrate what I do mean by asking tlie same question I did as to the herring-fishing. If you wished to invest in mackerel, would you trust the rambling stories of the most honest of skippers or the most industrious of boat fishers against the experience and the books of men like Proctor, Syl vanus Smith, Hall, Myrick, and Pew f Would you feel safe in buying whon they refused to buy? Would you be disposed to hold when you saw them selling? And here lies the whole ditterence between us. Ours is the estimate of the capitalist; theirs the estimate of the laborer. Let me take r.Qother illustration. Suppose that, instead of estimating the relative value of these fisheries, you were called on to estimate the rela tive value of the cotton crops of Georgia and Mississippi. Would it enter your minds to go into remote corners of these great States aud gather together 83 small farmers, planting on poor lands, without arti- ficial manure, without capital to hire labor, and draw your inference of production from their experience, although every word of it weretroei Would you go to a few great planters and judge of the returns of cotton- AWABD 0£ THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1645 planting frona the results of lavish expenditure ? No. Yon would go to Savannah and Mobile, to Charleston and New Yorlc, to the offices of the factors, to the counting-houses of the great buyers, to tbe receipts of tbe railroads, to the freight-lists of the steamers. I may safely say that there is no great industry, the costs and protits of which can be ascertained by such partial individual inquiry. I am willing to admit perfect honesty of intention on tbe part of tbe individuals ; but they never can understand how small a portion of a great result is the product of tbeir local contribution ; and just as a small farmer in all sincerity nieasares the crop of grain or cotton that feeds and clothes the world from tbe experience of his few acres; so tbe boat-fishermen of Prince Edward measures the mackerel-catch of the gulf by the contents of his boat, and imagines tbe few sail he sees in tbe offing of his harbor to be a huge fleet that is stealing his treasure. I mean no disrespect to very excellent people, but as I have heard their testimony, I would not but recall the humble address of the legislative council and bouse of assem- bly of Nova Scotia " to the Queen's most Excellent Majesty," in March, 1838, in which tbe fishermen of Prince Edward and the Magdalen Islands are tersely described as " a well-intentioned, but secluded and uniu- forined, portion of Your Majesty's subjects." Let me call your attention to another important point of diflference between their testimony and ours. Theirs is the affirmative in this coutention. Tbey must prove tbeir allegation. What is their allega- tion ? They allege that tbe catch of mackerel by American tishermen within the three-mile limit is of more pecuniary value to us than the right to fish in the same limits in United States waters, with the addi- tional right to send in fish and fish-oil free, is to them. We say, prove it. Now, there can be but two ways of furnishing such proof. Either tbe British counsel must produce the evidence of a positive catch of value sufficient to sustain the allegation, or they must prove such a habit of successful fishing by Americans within tbe limits as justifies tbeir in- ference of a proportion of such vplue. Tbey have not attempted to do the first. Nowhere in their evidence have they shown so many barrels of mackerel positively caught within the three-mile limit, and said, '* There is tbe number, and here is the value for which we are entitled to be paid." If all the mackerel that have been sworn to by every witness as caught within the limit — not what he has heard has been caught, or thinks has been caught, but knows from his personal knowledge — be added together, it would not make $100,000. Tbeir value would be utterly inappreciable compared with the amount claimed. They have adopted tbe other course, and by it they must stand or fall. They have put on the stand (leaving out Newfoundland) about fifty wit- nesses, who swore that they in United States ships caught mackerel within the limits, and they claim that this fact proves " the habit " of fishing within the limits. In reply, we put on an equal number of wit- nesses, who prove that they caught habitually good ftires iu the bay, without fishing within the three-mile limit. " Granted," tbey say, " but this only proves that your fifty witnesses did not fish within the three- mile limit." That is true ; but is it not equally true that their testi- mony only proves that their witnesses, and those alone, fished within the limits, and leaves tbe question simply, whether they caught enough to justify an award? To go a step further, you must prove " the habit " ot United States fishermen. But how can you prove a habit with equal testimony for and against it ? It is exactly like what all lawyers and business men know as proving " couunercial usage." In tbe absence of ^h:m W^k'vi f si; «^ ' ■'•»*« i^,-^M-*^^.v ■'"' , 1646 AWARD OP THP FISHERY COMMISSION. Statute law, if you wanted to prove " cominercial usage" at Amsteidai or New York, as to what days of grace were allowed on coinniercial paper, what would you do ? Examine the merchants of these cities is to "the habit" of commercial i)eople. Now, if flfty niercliantis swoi that one day was allowed, and another fifty swore tinve days were allowed, you might not know whether it was one or three, but yoti would know that you had not proved any " habit." Just so, if llfty Hsliorinen of a flshing-fieet swore that it was " the habit " of the lleet to fisL in. shore, and fifty swore that it was " the habit" never to ILsh inshore ynii might not know which to believe ; but supposing, what in tins case will not be disputed, that the witnesses were of equal veracity, you would certainly know that you had not proved " the habit." You will see, therefore, that the burden of proof is on oiir friends. They must prove their catch equal in value to the award tliey ciaini. If they cannot do that, and undertake to prove " habit," thea tlieyiuust do — what they have not done — prove it by an overwhelming majoritv of witnesses. With equal testimony, their proof fails. And now, with such testimony, let us take up the mackerel tisherv. Before you can fix the relative value of American or British interest in this industry, you must ascertain what it i.«. Before you can say botv it is to be divided, you must know what you are to divide. Fortuiiatelv we are agreed that there is but one market for all mackerel, whether caught on the United States shores or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and that is the United States. No statement has gone beyond the estimate of a supply from all the fisheries of more than 400,000 barrels. In fact, that is considerably above the average supply. Then no statement has gone beyond an average of $10 per barrel as the price. That makes $4,000,000. Next, I think I am safe in saying that the consent of tbe most competent witnesses has fixed 400 barrels as the limit below which a vessel must not fall in order to make a saving trip. If that be so, tbe supply of 400,000 barrels represents one thousand profitable trips. That is not catches making large amounts of money, but catches that did not lose. What, then, is the average value of a profitable trip? Take the estimates of Mr. Sylvanus Smith, Mr. Proctor, and Mr. Pew, and see what profits you can make out of even such a trip. I am taking a large result from these calculations when I take Mr. Smith's estimate of $220, where the owner runs the vessel, and that will give you from the 400,000 barrels a resultant profit of $220,000. And in this calcula- tion I have not attempted to separate the gulf catch from the United States shore catch, or to determine what portion of the gulf catch was made within t'je three-mile limit. Take the largest estimate that has been made by anybody; call the gulf catch a third of the whole; say $75,000, to avoid the fractions; and then consider half of that caught within three miles, and you have $30,000 annually, or $432,000 in twelve years, for the privilege of making which you ask over one million annu- ally, or $15,000,000 for the twelve years. But even with this result, this is aii exaggerated, a very exaggerated estimate of the value of the mack- erel fishery, because it assumes the highest catch ever known as the average. Now, there are two facts upon which all the testimony agrees: 1. The variable character of the mackerel fishery. 2. The steady dimi- nution of the supply from the gulf as compared with the supply from the United States shores. If those be taken into calculation, what margin is left for an award, especially whtn it is remembered that this award is for twelve years, and, in the opinion of those most experienced, the variation in the mackerel catch passes from its minimum to its maxi- ;num every seven years; giving, therefore, in this period but cue maxi- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1647 mum year iu return for the paytueut. (Jpou these two facts we can rest, i tlo ""^ ^^^^ ^^ S® through the testimony that you have had before you. I Jid make one or two tabuhir statements, but I do not thiuk it worth while to trouble you with them. The general results you can get at as well as I did. You know the general run of the testimony. You Icuow whether I am saying what is fairly and reasonably accurate. Our contention is that w^e have proved these points conclusively, and taking them as the basis, there is no margin whatever loft for an award ou account of profits accruing to the United States from the privilege of inshore tishing. Bat there is another fact not stated in any of the evidence, but which is clearly proven by the whole of it; and it is this: The mackerel mar- ket is a speculative market ; its profit represents simply a commercial venture, and not the protit to the fisherman. In other words, a barrel of mackerel salted, packed, and sold, produces a result in which the profit of the tisberman makes but a small part. Take the statement of Mr. Hall, that he purchases regularly from the fishermen of Prince Edward Island their mackerel at $3.75 per barrel. Now, whatever Mr. Hall sells that barrel of mackerel for above and beyond $3.75 represents capital, labor, skill, with which the fishery, as a fishery, has no concern. Between the fish in tiie water and the fish in the market there is as much dififer- ence as there id between a pound of cotton in the field and a pound of cotton manufactured; and you would have as much right to estimate the value of a cotton plantation by the value of the cloth and yarn into which its production has been manufactured, as you have to value the fisheries by the value of the manufactured fish which are sold. Suppose that Mr. Hall, or a combination of Mr. Hall's, should purchase the whole mackerel catch at $3.75, and then hold for such a rise in price as they might force. This speculation might make Mr. Hall a millionaire or a bankrupt, but would any man in his senses consider the result, be it protit or loss, as representing the value of the mackerel fishery ? So little, indeed, does the value of fish enter into the market value of the mackerel, that you have this statement from Mr. Pew, the largest and longest established fish-merchant on this continent: "No. 1 bay mackerel iu the fall were bought by us at $22.50, and piled away over viuter, and I think the next May and June they sold down as low as $14, $5, and $6 a barrel — the same fish ; and I think that shore mackerel, which had sold as high as $24, were then sold for about the same price." Would the mackerel market of that year have afforded you any fair criterion by which to appraise the mackerel fishery of that year ? What interest had the mackerel fishermen in this speculative variation of the market price? And you have the further and uncontradicted testi- nwnyof more than one competent witness that when the mackerel catch of 1870 was, with one exception, the largest ever known, prices were maintained at a higher point than in years of very small catch. Upon this state of facts, proven by such competent witnesses as Proc- tor, Sjhanus Smith, Myrick, Hall, and Pew, I submit that in estimat- ing the value of the fishery you can only take the value of the raw material— that is, the fish as taken by the fisherman and by him sold to the merchant; and even then the price he receives represents, besides the value of the raw material, his time, his labor, his living, and h's ^'hill. For tliroughout this argument you must not forget that the liiiiisli Government gives us nothing. For the freedom from duty, and tlie right to fish in United States waters, it gives us the privilege only ot using our own capital, enterprise, and industry within certain limits. It cannot secure us, and does not offer to secure us, a single fish. It h 1 Y m^- Air m ,,r^f^,4 ,^;„; ■i,a*^'?i 1G48 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 8 't .^'.1 rP' JL t; m :•§ III »-6 .■\r*' % 'H ''^'■■■^i 3v 5f3! 1. ; ' ' '■■{>«;■ il'-^ ^A^ cannot control tliu watciH or the inliabitnntH thereof. It ciiiiiiot ^Miiirun too that in the twelve years of tlio treaty the catch in tlui jjulf will ho oven tolerable, and, indeod, for the tlvo years that have jili-viidy riuiit has been pnre loss. And yet the Ih-itish (Jaso demands tliut W(! Hhould pay not only for the little we do catch, but for all that, under otliorcir cumstanccR, wo nn{i;ht catch ; and not only that, but that wu sLouM pav for all the ilsh that the British ilsherinen do not catch ! We contend, then, that we have jiroved that the niackcicl llsliery of tho gulf is so variable that it otVers no certainty of ])rotit; that the use of the gulf tlshery has diuunishotl steadily ; that in the gidt' Micro jh no evidence of any habitual ilshing within the thrco-niilo litnit; that an equal number of experienced and competent fishermen prove tliat thov o iissiniH'd, as siiroiipnil primriplo, that tlinronsmiior pavstlio ilutv, itis o(iiially true tliat lio pt in case of iirtieles of luxury, sueh as rare books, i(i\vels, costly wiiuis, scieutilUi instriuueuts, worlds of art, the in- creasi" of duly »'atiu(>t, and never has been, imposed eutinsly ujiou tho consume. j. If this be true, then you must ascertain what is the i)roi»ortion (»f iniTOiisc in |)ri(^e of niatdierel c(UiNe(pient upon the duty which is paid bv the consunier, before you can say what lie, the consumer, fjaiiis by tli(> rcmoviil. There has been no attempt to do this on the part of coun- sil, Our most exjjerienced witnesses testify that the additional duty of •il' would raise the price of mackerel about fifty cents a barrel, wliiidi voiild leave $l.M to be paid by the [iroducer. I do not undertake to say whether this is rifjlit or wroiifj, for J am discuNsinj; the [uinciple. not the amount. The question is an insoluble one. You have been tohl bv competent witnesses, and after a fbituifjht's |)reparation for rebuttal tiipy have not been contraH, while for ten years the price to tho daily consumer has scarction is immediately reduced; and, acbiVd to all this, that the compotition of fresh fish is fast driving it out of use. ^^itll all these conditions to be ascertained first, who can ever say what proportion of duty is paid by the producer and what by the coiisniner, or if any is paid by tho latter? I do not believe it is possible to do it, but if it were possible to do it you cannot make it an offset. If you undertake to make an ott'set of it let us know what it is. We state our account. Wo take this statement and we say, " In the year 1874 the duty remitted was $.355,972." Now, what are yon going to sot oil" against that? — an opinion, a theory, a be- lief, a speculation to weigh it down with ? If yOu are going to set off dollars against that, tell us how many dollars in 1874 you are going to set oft against that. How are you going to find out? How can you ever tell us ? iJut if the gentlemen's theory is right, they have not con- verted it into a i)ractical theory that you can ai)ply. If they will under- take to tell us, "In 1874 and 1875 we will show you a reduction of price iu nia(!k((r(d to a certain number of consumers to the amount of 8-00,000 or .iiL'.>0,O(K>," strike the balance. But you cannot strike the balance with ail opinion. Beforo they can make this claim they must submit tbt shiteinent to us. But I do not intend to dwell upon that, for this reason. The principle that I hold ought to be applied to tho solution of tills question is this: that it is one with which, under tho treaty, you have iiotbiuft on eartli to do. If our friends on the other side could show, dol- lar for dollar, that every dollar of tho $355,000 remitted by the renewal ot the duty was $355,000 to the benefit of the American consumers, you coaki not reckon it. ^'ow, let us look at the treaty : Articu: XXII. Inasruiich as it is asserted bv the Government of Her Britannic Majesty Wat the privileges accorded to the cilizena of the United States, under Article XVhiot 104 F '^■v^ Hii ■t:|.r '•• iii^'^^-'J':T\|.4^*^l' ^'^lvV2^r ' ■■■'i.'i; J^^'^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 I.I 14^ m IM ii? m IIIIM %m 1^ IIIIIM •bU<. IM 1-25 1.4 III 1.6 < 6" ► V] /^ /: y /^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO (716) 872-4503 % \ ^ <> 1650 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION this treaty, are of grr. ier valoe than tbom accorded by Articlefl XIX ami XXI of ih' treaty to the aubjeota of Her Britannic Majesty, and this amertiou is not admitted k tbe Oovernment of the United Statea, it ia further agreed that Coniiuiwoiipn shall hi appointed to determine, having regard to the privilegea accorded by the (•nit««i stjl to the ^abjecta of Her Britannic M^eaty. aa stated in Artiolee XIX and XXI •>? tlr* treaty, the amount of any compensation which, in their opinion, ou^rht to 'le nM \.y the Oovernment of tbe UnitMl Statea to the Oovemf'tnt of Her Britaunie MaL^tT / return for thepririleget accorded to the cituenao/tke United State* under ArtkU Xfji/ * Now, under this treaty there stands before yon to day a balance, oo one arm of which hangs the 18tb Article of the Treaty of 1871, and on the other the 19th and 2l8t Articles. You cannot add to either 8e inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Hrr Britannic Majesty, tbe liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty, to take fi^h of every kind, except shell-fish, on the sea-coaHts and tbore^ and in the bays, harbors, and i-reeks of the Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scntia.aud N«v Brunswick, and the Colony of Prince Edward Island and of the several islands that- unto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with penniv aion to land npon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon tbe Ma);dak& Islands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish. That is the only advantage which is given to us by the ISth Article of the treaty, and it is the only advantage so given to us, the value ot which you have any right to estimate. I am perfectly willing to admit a set-off of this kind, which is provided for apparently. It is agreed io Article XXI that for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty, flsh-oil and fish of all kinds (except &Ah of the inland lakes and of the rivers falling into them, and except fish pretterred io oil), being the produce of tbe fisheries of the United States or of tbe Dominion of Canada or of Prince Edward Islaud, shall be aduiittel iuto each country, respectively, free of duty. Now, if against the $350,000 of duty remitted upon fish and fish oil im ported from tbe Dominion into the United States, you can set oB aor duty on fish and fish-oil imfwrted from the United States into Canada, you will have the right to do it ; but that is the extreme limit to whieh, under the words of that treaty, you have a right to go. It is nothing whatever to you whether the advantage to as is great or small of the remission of that duty. It is a positive advantage to the citizens of tbt DominioLi ; it is given to them as an advantage, and in return for it thej have given us a right to do one thing and nothing else, and under thai treaty you have no right to value any other advantage against as. I have now stated, as concisely as I have been able, the scope of oor argument — the principles which we think ought to be applied to tbt solution of this question. As to tbe facts, you will judge them bv tbt impression tbe witnesses have made upon yourselves, and not by aoj representations of the impressions they have made upon us. And vt fully and gratefully recognize that you have followed the testimony vitb patient and intelligent attention. It seems to me (and this I would say rather to our friends on tbe other side than to yon) that at tbe end of this long investigation, tbt ^ true character of tbe case is not difficult to see. For a century the n- AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1651 lattoosof the two coaiitries on this question have been steadily improv- me. ^^ have passed from the jealous and restrictive policy of the C^vention of 1818 to the free aud liberal system of the Treaty of 1854, tod, with good sense and good temper, it is impossible that we should erer go backward. The old feuds and bitternesses that sprang from the BerdatioQ have long since died out between the two great nations, and tn fact, for Great Britain, the original party in these negotiations, has l,Mu ac Mtitntetl a nation of neighbors and kinsmen, a nation working *ith as in the wise and pros|)erou8 government of this vast continent, Thieh is onr joint possession ; a nation, I may add, without presump- tion or offense, whose existence and whose growth is one of the direct (ooseqnences of onr own creation, and whose future prosperity is bound Qp with oar own. In the Treaty of 1871 we have reached a settlement Thieh i* depends upon yjur decision to make the foundation of a tirm tad lasting union. Putting aside for the moment the technical plead- ings and testimony, what is the complaint and claim of the Dominion f it is that where they have made of the flshery a common pro|)erty, opened what they consider a valuable industry to the free use of both eoantries, they are not met in the same spirit, and other industries, to them of 64|nal or greater value, are not opened by us with the same friendly liberality. I can And no answer to this complaint, no reply to this demand, but that furnished by the British Case, your own claim to reeeive a money compensation in the place of what you think we ought to hare given. If a money compensation is reGom|)ense — if these nn- tqaal advantages, as yon call them, can be equalized by a money pay- ssent, carefully, closely, but adequately estimated — then we have bought the right to the inshore fisheries, atid we can do what we will with our own. Then we owe no obligation to liberality of sentiment or commu- Dity of interest ; then we are bound to no moderation in the use of our pnnlege,and if purse-seining and trawling and gurry-poison and eager (mnpetittou destroy your fishing, as you say they will, we have paid the damages beforehand; and when at he end of twelve years we count the cost, and find that we have paid exorbitantly for that which was profitless, do you think we will be ready to renew the trade, and where tod bow will we recover the losst ^o. I believe that this treaty as it stands executed today, interpreted in the broad and liberal spirit in which it was conceived, is, whether yon npad the interests of the maritime provinces or the wider interests of the whole Dominion, a greater advantage in the present and a larger promise in the future than any money-award which may belittle the lar^ liberality of its provisions. As it stands it means certain progress. Tbe tborongh investigation which these interests have now for the first tine received, a few years, a few months of kindly feeling and common iaterest will supply all its deficiencies and correct all its imperfections. And, therefore, do I most sincerely hope tliat your deciiiiou will leave it 80. free to do its own good work, and then we who have striven to- gnher. not, I am glad to say, either unkindly or ungenerously, to reach woe jast conulnsion, will find in the future which that treaty contains the wiwet solution, and we shall live to sne all possible differences which ■IT have disturbed the natural relations of the two countries, not re- motely but in the tomorrow of living history, not metaphorically but literally, "iu the deep bosom of the ocean buried." 1652 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMldSIOX. VI. CL03IXO AKJil'MEXT OF HON. KICMIARD II. DANA, Jk., OX BEHALKOFTIU IXITED STATES. ' Friday, Xoranber 9, H7;. JIajf it pUa»e Yonr ErcelUHcy ami Yuur Honora : Certainly, in the diMcharge of our respective duties on tlii^ bi);h oocasiou, we are met under most favorable auspices. Our tribunal u cue of our own selection. The two parties to the question, iitv»t lint ain and the United States of America, have each chosen iu re|tn~«eut ative n|»ou the Hoard ; and, as to the President and Umpire uf the Tn bunal, while the treaty obliged us, by reason of the laiise of time, i< refer the ap|ioiutment to the representative of a foreign |M>\ier at I»u don, yet it is well known that the appointment was miule in tunforuiitv with the expressed wish of those governments, who found, as the hv^il of this court, one with character so elevated and accomplishineatH >o rare that they had no difficulty in agreeing uiion him them.selves. We have been fortunate, gentlemen of tho Commission, that no mis fortune, no serious accident, in the long period of three months tbat n^ many gentlemen have been together, has fallen upon us. The sbaduT of death has not crossed our path, nor that of any of ours at a «li!»tauc<-. uor even has siekness visited us in any perilous manner. We have been sustained all the while by the extreme hospitality and kindntaK oi the iieople of this city, who have done everything to make oar stay berv as agreeable as i»ossible, and to breathe away any feeling we mighi have had at the beginning that there might be any antagoniiiui vbicb would be felt beyond the legitimate contests of the professioo. The kindest feeling and harmony prevail among us all. Your legislature of this province has set apart for our use this beautiful hall, and while mv friend and associate, Mr. Tresoot, saw, in the presence of the ixirtrai: of His Majesty, which looks down u|)on us from the walls, an eDcoura;.^ meut for the settlement of the matter confided to us, becau.se that kiug 8ap|M>sed it setrled more than a hundred years ago, I confess tbat tht presence of that image has been to me throughout intere.sting aud al moet painful. U was the year that he ascended to the throne tbat tli^ French were finally driven from North America aud that it all became BritUh America, from the southern coast ot Georgia up to the Nurth Pole, and all the^e islands and peninsulas which form the Gulf of -St. Lawrence passed uniler his scepter. Aud what a s|>ectacle for bimu> look down upon now, after a hundred years ! A quiet assembly of gro tlemen, without any parable or ostentation, without an armed tidier at the gate or door, settling the vexed question of the fislierie.s wbirb, ii former times and under other ausi/iues, would have been cauiie euougli for war. And settling them between whom f Between his old thirteen colonies. now become a republic of forty millions of people, bounded by ^'as aud zones, and his own empire, its scepter still held in his own line, by the daughter of his own son, more extended, and counting an iinmeuael.v larger population than when he left it, showing us not only the magui- tnde, and increase, and greatness of the republic, but the stability, tbe ■ecurity aud the dignity of the British Crown. Yes, gentlemen of tbe Commission, when he ascended the throne, and before that, when hi? grandfather, whose portrait also adorns these walls, sat upon the throne of England, this whole region was a field of contest between Fraooe m Great Briuin. It was not then British North America. Which sbouM AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1653 bold them, witb theAe islands and peninsulas and these fisheries, adja> cent to and abont them, depended npon the issue of war, and wars one after another; but (ireat Britain, holding certain possessions here, claimed them, and niassels, that sailed to Louisburg, invested and took it for the British Crown, in trust for the British Crown and her colonies. Gridley, vholaid out the fortifications at Bunker Uill, and Prescott, who defended tbem, v«ore in the expedition against Louisburg. And wherever there was war between France and England for the possession of this conti- nent, or any part of it, or these islands and these fisheries, the militia and volunteers of Masstichnsetts fought side by side with the regulars of Great Britain. They fought under Wolfe at Quebec, under Amherst and Lord Howe at Ticonderoga ; and, even at the confluence of the Alleghany and Monongahela, Washington commanded under Braddock. We followed the British arms wherever they followed the French arms. Tbe soldiers of Massachusetts, following them to the sickly sugar islands of the West Indies, lay side by side ou cots in the same fever-hospitals m\ were buried in the same graves. And if any of you shall visit the old country again, and your footsteps may lead you to Westminster Hall, you will find there a monument to Lord Howe, the brother of Admiral Howe, who fell at Ticonderoga, erected to his memory by the Province of Massachusetts; and there let it stand, an emblem of the fraternity and unity of the olden times and a proof that it was together, by our joint arms and our joint enterprise, ))lood and treasure, that all these provinces, and all the rights apper- taining and connected therewith, were secured to the Crown and the colonies. Yes, gentlemen of the Commission, every one of the charters of Massachusetts gave her a right to fish in these northwestern waters, and they, you will observe, were irresi>ective of her geographical i>osi- tion. None of them watered her shores, but they were the result of the common toil, treasure and blood of the colonies and of the Crown, and they were always conceded to the colonies by the Crown. The last Massachusetts chartei granted by the Crown is in these words — it if^wKH to Massachusetts " the right to use and enjoy the trade of fish- ing on the coast of New England, and all the seas thereto adjoining, or annsof said seas, where they have been wont to fish." The test was the habit of the ))eople; "where they had," in the good old Saxon English, "been trottf to fit^h." It did not depend on geographical lines. They had no idea then of limiting the colonies to three miles, and giving them a general right on the seas, but whatever right Great Britain bad here she secured to the colonies to the last. I may as well present here, gentlemen of the Commission, as at any other time, my view respecting this subject of the right of deep-sea fish- ^- The right to fish in the sea is in its nature not real, as the common 1654 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. law hflf) it, nor immovable, as named by the civil law, but p(>m)nnl. It is a liberty. It is a frariobise or a faculty. It is not |>ro]>ert,v peruiiu- ing to or connected witb the land. It is incor|>oreul ; it in abori^nal. The right of flahing, dropping line or net into the sea, to draw from it the means of sustenance, is as old as the human race, and tie limits tliat have been set about it have been set about it in recent and iiio4U>rn times, and wherever the fisherman is excluded, a reason for excliidini; him should always be given. I speak of the deep-sea fishermen, t'ollowing the free-swimming tlsh through the sea, not of the cruHtaceouM HiiimaJH or any of those that connect themselves with the soil under the Hea or adjacent U) the sea, nor do I si>eak of any tlshing which reqnireN |k)hs«h aion of the land or any touching or troubling the bottom uf the sea ; I apeak of the deep-sea flshermen who sail over the high seas pursniog the free-swimming fish of the high seas. Against them, it \n a <]iie.stioii not of admission, but of exclusion. These tish are not property. NoIhmIv owns them. They come we know not wheiu^, and go we iiiiow not whither. The men of science have been before us, and ti8lierineii hare been before us, and they do not agree about it. Professor Baird, in a very striking passage, gave it as his opinion that tiiese tlsh retire iu tlie winter to deep sea or to the deep mud beneath the sea, and liecoine untteeti and unknown, and in the spring they invade this great uoiitineut as an army, the left wingforemost, touching the Southern HtateH tlr^4t and iuHt tlie northern parts of the British colonies. Others think tiiey go to tbe South and come back iu lines and invade this country ; but, at all events, thev are more like those birds of prey and game which retire to tbe Soutti in the winter, and api)ear again and darken the sky as they go to the North. They are no man's property ; they belong, by right of nature, to those who take them, and every man may take them who can. it is a totally distinct question whether, in taking them, he is trespassing upon private property, tbe land or park of any other individual hoUler. "The final cause,'' as the philosophers say, of tbe existence of tbe sea-tlsli '\», that they shall be caught by man and made an oltject of food by mau. It is an innocent use of the high seas, that use which I have described. More than that, it is a meritorious use. The fisherman who drops hit« line into the sea creates a value for the use of mankind, and, tberef(»re, his work is meritorious. It is, in tbe words of Burke, *' wealth drawu from the sea," but it was not wealth until it was drawn from the sea. Now, these fishermen should not be excluded except from necessity, some kind of necessity, and I am willing to put at stake whatever little reputation I may have as a person acquainted with tbe jurisprudence of nations (and the less reputation, the more important to me) to maiutaiu this proposition, that the deep-sea fisherman, pursuing tbe free-swim- ming tish of the ocean with his net, or bis leaded line, not touching shores or troubling the bottom of tbe sea, is no trespasser, though be approach within three miles of a coast, by any established, recognized law of all nations. It may possibly cross the minds of some of this tri- bunal, that perhaps that is not of very great importance to us here, but from the reflection i have been able to give to this case (and I have had time enough, surely) it seems to me that it is. I wish it to ho fully un- derstood, what is the nature of that exclusive right for the withdrawipg of which we are asked to make a money compensation f What is its nature, its history, and its object t The treaty between Great Britain and France of 1839, which provides for a right of exclusive fishery by the British on the British side of the channel, and by tbe French on the French side of the channel, and measures the bays by a ten-mile line, is entirely a matter of contract between the two nations. The treaty be. AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1655 irins by saying, not that each nation acknowledges in the other the L|it of exclimive tiahery within three miles of the coast ; nothing of the kind. It IteKins by saying, "It is agreed beUceen the two nations that (ireat Britain shall have exclusive fishery within throe miles of the British coast, and that the French shall have exclusive fishery within three miles of the French coast," and then it is further agreed that the bavs shall bo measured by a ten mile line. All arbifraiy alike, all res^ jog ou agreement alike, without one word which indicates that the law of Datioiis any more gives an exjlusive right to these fisheries by the British for three miles, than it does to measiiro the bays by ten miles. in the time of (^ueeii Elizabeth this matter suemed to be pretty well nmlerstood in England. Her Miijesty sent a commission, if I recollect right, an embassay, to Denmark, on the subject of adjusting the rela* tions between the two countries, and among the instructions given the ambassadors were these : And yon Hlmll fnrtber declare tliat the lawe of nations alloweth of Aiiliinf; in the seA ervr.vvrbere ; U8 uIho of usiiiK portit and coantH of princes in ainitie for tratHqueand »voidiu)(e (iHUKer of teuipcHtM; so that if our men be burree concIud«Ml, in any case, that the right of tithing, due by the lawe of nations, faileth ; but rather, that the omitting to require licence miglit Vj contrarie to the contract, yf any such had been in force. 8oae discussed in the 8<;Iieriment. I recolluct thiit when, befor*; our civil war, an ardent and enthusiastic admirer of slavery Haiate, fiercer than ever, *'Can Parliament take from us this right?" Well, it rested upon the assumption that all tlie ^nants the charters vested in us were held at the discretion of Parliament, au«l if Parliament could take away our fisheries, she could take away our landmarks, she could take Boston and Salem, which had been granted to us under the same charter that the fisheries had been granted ; and when that act was passed, Burke, and Fox, and Sheri^t t^he time when the Treaty of 1783 was made. Great Britain did not duiin to have conquered America, or to have talcen from u« bv military force any of our rights, and the consequence was that in frmng tbu Treaty of 1783, while they altered, by common consent, m\6 uf tUe division lines, none by right of conquest, they declared that the |)eople of the United States shall " contiirie to enjoy unmolested i)ieri{;bt to take fish of every kind on the British Banks, and all other Banks uf Newfoundland ; also in the Gulf of 8t. Lawrence, and all other plawH in the sea where tlie inhabitants of both countries used at any liuie heretofore to Qsh." What could be stronger than that T it was au acknowludgnient of a continued right possessed long before. And if any question of its construction arose, it appealed to what they had btien heretofore accustomed to do; "where the inhabitants of both coaiitriex used at any time heretofore to tish." lluw was it construed by British statesmen ? Is there any doubt about it f I take it my brethren of the colonial bar will consider Lord Luuj;bborougii good authority. He said these words in the House of Lords reH|MK!ting the fishery clause of the treaty : " Tlie ^fisheries were »otcoHa. ed, hut recognized an a right inherent in the Americana^ which, tlioHgh HO longer Britinh aubjecta, they are to continue to enjoy unmolested.'''' Tliesikiiie tiling, substantially, was said by Lord North, who had been, ve are tolti now by his biographers, the unwilling, but certainly the jiiib9e''vieut, instrument in the hands of his king for trying to deprive us of this as well as our other rights. We then did continue to enjoy tlieiii, as we had from 1G2U down. We had as much right to them as the ISritisU Crown, because it was our bow and our spear that helped to conquer tlieni. Then came the war of 1812, and we had enjoyed the liberies freely, without geographical limit, down to that time. The war of 1812 certainly did not result in the conquest of America, either mari- time or upon the laud. It was fought out u a manly way between two strong people, without any very decided result ; but after the war, in ISU, about tbu time we were making the treaty of peace at Ghent, that memorable correspondence took place between John Quincy Adams and Earl Batburst, in which Earl Bathurst took this extraordinary position, tbata war terminates all treaties. Ue took that position without lim- itaiion. Mr. Adams said, " Then it puts an end to our independence." "Xo,^ ^li^ Eiirl Bathurst's answer ; " your independence does not rest npon the treaty. The treaty acknowledged your independence as a fact, aud that fact continues. No treaty now can take it from you ; no treaty a needed to secure it to you ; but so far as it was a treaty — I mean, so tar as any right rested upon it as a treaty gift, or treaty stipulation, the w put an end to the treaty." Mr. Adams's answer was twofold ; first, be denied the position. He took the ground, which all statesmen and jorists take to-day, that a war does not, ipao/acto, terminate a treaty. It depends u|M)n the results of the war ; it depends upon the nature of tbe treaty ; it depends upon its language and terms. Each case is sui j^Mrw. Whether any war — I mean the entering into war, the fact that the two nations are at war — terminates a treaty, depends upon these questions. The treaty is put at hazard, like all other things. The tenninatioo of the war may terminate all treaties by a new treaty, or t)y oonqiest ; but the fact that there is war, which is the only proposi- tion, does not terminate any treaty, necessarily. Then Mr. Adams fur- ther 8a.T8 : " Our right does not rest upon the treaty. The treaty of 1783 1658 AWARD OF THE FIHHERY C0B1MI8SI0N. did not give ns this right. We always had it. We continued to enjoy these rights without geographical limitation, and it was conceded tiiHt we did so by the Treaty of 1783, and we no mare depend upon a treaty gift of 1783 for the right to these Hslieries than we depend npou it tor the enjoyment of oar right to our independence." Of Gourde, the f>ent\H- men of the Commission are familiar with that correspondence, and I will go no further with it. The whole subject is followed up with a ereat deal of ability in that remarkable book which has been lyiii); upon the table; I mean John Qnincy Adams's book on '* The FiHher'm mi the Missiasippi,^^ in connection with the Treaty of Ghent, and his reply to Mr. Jonathan Russell. Well, the parties could not agree, and it went on in that wny until 1818, and then came a compromise, and nothing but a uonipromi8(>. The introduction to the Treaty of 1818 says : " Whereas diHerencts have arisen respecting the liberty claimed by the United States and in- habitants thereof to take, dry, and cure fish in certain coustH, harborn, creeks, and bays of His Miyesty's dominions in America, it in agreeti between the High Contracting Parties" — it is all based upon "differ ences." Now, the position of the two parties was this: the people of the United States said, " We own these fisheries just as much today »s we did the day that we declared war." Great Britain did not declare war, nor did she make a conquest. The declaration of war was from Washington, fropa the Congress of the United States, and it ended by a treaty which said nothing about fisheries, leaving us where we were. The ground taken by the United States was that the fisheries, irre speotive of the three-mile limit, or anything else, belonged to us stiii. Great Britain said, " No ; you lost them " ; not by war, because Earl Bathnrst is careful to say that the war did not deprive us of the tish- eries, but the war ended the treaty, and the fisheries were appeude' the common apeenh of Olouoeater, tiHhing means, 0X vi tffntini, cod tiHhinff is one thin^; and " maclcereling" is another. In Mr. Adams's pnniplilet, on the 2M page, he speal^s of it as a " tishery," or in other words, cml tishery, and in 1818 the question was of the right of Knj;)»nd to exclude. Now for the tlrst time the doctrine reHi)ectiug thr three mile line had hegun to show itself in international law. Great Britain availed herself of it contrary to the in-structions given by (^ueeu Elizul)etli— a very wise princess, certainly surrounded by very wise ciianfielorH ; availed herself of it to set up a claim to exclude the deep- Ilea dsherineii, tliougli they did not touch the land or disturb the bottom ot the Hea tor a ditttance of three miles out. We denied that there was any sncli right by international law, certainly none by treaty, and cer- tainly none could be set up agaiust us, who own the right to tish. But England was a powerful nation. She fought as in 1812 and 1814 with one hand— I acknowledge it, though it maybe against the pride of American citizens — while she was fighting all Europe with the other, but 8he was now at peace. Both nations felt strong ; both nations < ere taking brei' th after a hard contlict, and it was determined that Mi Me ohould l)e an adjustment, and there was an adjustment, and it was i liis : Great Britain tacitly waived all claim to exclude us from the high su.is m\ from the King's chambers, except harbors and bays. She expressly waived all right to exclude us from the coasts of Labrador from Mouut July, northward and eastward iudetinitely through those tumbling monutains of ice, where we had always pursued our gigantic game. She expresRiy withheld all claim to exclude us from the Magdalen Isl- ands and from the southern, western, and northern shores of Newfound- land ; and as to all the rest of the Bay of St. Lawrence and the coasts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we agreed to her right to exclude as. So that it stood thus : that, under that treaty, and only under that treaty, we admitted that Great Britain might exclude us for a distance of three miles from fishing in all the rest of her possessions in British North America, except those where it was expressly stipulated nlie should not attempt to do it. So she had a right to exclude us from the three mile line from the shores of Cape Breton, Prince Edward l.sl- aod, Nova Scotia, a portion of Newfoundland, and New Brunswick, and what has now become the Province of Quebec, while she could not exclude us from the coast of Labrador, the Magdalen Islands, and the rest of Newfoundland. There was the compromise. We got all that vas then thought useful, with the right of fishing, with the right to dr}' nets and cure fish wherever private property was not involved. The Treaty of 1818 lasted until 1854 — thirty-six years. Sj we went on under that compromise, with a portion of our ancient rights secured and another portion suspended, and nothing more. Great changes took place in that time. The mackerel tishery rose into importance. You honors have had before you the interesting s{M)ctacle of au old man who thinks that he was the first man who went from Mas- sachusetts into this gulf and fished for mackerel, in 1827, or thereabouts. He probably was. But mackerel fishing did not become a trade or busi- m until considerably after 1830, and the catch of mackerel became important to us as well as to the colonies. But there were great difficulties attending the exercise of this claim of exolnsion— very great difficulties. There always have been, there ilways must be, and I prayst here always shall be such, until there be 1660 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. tree flsliiiiK hh well nn free trade in AhU. We ha<] n|)on th« HtHtid (Jan. taio Unnliiiffe, of U«r Mt^enty'M Navy, now or formerly, who \m\ taitJn an active part in HU|>erinten«lin(]( tbettu ttttlierieH, and (liivin)r otT tbe Americans. He was asked whether the maintenance of tliis marine police was not exiiensive. He said that it waa expensive in tliH extreme. that it cost £UK),000 — I believe that wns the snm named. He did not know the amount, but his lanpia^e was quite strong as to the vx\m\- siveness of excluding tlie Americans from these groundH, of inaintitin ing these cruisers. But it also br«>u{;ht about ditUuultieM between (iieat Britain and her provinces. Theprovincialauthorities,on the 12th of April 18GG, after this time (but they acted throughout with tbe same purpo-se and the same spirit) undertook to say that every bay should be a Hrit- ish private bay which was not more than ten miles in width ; following no pretence of international law, but the special treaty between Great Britain and France ; and afterward they gave out licenses for a nominal sum, as they said, for the purpose of obtaining a recognition of their right. They did not care, they said then, how much the Americans fished within the three miles, but they wished them to pay a 'Miominal sum for a license," as a recognition of the right. Well, the " nominal sum" was 50 cents a ton ; but by and by the colonial parliament thought that nothing would be a '* nominal sum" unless it was $1 a ton, and at last they considered that the best possible ''nominal sum" was $1 But Her Majesty's Government took a very different vle.v of that sab- jeot, and wherever there has been an attempt to exclude American tish- ermen from the three-mile line, there has been a burden of expense on Great Britain, a conflict between the Colonial Department at London and the Provincial authorities here. Great Britain always taking the side of moderation, and the Provincial Parliaments the side of extreme claim and extreme persecution. Then there was a difticulty in settling the three-mile line. What is three miles f It cannot be measured out, as upon the land. It is not staked outer buoyed out. It depends upon the eye-sight and judgment of interested men, acting under every \m- Bible disadvantage. A few of the earlier witnesses called by my learnml friends for the Crown undertook to say that there was no ditticulty iu ascertaining the three-mile line, but I happened to know better, and we called other witnesites, and at last nobody pretended that there was not great ditflculty. Why, for :% person upon a vessel at sea to determine the distance from shore, everything depends upon the lieightof the land he is looking at. If it is very high, it will seem very much nearer than if it is low and sandy. The state of the atmosphere atfects it ex- tremely. A mountain-side on the shore may appear so near in the fore- noon that you feel that you can almost touch it with your flnsjer's ends, while in the afternoon it is remote and shadowy, too far altogether for an expedition with an ordinary day's walk to reach it. Now, every hon- est mariner knows that is so, and knows there is great ditticulty in de termining whether a vessel is or is not within three miles of tbe shore, when she is fishing. But there is, further, another difficulty. " Three miles from tbe shore" — what shore f When the shore is a straight or curved line, it is not difficult to measure it ; but the moment you come to bays, gulfs, and harbors, then what is tbe shore f The headland question then arose, and the Provincial officials told us—the Provinces by their acts, and the proper officers by their proclamations, and the officers of their cutters, steam or sail — told our fishermen ui)on their quarter-decks — that " the shore" meant a line drawn from headland to headland, and they undertook to draw a line from tbe North Cape to the East Cape of Prince Edward Island and to say that *' the shore AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1G61 metnt thr«e miles fhim that line; and then they fenced oflf the Straits of XortliumlMrlund; they drew another line from 8t. George's to the Island of Ca|)e Breton ; they drew their headland lines wherever fancy or interest leed, was pur- sued, and the shots fired by his pursuers passed through his serty ot'nobody, but which are created to be caught by fishermen. So ai last it was determined to provide a treaty by which all this matter should be !iet aside, and we should fall back upon own early condition. >'oir, your honors will allow me a word, and I hope you will not think it oat of place — it is an interesting subject ; I do not think it is quite oat of place, and I will not be long upon it — on the nature of this right vhich England claimed in 1818, to exclude us from the three miles, by rirtueof ^me supposed principle of international law. I have stated my opinion npon it ; bnt your honors will be pleased to observe, that on that, as npon the subject of headlands, on an essential part of it, with- ont wbich it can never be put in execution, there is no fixed international law. 1 have taken i)ains to study the subject ; have examined it care- faily since I came here, and I think I have examined most of the author- ities. 1 do not find one who pledges himself to the three-mile line. It is always ** three miles," or ** the cannon-shot." Now, " the cannon- :>hot " is the more scientific, though not the more practical, mode of de- termining the question, because it was the length of the arm of the nation bonlering upon the sea, and she could exercise her rights so far as the length of her arm could be extended. That was the cannon-shot, and that, at that time, was about three miles. It is now many more miles. We soon began to find ont that it would not do to rest it upon tb« cannon-shot. It is best to have something certain. But interna- tional writers have arrived at no further stage than this, to say that it is " three mile^, or the cannon-shot." When they are called upon to de- termine what are the rights of bordering nations, they say, " to the ex- tent of three miles, or the cannon shot." But upon the question, " How is the three-mile line to be determined f" we find everything utterly afloat and undecided. My purpose in making these remarks is, in part, to stiowyoar honors what a precarious position a state holds which under- takes to set up this right of exclusion and to put it in execution. The international law makes no attempt to deflne what is '* coast." We know well enongli what a straight coast is, and what a curved coast is ; but the momeut they come to bays, harbors, gulfs, and seas, they are utterly afloat— as much as the seaweed that is swimming up and down their channels. They make no attempt to deflne it, either by distance or by political or natural geography. They say at once, "It is difficult, where there are seas and bays." Names will not help us. The B:*y of Bengal is not national property ; it is not the King's chamber ; nor is the Bay of Biscay, nor the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, nor the Gult of Mexico. Names will not help ns. An inlet of the sea may be called a " bay," and It may be two miles wide at its entrance ;. or it may be called a " bay," 1664 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. and it may take a month's passage in an old-fashioned sailing vessel ^o sail from one headland to the other. What is to be done aboat it ^ If there is to be a three-mile line from the coast, the natural result is that that three-mile line should follow the bays. The result then would U- that a bay more than six miles wide was an international bay ; one sii miles wide, or less, was a territorial bay. That is the natural result Well, Nations do not seem to have been contented with this. France has made a treaty with England saying that anything less tbau ten miles wide shall be a territorial bay. The difficulties on that subject are inherent, and, to my mind ther are insuperable. England claimed to exclnde us from ti'sliing in the Bay of Fundy, and it was left to referees, of whom Mr. Joshua Bates was umpire, and they decided that the Bay of Fundy was not a territ<> rial bay of Great Britain, but a part of the high seas. This decisioa was put partly upon its width ; but the real ground was, that one of the assumed headlands belonged to the United States, and it was necev sary to pass the headland in order to get to one of the towns of the United States. For these special reasons, the Bay of Fnudy. whatever its width, was held to be a public and international bay. Then look at Bristol Channel. That question came up in the case of Queen v. Cunningham. A crime was committed by Cunningham in the Bristol Channel, more than three miles from the shore of Glamorgan- shire, on the north side, and more than three miles from Devonshire and Somersetshire, on the south side. Cunningham was indicted for a crime committed in Glamorganshire. The place where the vessel lav was high up in the channel, somewhere about 90 miles from its mouth. and yet not as far up as the river Severn. The question was, whether that was a part of the realm of Great Britain, so that a man could bt indicted for a crime committed there. Now, there is a great deal of wisdom in the decision made in that case. The court say, substantially. that each case is a case sui generis. It depends upon its own circaiii- stances. Englishmen and Welshmen bad always inhabited both bank» of the Bristol Channel. Thongh more than ten miles in width at its entrance, it still flowed np into the heart of Great Britain ; houses, farms, towns, factories, churches, court-houses, jails — everything on it* banks ; and it seemed a preposterous idea, and I admit it, that in time of war two foreign ships conld sail up that Bristol Channel and fight out their battle to their own content, on the ground that they did not go within three miles of the shore. I think it would have been piepo$ terous to say that a foreign vessel could have sailed up the center of that channel, and defied the fleets and armies of Great Britain, and all her custom-house cutters, on the ground that she was flying the Amer- ican or the French flag, and the deck was a part of the soil under tha: flag. Well, it was a question of political geography, not of natur.il geography. It was a question of its own circumstances. It was de cided to be a part of the realm of Great Britain. I do not know tha: anybody can object to the decision. The Franconia case, which attracted so much attention a short time ago, did not raise this question, but it is of some importance for us to remember. There there was no question of headlands. It was a straight line of coast, and the vessel was within three miles of the shore, fint what was the ship doing f She was beating her way down the English Channel against the sea and wind, and she made her stretches toward the English shore, coming as near as safety permitted, and then to the French shore. She was in innocent nse of both shores. She was net a trespasser because she tacked within three miles of the British shore /WAED OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION; 1665 It vns » necessity, so long as tbat channel was open to commerce. The naestion wbich arose was this: A crime having been coriiinitted on SoanI of tbat ship while she was within three miles of the British coast, Tss it coiuaiitted within the body of the county f Was it committed vitbin tbe realm, so that an English sheritf cuiiKl arrest the man, an Eaglitih {rraud jury indict him, an English jury convict him, under Eogllsb la\r, be being a foreigner on board a foreign vessel, bound iroai one foreign port to another, while perhaps the law of his own ainutry was entirely different! Well, it was extraordinary to see bo* tbe t'oiumonlaw lawyers were put to their wits' end to make any- tiiiag out of tbat statement. The thoroughbred common law lawyers ten tbe men who did not understand it; it was others, who sat miuD tbe bench, who understood it butter ; and at last, by a majority of oue, it was most hap]>ily decided that tbe man had not commit- ittion. {Ihrm Uiiitfd States Cable Company r«. Anglo-American Telegraph Coiu|tiiov Engliitb Law Beporta, Appeal Casett, part 2, p. 394.) ' ' Tliis state of things bronght us to the Treaty of 1854, commonly <^r,eou them. I have no doubt it was a lit-!- fish consideration. I think almost every witness who apiieared upon the stand at last had the truthfulness to admit that when be sastained either duties or exclusion it was upon the selfish motive of iiecaaiiin lienefits to himself, bis section, his State, or his country; and if tbat were the greatest offense that nations or individual imliticians eomiuit- teil, I tuwik we might well feel ourselves safe. We had received, in re turn for this advantage, a concession from Great Britain of onr general right to fish, as we always had fished, without geographical exelasion. 31y learned friend Judge Foster read to you (which I bad not seen before, and which was very striking) the confidential re|>ort of Coniuil Sherman, of Prince Edward Island, in 1804. I dare say my learned iriend the counsel from that island knows him. Now, that is a re|H)rt of great value, because it was written while the treaty was in existenw. and before notice had been given by our government of the intention tu re|>eal it. It was bis confidential advice to his own country as to niietiier our interests, as h3 had observeil them, were promoted by it; and he said, if the Keciprocity Treaty was considered as a botm to the L nited States, by securing to ns the right to inshore fishing, it bad cou^picn- ously faileortation of mackerel and herring. We were remitted to the antiquated and most nM«U>sira- ble position of exclusion ; but we remained in that position only live years, from 1866 until 1871, until a new treaty could be made, and a little while longer, until it could be put into operation. What was the resnlt of returning to the old system of exclusion ? Why, at once the cutters and the ships of war that were watching these coasts spread their sails; they stole out of the harbors where they had been bidden; they Imnked their fires; they lay in wait for the American vessels, and they pursueoniry AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1667 officer, and then wn were anythinji^ but safe. And they seized us nod took us, not into court, but they took us into hiirbor, and they 8trlpi)ed Bfi, »nA tlie crew left the ve jsel, and the cargo was landed, and at their fill and pleasure the case at last might come into court. Then, if we were dismissed, we had no costs, if there was probable cause; we could not 806 if we had not given a month's notice, and we were helpless. >'ut only did it revive the exitensive and annoying and irritating and dangerous system of revenue-cutters, and secret police, marine police, apauddowri the coast, telegraphing and writing to one another, and biirdeniug the provinces with the expense of their most respectable and necessary maintenance, but it revived, also, the collisions between the nroviiices and the Crown; and when the provincial governments un- dertook to lay down a ten mile line, and say to the cutters, "Seize any imericuD vessel found within three miles of a line drawn from head- UdiI to headland, ten miles apart," such alarm did it cause in Great Britain, that the iSecretary of State did not write, but telegraphed iu- 8tautly to the provinces that no such thing could be permitted, and that tbeyeould carry it no farther than the three mile line. Then attempts were made to sell licenses. Great Britain said, '^ Do not annoy these Ameri- cans; we are doing a very disagreeable thing ; we are trying to exclude tbeiu fniin an uncertain three mile line ; we would rather give up all the i^h iu tbe ocean than have anything to do with it; but you insist upoa it; we have done nothing with that fishery from the beginning," which, aceurdiug to the view we took of it on our side of the line, was pretty trae; and they said, "Do not annoy these Americans ; give them a license, just for a nominal fee." So they charged a nominal fee, as I have said, of fifty cents a ton, which was afterward raised — they know vby, tve do not — to a dollar. We paid the filty-cent fee and soma Americans paid the dollar fee , and why? They have told you why. Nut because they thought the right to fish within three miles was worth that sum, but it was worth that »um to escape the dangers and annoy- auces which beset them, whether they were innocent or guilty under tbe law. Then, at last, the provinces, as if determined that there should be no peace on that subject until we were driven out of the fisheries, raised it to au iui|M)ssible sum, two dollars a ton, and we would not pay it. What led tbem to raise it ? What motive could there have been f They lost by it. Our vessels did not pay it. Why, this was the result — I donot f^y it was the motive — that it left our fishermen unprotected, and bruu;;bt out their cutters and cruisers, and that whole tribe of harpies tbat line the coast, like so many wreckmen, ready to heizo upon any Tesid trouble between the old country aud the provinces; it put us all ODtbe trembling edge of i)ossible international conflict. But we went ou as well as we could in that state of things, until Great Britain, de- siroasof relieving herself from that burden, and the United States de- siring; to be released from those perils, aud having also another great 'jQestiou unsettled, that is, the consequeiioes of the captures by the Ala- ^a,the two countries met together with High Commissioners at Wash- 1668 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ington. in 1871, nnd then made a great treaty of peaco. I call it a "treaty of peace" becauHe it was a treaty which prechideil war- not restored peace after war, but prevented war, upon terms most 'nono'rable to both parties; and as one portion of that treaty — one tliut, though not the most important by any means, nor fillinf; so large a place in the public e}e as did the congress at Geneva, yet tilling a very important place in history, and its consequences to the people of both cmnitries was the determination of this vexed and perpetual question of tlie rights of fishing in the bays of the Northwestern Atlantic ; and by that trcatv we went back again to the old condition in which we had been from ICi'ii down, with the exception of the period between 1818 and isra aiitl tlie period between 186G and 1871. That restored both sides to the oiilv condition in which there can be peace and security; peace of iiiiiuliit least, freedom from apprehension, between the two goveriiients. And when those terms were made, « hich were terms of peace, of good * will to men, of security for the future, and of permanent basis always. and we agreed to free trade mutually in fish and fish-oil, and free ri-ihtd of fishing, as theretofore almost always held. Great Britain sai fo he dain ages. Now, these inflammatory harangues, made by politiciiinH, or nnb lished in the Dominion newspapers, or circulated by those persons who went about through the Dominion obtaining aflldavitH of witncHseH, pro- duced their efi<*ct, and the effect was a multitude of witnesses who swore to those thiiigs, who evidently came here to swear to them, ami took more interest in them, and were better informed upon them, tlian iipoii any of the important questions which were to be determined. When we came to evidence to be relied upon, the evidence of men who keep books, whose interest it was to keep books, and who kept the best |k).s- sible books, men who had statistics to make up upon nnthority ami responsilulity, men whose capital and interest and everything were invested in the trade, then we brought forward witnesses' to whom all persons looking for light upon this question would l)e likely to resort. And I have no doubt that as fast as it became known through the line of the.se provinces that no damages would be given for " lee bowing," for poLsoning fish, for purse-nets (which it appears we could not use), nor for the right to buy bait, and that it was to come down to the simple question of, on the one hand, participating with them in the tisheriesof this region to the full extent, instead of to a limited extent, and they lie relieved from all duties on their fish and fishoil on the other, with the consequert stimulation of their boat-fishing, and vessel building ami fishing, they all began to look at it in a totally different aspect. I am not able to produce it at this moment, but 1 will produce betore the argu- ment closes a memorial addressed to the Province of Nova Scotia, re questing them to bring things back to the old condition — that the tish- ing shall be left in common — without any idea that free trade was to be set oft' against it. Such was the state of things and the condition of feeling in (he prov. inces. I need not press upon your honors that we are right in that ])08ition, for, as to all except the question of damages, your honors have already by a unanimous vote passed in our favor, and ot course it requires no argument to show that, as we are to muke compensation for the value of what we obtain under the Article XVIII of the Treaty of 1871 in addition to what we had under the Treaty of 1818, provided the British side of the account does not balance it, that is all that we have to consider; and I dismiss all those elensents which have undoubtedly been the prevailing means of securing witnesses and of stimulating witnesses throughout these provinces, up to the present time. After the sound sense and humor of my learned friend, Mr. Trescot, on the subject of the light-houses, I suppose 1 should be inexcusable if I touched upon them again. I see that the counsel on the other side already feel the humor of the thing, and I suppose they rather regret that the subject was ever opeued, because it shows to what straits they were driven to make up a case against the United States, to balance the overpowering advantage to them derived from the freedom of trade. Why, they come together, the wise men, and they say among them- selves, ''Free trade is a boon to us in our mackerel and in onr herring; it is stimulating our fisheries ; it is recalling our sons from afar, and employing them at home in our own industries ; it is building up boat- fishing; it is extending the size of our boats, and building up vessel- fishing ; the profits on our trade are now all that we have a right to make, with no discount whatever. How can we meet that case of ad- vantage 1 What can we say they ought to pay us, that shall be any- AWARD OF THE FISHEKY COMMISSION. 1671 thing like a set-off for what we onrselves have received V The rixht to fish witbiu three miles f Why, the Americans had the whole Gulf of St. UwreDce and all its bays; they had all its bauks and all its eddies; thev had Labrador and the Masdalen Islands ; they had the north, west, ami south parts of Newfoundland ; they had everything except the tbree-iuile Hue of the island, as it is called, and the western shore of >«ora Scotia. And what did they get f Not the value of the Hsh ; not vbatthe fish sold for in the American market ; not the proUt which the AmericaD dealer made on his tish. That is the result of his capital, industry, and labor. What did the American getf The value of the gsii as It lies writhing on the deck f No ; for that is the result of the capital that sends the ship and tits it out, of the industry and the skill ot the flsLerraen. What did they getf They got only the lil»erty of tryiiif; to catcii the fish, which were eluding them with all their skill in the water of the ocean; the right to follow them occasionally, if they (leiiire to do so, in their big vessels within the limits of three miles. But it will not do to go to such a tribunal as this with anch a case as that. The free-swimming flsh in the seas, going we do not know how far off, and showing themselves here to-day and there tomorrow, school* mg tip on the face of the sea, and then going out of sight in the mud, Imriiig uo habitat, and being nobody's property — the right to try to catch them nearer the shore than heretofore, that is not capable of being as.se'^sed 80 as to be of much pecuniary value ; we must have something else.'' So they started the theory of adding to this compensation that ought tube made for right to buy the bait; for a right to retit; for a right to get supplies; for a right to trade; to unload cargoes of tish at Cau80 and send them to the United States, and for all the damage that Mermen might do anywhere by their mode of flashing ; for the injury (ioue by throwing overboard the gurry, and for collisions between boats aud vessels that might occur in the waters of the island bend ; and, adding those all together, they might make a claim that what they lost iu damages, and what they gave to us in facilities of trade, added to Article XVIII might make up something to set off against what tliey knew they were receiving iu dollars and cents from us by the remission of duties. They felt that we had on our side a certainty ; they liad ou their side altogether an uncertainty, and a mere speculation ; that we remitted from our Treasury and put back into their pockets exactly two dollars a barrel on every barrel of mackerel sent into port, aud cue dollar on every barrel of herring, that was to be computed anil estimated, so that the British fisherman, when he landed his flsh on the wharf iu Boston, landed it on the same terms that the American landed bis while heretofore he landed it handicapped by two dollars a barrel, which he muse first pay. Our charge is substantial ; ours can be put into the columns of an account; ours is certain. Theirs is speculative aud aucertain, and unless it was backed up with some certainties of daioages aud of trade, they felt that it fell beneath them. It will be my duty hereafter to press upon your honors a little further the consideration of the utterly uncertain estimate that can be put upon the mere franchise or liberty of attempting to catch the free-swimming lish within certain limits of the ocean. Now, drst, with your honors' leave, 1 will take up the consideration of the money value of the removal of tbis geographical restriction, for that is what it is. The ancient free- (ioiii is restored ; the recent and occasional restrictions as to three miles is removed, and the colonists say that that has been of pecuniary value to U8. Whether it is a loss to them or not, is utterly immaterial, iu this consideration. They cannot ask you to give them damages for any loss 1672 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. to them. It ifl only the valne to no. It is like a |)er8on bnyinjr an Artj. cle in a8linp, and an arbitrator appointed to determine what in the value of tbat article to the pnrcbaser. It is qaite immaterial how great a iiiIh. take the man maj' have made in aelling it to him, or wliat (iHiiiHKe the "Want of it may have brought upon his family or biniHelf. It 1 lutrc ImmibIh an umbrella across the counter, and I leave it to an arbitrator to dfttr mine the value of the umbrella to me, il is totally immaterial whether the man has sold the only one he had, and his family have suil'cred tor the \rant of it. That is a homely illustration, but it is a perfectly true one. Tlie question is, what is the value to the citizens of the llniteil States, in money, of the removal of this geographic restriction ? Not Mrhat damage this may have been to the colonists, by rcaKon of the treaty which Her Majesty's Government saw fll to make with ns. What, then, is the money-value of the removal of the restriction! On the subject of Newfoundland, which I desire to treat with {•rent re spect, because of the size of the island and its nnmeroits bays, and be- cause of my respect and affection for the gentleman who rrpnsents the semi-sovereignty before this tribunal, there is an article in the Kevue des Deux Mondes of November, 1874, on the value of Newfoundliuid and its fisheries to France, of extreme interest, from which I wonkilike to quote largely. It seems to me to be exhaustive. It gives the whole history and present condition of these fisheries, and among other tilings, it shows that in attempting to grant us a right there. Great Britain made us overlap very much the rights of the French ; and that if we should undertake to carry into effect some of the rights given ns liythe Treaty of 1871, we might havejthe republic, or monarchy, or empire, or whatever it may be, on the other side of the water, to settle the question with as well as this tribunal. I suppose this tribunal is satistied that we do not catch cod within three miles of Newfoundland ; that we do not catch even our bait there, but that we buy if. Finding that we had proved a complete case, that we bought our bait there, the very keen argument was made by the counsel on the other side, that though we bought our bait, we must be held to have caught it. " Qui facit per alium, facit per «e," says the counsel^ and so, if you buy a thing of » man and he sends a boy out to get it, the boy is your messenger, not his ; and .you have not bought it of him, but of the person to whom he sends for it. This is a homely illustration, but it is perfectly plain. When a fisherman comes and says, " I will sell my fish at so much a pound," and has not got them, but goes off and catches them, and I pay him that price, I buy the fish of him, do I not? What is it but a mere illusion, a mere deception, a mere fallacy to say, that because I knew that he had not the fish on hand at the time and is going off to get it, though I agree to buy it of him at a fixed rate, and I am not going to pay him for his services, but for the fish when delivered, that I am fish- ing through him and not buying of him t It is very hard to argue a per fectly clear case, and one that has but one side to it. Nothing but stress of law, or stress of facts, or stress of politics, could possibly have caused so much intelligence to be perverted upon this subject into an attempt to show that we were the catchers of the Newfoundland bait. I will now take up for a moment the question of the cod fisheries, and I know that, whatever I may have been thus far, I shall be somewhat tedious here in the course which I am about to pursue ; but I do not wish it to be said on the other side, and my instructions are not to leave it to be said, that we have asserted and stopped at assertions, however certain we may be that our assertions are well-founded, and even that they have the approbation of the court. I shall endeavor tu refer to AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1673 the evidence, without readini^ much of it, on the principal points which I have HO far nsHUiued, and would be quite authorized in asHuming. In the flriit pluce, as to the cod fishery, it is a deep-sea fishery not a figberv witliin tliree miles. I do not mean to say that a stray cod may not be caught occasionally within that limit ; but as a business, it is a ileep-sea business. With your honors' permission 1 will read some of tbe evidence on that point. Xiitbaniel E. Atwood, of Provincetown, page 47 of the American evi- dence, says : Q. Is tbo cndtUhory, as piirsnnd by the Amoricanfl, exclusively a deep-sea fishery f — A. Well, we call it a deep-sea fishery ; this is the case— tbe Labrador conHt exeejited, Vhereitis prospciited close inshore — in the Gulf of Haint Lawrence, on Mie Grand Hunks anil oD nil the banks between that place and Cape C(m1, and away ont to sea in other iiartB. It is true that some codfish come inshore, but they do not do ho to such au extent astuvDitble the catching of tbem to be made a business of. Wilford J. Fisher, of Eastport, page 316, says : Q. How shout the pollock ! — A. The pollock is caught more oflf shorn than in. Q. Then the codfish f — A. The cmlHsh is caught nInuMt exclusively off shore, except, Ml tell yon, in the early spring or late in the full there is a schopl ot small ojdIisU tb»t (ttrikes within the limits, and the iieople there catch them more or less. Prof. Baird, on page 453, of the American evidence, says : Q. Take them ns a whole then, they are a deep-sea fish ; I don't mean the deep sea «8di8tingniHhed from the Banks f — A. An outside fish f Well, they are to a very con- siilrrahle extent. The largest catches are taken offshore, and what are taken inshore are in specially-fnvored localities, perhaps on the coast of Labrador, and possibly off Nevfunndland. They bear a small proportion generally to what is taken outside, vhere the conveniences of attack and approach are greater. Bangs A. Lewis, of Provincetown, page 06, American evidence, says, on cross examination, in answer to Mr. Davies : Q. And codfish, we all know, are taken chiefly outside of the limits ; it is a deep-sea finbery as a rule f— A. Yea. E. W. French, of Eastport, page 403, is asked : Q. What is the fishery at Grand Manan and the Bay of Fundv generally T — A. Cod- fish, pollock, hnke, haddock, and herring. Q. Are any of those fisheries entirely off-shore fisheries f — A. Codfish is an off-shore fishery. Hake are taken off shore. Capt. Robert H. Hulbert, of Gloucester, p. 206, testifies : Q. And your codfish have not been taken within how far from landf — A. From 15 to 25 miles of Seal Island, and in that vicinity. John Nicholson, Louisburg, C. B., p. 207 of the British evidence, says: Q. Well, cod are often caught inshore ; but would yon not say cod was a deep-sea fishery?— A. Yes. Q. And halibut is the same t — A. Yes. Tbe.se are only passages selected from a large mass of testimony, but they were selected because the persons who testified in that way ^ere either called by the British side, or they were persons of so much experience that they are fair specimens of our view of the subject. Now, cod fishery is the great trade and staple of the United States, and is growing more and more so. The small fish that were once thrown overboard are now kept. The oil is used a great deal, codfish-oil, and there are manufacturing establishments in Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts which, we have been told by the witnesses, work up a great deal of this material that used to be thrown overboard ; they draw oil from it, and the rest is used for fertilizing the laud, and that is a 1674 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. gradaally inoreadiaff basiness. One of the witnedses, I recollect from UIouoeMter, told w liovr greatly the trade in uoddsh had iinprovtiil, ho that now, instead of sending; it out as whole ttnli, it in cut hi Htrips hihI roiled together, and put into oana, and sold in small or lar^u <|iiiiiiiiti«H to suit purchasers, aud in that very easy manner sent all ovur the Uuited States. (Charles N. Pew, of the Arm of John Pew & Sons, on page A% of the American Evidence, testitied tliat the total value of UaIi pruductiuu iu seven years from 1870 to 187G, inclusive, was: Bay tnncki^rcl S77, SVA'i 22 HUure iiiuukvrul 'i'l^Hl '>4 CodfisL, &o 7tnj! h;;i lu These flKO^cs g\ve what our vviwela caught. They do not give what wo piircbiweThich sought for them, the best information was that about a humlred thousand of these eggs prosper so as to turn into living tish, cupsihle ot' taking care of themselves, the utidefended and unrestricted Uii violators of the oceau. Although that is not a large percentage of thu ainutiiit of ova, yet an annuil incroiiHO of a hundred thousand for every oiu' shows that there is no danger of the diminution, certainly none of tlm extermination, of that class of fish. It is enormous in quantity, some- thing which the whole world combining to exterminate could hardly make any impression upon ; anaM by. We may buy it when wo wish it, but wc need not bHve it. Your honors recollect the teHtiinony of our witiioHses from Provincetovrii, an well an those from Gloucester, who said that they believed it whs more for the interest of all concerned that the cod flihery should be carrietance of that in the case of a refrigerator tilled with peaches, gruites, ^^moD a It's *'f ninlton, and some beefsteaks, with a great variety of other substances. Tt ibfuA uf f»nr months in niidsuuinier, in the Agricnltural building, these were in a littily sound and prepossessing condition. No one would have hesitated one moment tocat'tbe bwf^traks, and one might be very glad of the chance, at times, to have them cixite in a perfivt condition. Another method is the hard-frozen process. Y'oii n^ a (ttt-zins mixture of salt and ice powdered tine, this mixture producing a teniper- iitnreof 'i*/- above zero, which can be kept up just as long as the occasion requires, by trtoinj np the supply of ice and salt. ,. n">ir big is tlie refrigerator f — A. There is no limit to the size th.-^t may be nsed. Thrv are made of enonnous size for the purpose of preserving salmon, and in New York ib^v kt*!* all kinds of fish. d. Noir. to come to a practical question, is this a mere matter of theory or of possi- bkns*. For instance, could this niethwl be adapted to the preservation of bait for three or four ojonths, if necessary f — A. The only question , of course, is as to the extent. Tb^re is nu qni-^tion at all that bait of any kiinl can be kept iudftinitely by that pro- (y:yi. I di> not think there would be the slightest ditHculty in building a refrigerator on anv oniiaary ti^hing-vessel, cod or halibut, or other fishing-vessel, that should keep »ith [wrtVci eaae ail the bait necessary for a long voyage. I have made some inquiries a^ ti) Che amount of ice, and I am informed by Mr. Blackford, of New York, who is one oftbeiarvi^t operators of this mode, that to keep a room ten feet each way, or a thou- janil cnl)ic f«-t. at a temjierature of '20° above zero, would require about two thousand iMinnil.^of ice and two bushels of salt per week. VVith that he thinks it could be done without any difficulty. Well, an ordinary vessel would require about seventy-five barrel* of liait. an ordinary trawling- vessel. That would occupy a bulk something less ibao MX bnndred feet, so that pndjably four and a half tons of ice a month would keep that ti:>b. And it must lie remembered that his estimate was for keeping fish in niid- Mimnier in New York. The lishing-vessels vould require a smaller expenditure of ice, ir ther^ vesfit-ls would be surrounded by a colder temperature. A stock of ten to t^fDty toii'k would, in all probability, be amply sutlicieut both to replace tQe waste by turlting and to pretverve the bait. 1^. Have yon any doubt that some method like that will be put into immediate and snctessfal use, if there is suHicient call for it? — A. I have no doubt the experiment vill t)e tried within a twelvemonth. Another method of preserving is by drying. S<|ii;tl. for in.otance. and clams, and a great many other kinds of bait can Ije dried Titboiit n^ing any appreciable chemical, and can be readily softened in water. I noiii-vtl lately in a Newfoundland paper a paragraph recommending that in view of the fact that the siquid are fouud there for a limited period of time, the people should ;'i)inti) the induMry of drying squid for bait, so that it would always be available for the [inrpi><«' of co «"»* iomeliwea get a mmri of mavkerel, but tbey arc then liable to go farther into the bsrbors and lose a good deal of time ; whereas if they would fish farther off li^T wonlJ save a good deal of time. I think that for ten or twenty years back they »i)fbt have caught, well, somewhere from a t^nth to a fifteenth part of the mackerel Tiibio the tbree-mile range. I don't know but they have. I don't think anything jiore than a tenth part certainly. Joseph O. Proctor, of Gloucester, on page 196, says : From the best of my judgment, the knowledge I have where my vessels have been, ud (oiivereation with the masters of tbe vessels, I believe tbat not one-eighth of the oaekerel have been caught within ; I should say less, and I should not say more. It iiDtarera tenth than an eighth. y. Do yon know where the bulk is caught f — A. At the Magdalenes, or between the Jligiklenes and Cbeticamp. Capt. Ezra Turner, of Gloucester, page 226, testifies : (J. Have yon ever fished off Prince Edward Island ? — A. Yes ; I have fished all ronnd tlweast side, wherever anyboily fir.hcd. Q. Did you fish within three miles of the shore there? — A. No ; it is a rare thing thai evi-r you get mackerel within the three miles. When they come within three DiJes they rii«e in schools, and we never calculate to do mucli out of them ; but from iiMir to sik and seven miles off is the common fishing-ground there. The Coiumissiouers will recolloct the testimony of Mr. Myrick, an Aoiericau inercbant, who had established himself on Prince Edward Island. The inshore fishery, he said, is not suited to American vessels. Our vessels are large; they are built at a distance; they are manned by sixteen or seventeen men ; they cost a great deal; they require large catches, ait within the three-mile limit. On the contrary, the best mackerel bait in the world is the menhaden, which we bring from New Eu^Iaiid. All admit that. The British witnesses say they would use it were it uut that it is too costly. They have to buy it from Americau vessels: ami they betake themselves to an inferior kind of bait when they cHuuot afford to bay the best bait from us. And another result is tbat the Americans have shown for many years that what are called the shore mackerel, that is, those that are caught off the const of Massaehnsetts and several other of the New England States, are really better than the bay mackerel. The evidence of that is the market prL-es they brine. It is not a matter of opinion. We have not called as witnesses |)ersoQs who have only tasted them, and might have prejudices or peculiar taster, hvt we have shown the market value. James H. Myrick. page 433 American Evidence, in answer to the qaes- tion, '• For a tew years past, which have sold for the highest |iricv, number ones from the bay or number ones from the American shore f says, " O, their shore mackerel have been the best quality of fish." Benjamin Maddocks, uf Gloucester, page 134, says: Q. Well, I take Xo. 1 then. How do those marked as No. 1 shore mackerel compare ^ith tboM: marketl as Nu. 1 bay mackerel F — A. Well, the bay maek'-rel. at least I Rbonld tay the shore mackerel, bits beeu a great deal better than the bay iiiackereltk last seven or eight years. Q. Tbat is not bimply an opinion, but the market prices are better ' H3 The average catch is based on the average catch of 84 vessels from 17 finns in Ir^' and 28 vcAsels in bay and 62 vessels off Americau shore from 20 druis in 1^75. Tbese fimu have done better tliac the rest. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1681 The statistics of John H. Pew & Sons, put in by Charles H. Pew, p. 496. for the last seven years, from 1870 to 1876, inclusive, show that the total for that time, of bay mackerel that their own vessels caught, amonntert to $77,995.22, and the shore mackerel for the same period was *1*71,33 *->t' Your honors will recollect the statistics put in, which it is iiot uecessary for us to transfer to our briefs, .showing tiie exact state of the market on the subject of the proportion of American tish caught on the shores and the proportion caught in the bay. We have iutrmluced a large number of witnesses from Gloucester, and I thinii I take nothing to myself in saying that the greater part of them, those who profess to be engaged in the trade or business at all, were men of emincut respectability, and commended themselves to the respect of the tribunal before which they testified. You were struck, no doubt, with the carefulness of their bookkeeping, and the philosophical system which they devised, by means of which each man could ascertain whether he was making or losing in diflerent brauches of his business ; and as the skipper was often part owner, and usually many dealers managed for other persons, it became their duty to ascertain what was the gain or loss of each branch of their business. They brought forward and laid before you their statistics. They surprised a good many, and I know that the counsel on the other side Manifested their surprise with some directness ; but, may it please the court, when the matter came to be examined into, it assumed a diiferent aspect. We made the counsel on the other side this offer. We said to them, " There is time enough, there are weeks, if you wish it, before you are obliged to put in your rebnttal ; we will give you all the time you wish ; send anybody to Gloucester you please, to examine the books of any merchants in Glou- cester engaged in the fishing business, and ascertain for yourselves the state of the bay and shore fishing as it appears there." You say that bay fishing is as profltalde as the shore fishing ; that it has made a great and wealthy city of Gloucester, and you assume that it is owing to their having had, for the greater part of the time, a right to fish inshore. It would seem to follow from this reasoning that, whenever we lost the right to fish inshore, Gloucester must have receded in its importance, and come up again with the renewal of the privilege of inshore fishing. Xothiug of that sort appears in the slightest degree. But they say •The baj fishing must be of great importance, because of the prosperity of Gioncester." Now, the people of Gloucester have no disposition to deny their prosperity, but it is of a different kind from what has been represented. Gioncester is a place altogether sui geaerifi. I never saw a place like it. I think very few of your honors failed to form an opinion that it was a place well deserving of study and consideration. There is not a rich man idle, apparently, in the town of Gloucester. The business of Gloucester cannot be carried on as mercantile busi- ness often is, by men who invest their capital in the business and leave it in the hands of other people to manage. It cannot be carried on as much of the mercantile business of the world is carried on, in a leisuiely way, by those who have arrived at something like wealth who visit their counting-rooms at 10 o'clock in the morning and stay a few hours, and then go away to the club, return to their counting-rooms for a short time and then drive out in the enticing drives in the vicin- ity, and their day's work is over. It cannot be carried on as my friends in Xew Bedford used to carry on the whale fishery, where the gentlemen »ere at their counting-rooms a few months in the year, and when the offseason came they were at Washington, Saratoga, or wherever else they saw fit to go, and yet they were prosperous. No ; the Gloucester 106 F 1682 AWARD OP THE FISHEttY COMMISSION. ■1 '» 1 A.' i^*.J^\ tradesmen are hard-working men, and they gain their wealth and pros perity on the terms of being hard-working men. The Gloucester mer- chants, if you see fit to call them so (they do not call themselves ''mer- chants," but "flsh-dealers"), are men who go to their coimting.rooins early and stay late. If they go up to Boston on business, tbey take a very early train, breakfast before daylight, and return in season to do a day's work, though Boston is twenty-ttveor thirty miles distant. Aud when their vessels come in they are down upon the wharves, thev stand by the large barges and they cull the mackerel with their own hands ; in«y count inem wiin meir own nanus ; they tnni them with their own hands into the barrels and cooper then!, and scuttle the barrels, and put in the brine aud pickle the Ash and roll them into the proper places ; and when they have a moment's leisure thev will go to their counting-rooms and carry on their correspoudence by telegraph and otherwise with all parts of the United States, aud learn the value of these mackerel. They are ready to sell them to the buyers, who are another class of persons, or tbey are ready to keep and sell them in the larger market of Boston. By their patient industry, by their simple hard days' works, they have made (Jloucester an important place ; but they have not added much to the mackerel fishery of the United States. Gloucester has grown at the expense of every other fishing town in New England. We have laid before your honors, through Mr. Low, I think it was, or Mr. Babson, the sta tistics of the entire falling off of all the fishing towns of Xew England ; those that had dealt in mackerel fishing. Where are Plymouth, Barnstable, where Marblehead, wbidi was known the world over as a fishing-town ? There are no more ttshing- vessels there. The people have all gone into the business of making shoes and other domestic manufactures. So with Beverly, so with Man Chester, so with Newbury port, and so with the entire State of Maine, with the exception of a very few vessels on the coast. Two or three of the last witnesses gave us a most melancholy account of the entire fall- ing off of fishing in Gastine, Bucksport, aud all up aud down that bay and river, so that there is hardly any fishinresent, when the American merchants, Hall and Myrick, both tell us that the value on the wharf at Prince Edward Island is about $3.75 a barrel ? Well, sup- pose the mackerel to be worth $3.75 a barrel on the wharf at Prince Edward Island, what does that represent ? Is that a thing which the United States is to pay Great Britain for ? Has Great Britain sold us a barrel of pickled mackerel on the wharf? Has anybody done itf I think not. That represents the result of capital and of many branches 1684 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMLSSION. of labor. Then, if you ask, " What is the worth to Mr. Uall or Mr Myrick of the raackerel on the deck of the vessel PI aay it is next to nothing. The tisli will perish if be is not taken care of. \skill ig to Im used upon him, then ; what costs money is to be used upon him, ice ami pickle^ and he is to be preserved. All this to the end that he may eventually, alter a ^reat deal of labor, skill, and capital, be .sent to the market. But recollect that the vessel f»'om whose deck he was caught cost $8,000. Kecollect that the men who maintain that crew and im\ them, and enable them to clothe themselves and follow that pursuit are paying outlarge sums of money. Kecollect that the hsbermaii whocat'cheH the fish has, as the result of many years' labor, which may be called rd investment, learned how to catch him ; and it is by the combination ot all these causes that at last the fish is landed. Now, in uiy judgment it is purely fallacious to attempt to draw any inference from the market- value of the fish to the right to extend your pursuit of those animals nearer the coast than before, or to the market value of any ri^ht to tish over a certain portion of the ocean, when all other oceans are open to you, and all other fisheries. Your honors, of course, recollect that the mackerel fishery, taken at its best — I don't confine myself to the inshore fishery, I mean the mack- erel fishery of the bay and gulf, at its best, the whole of it— is of a greatly decreasing and precarious value. 1 speak only of the salted mackerel that is sent into the United States. The lake fish are fast be- coming a substitute for salt mackerel. I will call your honors' attention to two or three rather striking proofs which were not read previously by Judge Foster. Sylvanus Smith, of Gloucester, on page 330 of the American evidence, is asked : Q. What causes have been in existence interfering with the sale of salt mackerel during the past few years f — A. I think there have been several caus«8. One is the facility of carrying our fresh tish into distant parts of the country. That has mate- rially interfered with it. Then there is the lake herring; during the months of No- vember and Deceniber until May they are very plenty. They are now used iu very large quantities all throughout the West. Q. What are lake herring ? — A. A species of vvhite fish, only smaller. Q. What do they sell for per barrel Y — A. This party I referred to, speaking of bis trade, said that last year he used 80,000 packages. A package is a half barrel. Q. How are these put up ? — A. Pickled. And he told me they sold at .s2 a package. Q. You say they have interferred with the constancy of the demand ?— A. I think during the months we used to depend very largely on the consumption of onr mack- erel, the lake herring has been one great cause for the decline during these mouths in the value of mackerel. On page 468 Professor Baird testifies as follows : Q. Have you any statistics respecting the lake fishery for the years 187(5 and IST* ?- A. I have only ]>artial statistics for le!77. I {mblished the statistics in detail iu my report for 187^, and I am now having statistics for 1877 collected, and will have them, I suppose, by the end of the season. Q. Eighteen hundred and seventy-two represents but faintly the present state of things. Can you tell us how it was in 1872 f — A. In 1872 the American i>rodiictiou (if fish in the great lakes was 32,2o0,00(» pounds. That quantity of tish was taken, but how much more I cannot say. Those were marketed in Bufi'alo, Cleveland, Chicago, and many other stations. Q. Does that include the Canadian cath, and is taken with seines hauled up on the banks by men who iiavc no i aiiital but who are able to command a row boat with which to lay out tlielr HciniN, and tln-y sometimes catch 100 barrels a day per man, and sometimes as numy \m .'i(I(i harrds li:i\> been taken at a single haul. The capital is only the boat, the seine liio or 'JiMi vardii long, the salt necessary for preserving the iish, and splitting boards and barreix. ' Q. Can pounds be used ? — A. They have not beeu used, and I «lonl)t whelhei thiv could lie used ; pounds are not available in the sandy regions uf the .Sontli. Q. They are taken by seining? — A. Yes, seines can be used. This work is entirely prosecnted by natives of the coast, and about two-thirds of the coa^t poiiulation are employed in the capture of those tish. Q. Then the business has grown very much ?— A. It has grown very rajtidly. Q. W'heu was it first known to you « > a dsh for the market ? — A. I never kiie thing about it until 1*^2. Q. Then it has been known during only five years? — A. I cannot say known to me that length of time. Q. During that time the business has very much increased ? — A. I am so informed; I cannot speak personally. All my information of it is troiu rejinrts made to me iii replies to circulars issued in lri72 and 1H73. I have not issued a mullet circular since that time, when I issued a special circular asking information regarding tlie nnilht. Q. Then it is your opinion that the mullet has become, to some extent, and will In- come an important source of food-supply ? — A. It is destined, I suppose, to be a vtiy 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 out of live States cuv- ering the mullet region. Your honors will recollect, as a striking illustration of the truth oi the power of propagation, the statement of Professor Baird in regard to the River Potomac, where a few black bass, some half dozen, were put into the river, and in the course of a few years they were abundant enough to supply the market. Fish culture has become a very iiniwr- tant matter, and what we call in New England our " ponds," small lakes, and rivers, are guarded and protected, and every dam built across any river where anadromous, or upward-going tish, are to be found, has always a way for their ascent and descent ; so that every- thing is done to increase the (piantity, kind, and value of all that sort of fish, making the salted mackerel less impurtant to the people aiul in the market. Then theimproved methodaof preserving fish are astonishing. I think the evidence on that point was i)rincipally from Professor Baird, wlio has described to us the various methods by which fish, as well as bait, may be preserved. He told us that for months, during the hottest part ot tlie exhibition season at Philadelphia, during our Centennial year, fish were kept by these improved chemical methodaof drying, and methods ot freezing, so that after months the Commissioners ate the fish aud found them very good eating. There was no objection whatever to them, although, of course, they were not quite as good as when they were entirely fresh. So that all science seems to be working in favor of dis- tribution, instead of concentration, of what is valuable for liumau cou- sumptiou ; and the longer we live and the more science advances the less can any one nation say to the fishermen of another. Thus far ami no farther. We turn upon such au attempt at once and say, " Very veil} if you choose to establish your line of exclusion, do it. If you AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMIHSION. 1687 r, it baa lieen choose to throw all open, do so. We prefer the latter as the gen- erous, the more peaceful, and safe method for both parties. If you pre- fer tlie fortiier, take the expense of it, take tiie risk of It, take the ignominy of it. If you Rive it up, atMl it costs you anything to do so, we nill W y*^" what it is worth to us." I certainly hope that after our offer to open the books of any nier- (haut in Gloucester, or any number of merchants, to the other side, it will not be said that we have selected our witnesses. The witnesses that we brought here, both tisherinen and owners, said that the bay lishery wa8 dying out. They show it by their own statistics, ami the statistics of the town of Gloucester show how few vessels are now engaged in the bay fishery ; that they are confining their attention to cod-fishing and shore fishing, and fishing with nets and seines. We (lid not bring the bankrupt fish-dealers from Gloucester, the men who have lost by attempting to carry on these bay fisheries, as we might have done. We did not bring those who had found all fishing unprofit- able, and had moved away from Gloucester, and tried their hand upon other kinds of business. We brought, on the other hand, the most pros- perous men in Gloucester. We brought those men who had made the most out of the fisheries, the men who had growu richest upon them, and weexhibited their books; and as we could not bring up all the account- books of Gloucester to this tribunal, we besought the other side to go down, or send down a commission, and examine them for themselves. We did not ask them to examine the books of the men who had become bankrui)t in the business, but the books of those who had been prosper- ous in the business ; and after that, I certainly think we have a right to say that we have turned Gloucester inside out before this tribunal, with the result of showing that the bay fishing has gradually and steadily (liiuinished, that the inshore fishery is unprofitable, that the bay fishery has been made a means of support only to the most skillful, and by those laborious and frugal methods which I have before described to this tribunal. At this point Mr. Dana suspended his argument, and the Commission adjourned until Saturday at noon. Saturday, November 10, 1877. The Commission met at 12 o'clock, and Mr. Dana continued his argu- ment. iky it please your Excellency and your Honors : We are met today, the seventieth of our session, to hear what mjiy be said by me in behalf of the United States, closing the argument in our favor, a post which, by the kindness and partiality of my associates, has been assigned to me. While without, all is cheerless and wintry, we have within the bright beams of friendly, and, if not sympathizing, at least, interested countenances. I feel most painfully that, having the last word to say for my country, I may omit something that I ought to have said ; or, perhaps, which is quite as bad, that I may say more or other than I might well have 8aiii>U Nvithin three niileH of a certain portion of this great hay. (ireat Britain, by the Treaty of 1871, has withdrawn all clainm to exclude IIS from that portion, and wo agreed that if there in any pecuniary value iiitbat beyond the pecuniary value ol what we yield, we Htand ready to niiike tlieVcfpiisite coniiKMisation. It is extremely dilllcult, certainly to iiiv minil, and I cannot but think, from conversation and reading, that it must be to others, to determine the pecuniary value of a mere faculty, ;i!i we may call it, a faculty according to the Koman law, a liberty, )>er- iia|)M, of endeavoring to catch the free Mwimming fish of the ocean. What is ifn'i)ecuniary value ! How is it to be assessed and «letermined ? WMiy, it is nut to be assesseil or determined by the amount of tlsh actually laugbt. That uuxy be very small, or may i e very large. The market value may be raised or decreased by accident ; a war may so cut us oft from making use of the privilege, that we should take nothing. It does not follow, therefore, that we are to pay nothing. Some cause, some at'ciilent, some mistake of judgment may 8enor is a specific thing. When you buy it, you know what it will produce; aud if you sow certain seed, you will get certain results; aud tbeu, havinc deducted the value of your lalmr, and skill, and industry, and capitaf. and allowed yourself interest, the residue, if any, is profit. ' That depends upon the nature of the soil with which jou have been dealing. But nothing of that sort can be predicated of the free-swimuiing ti.sb. Tlier are here to-day and there to-morrow; they have no habitat; tbeyai^ nobody's property, and nobody can grant them. I have dealt with this subject as I said we were to deal witb it: not to depreciate it unreasonably, but to analyze it, and try to find out bow we are to measure it. And having analyzed it in this way — wiiicb lam sure is subject to no objection, unless I carry it to an extreme — tbe meth- ods which I have used in themselves are subject to no objectiou— it can- not be strange to your honors that the people of the United States said. through their government, that in securing from Great Britain ber with- drawal of this c'aim of exclusion from these three miles, we did it, not for the commercial or intrinsic value of the right, so much as because of the peace and freedom from irritation which it secured to us. And that leads me to say what, perhaps, I should otherwise have forgotten, that in estimating the value to the people of the United States of tbe right to pursue their fisheries close to the shore in certain regions, you are not to estimate what we have gained in peace, in security from irritation, from seizures, and from pursuit. Those are the acts and operations of the opposite party. It is the value of the right to fish there, alone, that you are to consider. Why, if you pay to an organ-grinder a shilling to go out of your street when there is sickness in your house, it does not follow that his music was worth that price. Nobody would think of considering that a test of the value of his music, if a commis.sioD was appointed to determine what it was. So here ; what we were '.Tilling to ost he mnst get around the best way he can. Q. You are satisfied you could not add the dnty to the price of the mackerel in the United States market f — A. No ; it can't be done. Then Mr. Pew, of Gloucester, testifies to the same eftect : but I sop pose there can be no doubt, under this weight of testiiuouy, that the money charge against Great Britain is for the privilege of exemption from prohibitory duties, whatever may be prohibitory, whether it be ^2 or more. Xow, how was it, with this plain fact in view, that the learned coanH for the Grown were able to produce so many witnesses, and to consuioe so much time, in showing that they did not, after all, lose macb by ^2 a barrel dnty ! Why, my learned friends who have preceded me have exposed that very happily. I fear if I were to say anything 1 shonid only detract from the force of their argument ; but I think it is fair to say that it will rest on our minds, after we have adjourned and separated, as a most extraordinary proceeding, that so many men were toaud in various parts of the island, and from some parts of the mainland, who came up here and said that the fact that they paid a duty of $i.' on a barrel of mackerel before they sold it iu the States, which is tbeir only market, did not make any difference to tbem. They said it did not make anif difference. They did not say it made little difference, bnt they said it did not make any. Now, if they had said, '^ We can catcb the fish so much cheaper b€<::au8e this is our home ; we can catch them so mach cheaper because wecatch them incheap vessels and with cheap materials. close by where we live, that we can afford to undersell, to some extent, the American fishermen ; and therefore the $2 a barrel is not all to k counted as a burden," that would be intelligible. Bnt these tisheriiie» suddenly, by the magic wand of my learned friend, the premier of the island, and my learned friend who represents — I do not know in how high a position — the Province of New Brunswick, were all turned into political economists. " Well, my friend," says the learned counsel for Prince Edward Island, with that enticing smile which would have drawn an affirmative answer from the flintiest heart, " My dear friend, about this 92 a barrel dnty, does not that affect your profit in selling in Bos- ton f " No," says the ready witness. "And why not T " Why, k- cause the consumer pays the dnty.^ Then the next witness, under, perhaps, the sterner but still e• iec.. jed tribunal, that no man of decent intelligence and fair honesty coulil have answered any such question affirmatively. And those who said they would rather go back to the same state of things, testi- fied under a great deal of bias ; they testified under a very strong inter- est, on a subject right under their eyes, which they felt daily, and which they may have been made to feel by the urgency of others. They did not suft'er at all. It was not they who suffered from the attempt to exclude us. It was amusement to them, though it might have been death to some of us; and they imagined that if they did not have the duty to pay, which they all based their answer upon, ot course they would rather go back to free trade and exclusion, for in their minds it amounted to that. They had not the duty to pay, although one was laid, and of course with no duty to pay, they would rather go back to that old state of things, and have the exclusive right to fish within three miles. I think that illusion may be safely predicated of nearly all tiie witnesses brought upon the opposite side by the counsel for the Crown. A good deal of time was taken up on each side in presenting extracts from the speeches of politicians and parlif^.entarians, and men in Con- gress, as to what was the real value of free trade in fish, and the real value of the right to fish within three miles. Some extracts were read by the learned counsel for the Crown, from speeches made by certain members of the American Congress, who had a jioint to carry, and some arguments much stronger were produited by us from members of the Dominion Government who also had a point to carry. I do not attach the very highest importanee to either of them. I hope I am guilty of no disrespect to the potentates and powers that be, in saying that, because I have always observed that men in public lite who have points to carry will usually find arguments by which to carry them, and that their position is not very different from that of counsel, not before this tribunal, but counsel in court, strictly speaking, who have a point to maintain, and who have a verdict to get, because, woe to the states- man whose argument results in a majority of negatives, because he and his whole party, under the Dominion system, go out of power. It is not AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1697 SO with ns. Our members of Congress speak with less responsibility. They do not represent the government in the House, nor do they repre- gent the opposition in such a sense that they are bound to take charge of the government the moment those in charge fail of retaining public approval. Our politicians, even in Congress, are a kind of " free-swim- loiDj; fish." They are rather more like a horse in a pasture than like those horses that are carrying the old family coach behind them. They feel more at liberty. When we consider that the Dominion parliamen- tarians speak under this great responsibility, and meet an opposition face to face, who speak under equal responsibilities, when we consider that fact, and the number of them, and the strength of their declara- tions, all to the effect that the Provinces could not survive our duties any longer, and that in giving up to us the right to fish within the three miles, much was not surrendered, I think your honors, without reading it all over, or comparing these arguments, argument for argument, may say at once that whatever weight is to be attached to them, far more weight is to be attached to the utterances of the British ofticers, than to the few American politicians who may have lifted up their voices on this subject, in their irresponsible way. Moreover — your honors can- not huve forgotten it — the tislieripen of Provincetowii and Gloucester remonstrated against this Treaty of 1871. They remonstrated against it as against their interests. Be it so. They were good judges of their interests. Tbey stated that taking off the duties would make the fish cheap. Tliey thought so ; and they did not consider that the right to fish (and they were fishermen and knew their business) within the three miles was any compensation for that. And the remonstrance was made at the time, and it was earnest. The men went to Washington to enforce it. While men dealing in fish remonstrated against this conces- sion, the oflBcers of the British Crown, who were responsible, and whose constitaents were fishermen and fish-owners, along a certain line of the Provinces, were contending earnestly for the treaty as beneficial, abso- lutely, to the Provinces. Well, it has been said that tbey knew all the time that there was money to be paid. They knew no such thing. They knew there might, or might not be money to be paid, because this tribunal does not sit here to determine the quantum that the United States shall pay, but first and foremost to determine whether atiything shall be paid, and that they could not pass any Judgment upon. It certainly has abun- dantly appeared in this Case that the exportation of fish into the United States and the value of the fish here have risen and fallen steadily and almost uniformly with the right of free trade or the obligation to pay the duty. From 1854 to 1866, when there was free trade in fish, and we had the right to fish where we pleased, and they had free trade, and sent their fish to the American markets, immediately their mackerel fishery increased in value. Their boat-fishing, instead of being a matter of daily supply for the neighborhood, developed into a large business. The boats were owned by merchants, large quantities were shipped from them, and the business increased twofold, threefold, tenfold, as one of their own witnesses has stated, stimulated by the free American mar- kets. I am reminded that the witness said it had increased an hundred fold. Your bouors will perceive my moderation in all things. The wit- ness to whom I refer is the fellow-citizen of our friend tiie premier of the island, Mr. John F. Campion, and I think he recognized him immediately upon his appearance on the stand : Q. You say that the number of boats and moo engagred in the shore fishery have in- creased; has the catch increased to any appreciable extent f— A. It has increased la the same ratio as the boats. 107 F 1698 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. In qnite the same ratio f — A. Yes. Q. To what extent did you say the namber of boats bad increased— 100 \>er oeut *~ A. I would say that this has been the case within the last ten years. " One hundredper cent,'" says Mr. Campion, from Prince Edward Island He says this increase has taken place within the last ten years, but he does UQt undertake to define how far that increase began before 18G6 whether it continued in the interval between 1866 and 1871, and how far it was resumed afterward. But we find that five years after the couclu- sion of the Washington Treaty the boat-fishing had increased one hun- dred per cent, and we know that it is the freedom of trade iu fish that has made the boat-fisbing of those islands ; that has brougtit about their increase in size, which every witness has testified to who bas been asked the question. I do not know whether my learned friends have asked the question or not, but we have asked it, and it having been testified to by two residents there, Mr. Hall and Mr. Myrick, and the Government of Great Britain hiiving had ten days allowed them to bring rebutting testimony, brought none, we may, therefore, consider that matter as settled, that their growth has been largely in boat-fishing — in the num- ber of boats, the number of men employed, the quantity of the catch, and the amount of capital invested — and that an examination will show- that it is to the freedom of trade in fish that they owe it entirely. I will read a few words to your honors from Mr. Hall's testimony, who has very large experience, living, or if not living, doing business, on the northern part of the bend of Frirce Edward Island : Q. The boat fisheries of Prince Edward Island h.ive increased and flonrished very muchfor the last few years?— A. Yes, very uiuch. They have good reasons for it. Q. What reasons f — A. A better class of fishermen. When we first started busineus we bad, of course, to work with green hands. Lilie every other business, it bas to b« 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. We had no 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 or 33 per ceut. more than it was formerly. Q. To what do you attribute this greater supply of boat fishermen and better qual- ity f — A. These men find they can fish here. This is their home in many cases. A great man^ get boats and find they can do 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 this boat fishing, and what would become of the fishermen f — A. Well, these Usher- men would probably go back to their old business. I wonld not want to fish if I had to pay the duty on mackerel. — (American Evidence, p. 483.) Then we have the testimony of Mr. James R. McLean, of Souris, Prince Edward Island, called by the other side, and coming from the strongest point in favor of compensation, that is, the bend of the island: We had to pay $2 a barrel duty on the mackerel we sent to the United States, and the men would not stay in the island vessels when they saw that the Americans were allowed to come and fish side by side with the British vessels, and catch an equal share of fish ; of course this was the result. The fishermen consequently went on the Ameri- can vessels ; our best men did so, and some of the best fishermen and smartest captaius among the Americans are from Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. There has been put into my hands what may be called an "account stated" on this subject of the balance between what is gained by the provinces by the removal of the duties, and what we gain by the exten- sion of your right to fish. The principle on which it is made up is most unfavorable to us ; 1 do not think it is a sound one, but some persons may. At all events, it is the most unfavorable to us. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Ifi99 > fish if I had Great Britain to Cnited States, Dr. Ti«aviDirof duties on flsh and fish-oil for 12 years, averaged from the rewrns of 1874, 75, and '76, from Appendix O $4, 340, 700 00 Cr. Br value of mackerel caught within 3 miles of coast for 12 years, at |3.75 'per barrel, allowing one-third to have been taken within 3 miles of the shore, and assuming the catch for eacli year as equal to that given in the Port Mnlgrave returns for 1874 (63,078^ bbls.) 946,177 50 Balance due United States 3,394,522 50 We were obliged to take Port Mulgrave retnrns for the year 1874, because, as your honors will recollect, uothiug could extract the returus for 1875 aud 1876 from the hands of the British counsel. No words of advice, do supplication, no bended knees, nothing could get from them those returns, so favorable to the United States, and we took the returns rf 1874. Bat, supposing it to be true that the exporter does not pay all the doties— of course, nobody believes that he pays nothing ; but give him the fairest possible chance, supposing he pays one-quarter, and the consumer pays three-quarters, the result then is, that against the $946,177.50 credited to Great Britain, we put one-quarter of the United States doties remitted, $1,085,175, and it leaves a balance of $138,997.50 in favor of the United States. So that, bringing this matter as far as statistics can bring, it getting the value of the flsli in Prince Edward Island, irrespective of the labor patapoD it afterward, assuming one-third of the fish to be caught with- in the three miles, and to be of equal value with those caught outside, which certainly is not true ; and supposing that of the duty of two dol- lars a barrel only one-quarter is paid by the consumer, still the balance remains in favor of the United States. If, gentlemen of the Commis- sion, sach is to be the mode of treating this subject, by taking values and balancing one against the other, that is the result. I do not suppose, myself, it is possible to arrive atany satisfactory result by any snob close use of statistics, on the other side or on ours. But a few general principles, a few general rules for our guidance, certainly are to be found in all this testimony aqd in all this reasoning. You have the United States able to put on what duties it pleased. You have its actual doties at two dollars per barrel, substantially prohibitory, which every- body said was prohibitory , except those deeply instructed political econo- mists who come here with the impression that some good friend paid the duties for them, to enable them to get into market on equal terms with everybody else. That you have with certainty. Against that you have the most speculative opinion in the world, and that is as to the value to ns of a franchise or a faculty, or a privilege, or a liberty to pursue the free- swimming fish of the ocean a little further than we ordinarily pursue him , with every vessel of ours coming into competition with fishermen from boats, who have every advantage over us, and to ascertain the value of that franchise, privilege, faculty, or whatever you may call it, irrespec- tive of all the capital or industry that must be employed in its exercise. Wijl your honors, before I take my seat, allow me to recapitulate, at the risk of tediousness, so that there may finally ba no misappre- beDsioD, the points upon which the United States expects a favorable decision from this tribunal ? I mean, not merely a decision in favor of peace, which we all hope for, but, technically, I mean a decision of this sort: that, having before you a matter of clear money, and of the abso- 1700 ▲WARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. lute right to lay duties without restriction, and a duty always laid of two dollars a barrel, from which the Dominion is now protected, and free admission to a market, which is their only market, jou cannot ttiid in the value of this faculty or privilege — taken in its historic view, taken with all its circumstances, its uncertainties, its expenses, the perils of exerci.s ing it, and all — that you cannot And in that an amount of money value which equals the money value which the Dominion certainly does receive. Bringing it down, then, to a very few points, our position is this: We had, from the beginning down to 1818, a right to fish all over this re- gion without any geographical limitation: we held it as a common her- itage with all British subjects ; we helped to conquer it, to bring it into the possession of Great Britain; we always regarded it as ours. When we had the war of the Kevolution, we put that and everything else at stake. I concede it. The war did not destroy it. War never does. It is not the declaration of war that transfers a city from you to your enemy, it is the result of the war. Every war puts at stake the w'hole territory. During the wars the boundaries of the two nations are the line of bayonets, and nothing more nor less. But when the war ends, if it is a conquest, the conquered party has no territory to boimd; he depends on the will of the conqueror. If there is no conquest, and the treaty is made upon the principle of uti pos»idetu, then the line of bayonets, when the war closed, is the boundary. If iieace is made upon a special arrangement, or on the principle of in statxi quo ante helium, then the powers are restored to their old rights. The peace which fol- lowed our revolution was upon the latter principle. Tliere was no con- quest— certainly none by Great Britain over us — and peace was made upon the principle in statu quo ante helium, except that we arranged for convenience the boundary-line a little different from what it was before the war. Everything else stood as it stood before, on the principle in statu quo ante helium. And so stood the fisheries, which were just as much our possession, our property, and always had been, as anything else that we held. We held them under our charters, and we held Iheui by right to the last, and the treaty was careful to say so, because, as ]H)inted out by Lord Loughborough in the House of Lords, and by Lord North in the House of Commons, who was the instrument in the hands of the King in bringing about the unhappy war (no one, I think, considers it was "unhappy" now, on either side), they said : this treaty does not concede the right to the Americans to tish within three miles; it acknowledges it as an existing right, as one that they always had, and it makes the usage to fish by the Americans as the final proof, in all disputed questions of geography, political or natural. And so it rested down to 1818. When the Treaty of Ghent was made, in December, 1814, at the close of our war, the parties came together. The Americans utterly refused to hear a word calling in question their right to the fisheries or of geographical limits. Mr. Adams had his famous controversy with Earl Bathurst, in which that question was so fully argued, summarized in one portion of Mr. Wheaton's work on international law, which has been the study of statesmen ever since, and still more fully, perhaps, iu m Mr. Adams's book, which has been alluded to, in the controversy be- tween himself and a certain politician who had undertaken to write a copy of a letter different from the original, but where he went into the whole question from beginning to end. But, in 1818, when Great Britain was at peace with all the world, and when the two nations stood face to face over this subject. Great Britain claiming largely, we did not know what — fifty miles, sixty miles, un- limited King's chambers; when vessels were arrested sixty miles from AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1701 the shore, on tbe ground that they were iu the King's chambers; when they claimed that the Gulf of St. Lawrence was the King's cham- ()er where we had no right to fish; when the three-mile line was a new thing in international law ; when each nation found it could not compel the other and both were desirous of peace; both had seen enough of fiffhting to desire that there should be no more lighting between breth- reo that they should not shed brothers' blood over any contestation in a mere matter of money or interest, and not so much a matter of honor, of sentiment, as it might have been at any moment if any blood had been shed— then the two great powers came to a compromise, and Great Britain agreed, by implication, that she would not assert any claim of exclusion anywhere beyond the ordinary lines. Not a word was said OD that subject. She never surrendered those extreme claims in terms, any more than she surrendered in terms the right to board our ships and take from them, at the discretion of the commander, any man whom the officer thought spoke the English tongue as an Englishman and not as an American. It was never conceded to us, although we fought a warniwn it, but no one believed it would ever bo attempted again to be put in force. But as to what was specifically done it was u com- promise. Great Britain was not to exclude us from the Magdalen Islands within the three-mile line, or auy geographical limit of the Mag- dalen Islands, or from Labrador from Mount Joly northward indefinitely, or from certain large portions of the coast of Newfoundland; and, on the other hand, we agreed that England might exclude us — it was a treaty agreement — during the continuance of the treaty from the rest of the Gulf of St. Lawrenr;e within three miles of the shore. Unquestion- ably, as the letters of Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Rush, who made the treaty, sbovr, we thought we had gained all that was of value at that time. It was not until about the year 1830 that this great change in the fislieries themselves came in, when they ceased 'o be exclusively cod fisheries, and became mainly maclierel fisheries, ihen the importance of landing upon the shores to dry our nets and cure our fish was reduced to noth- ing; I mean practically nothing. We put it in the Treaty of 1871, but it has never been proved that we made any use of that liberty or power. The advent of the mackerel — one of those strange mutations which seem to govern those mysterious creatures of the sea — the advent of the mackerel to this region, and to Massachusetts Bay, put a new coun- tenance upon all this matter. It undoubtedly gave an advantage to the British side, and put us at once to somewhat of a disadvantage. Then came tbe demand of the islanders and of the people of the Dominion, and others, to carry into effect this exclusive system, to drive our fisher- men off, not only from the three-mile line, as we understand it, but from the three-mile line as any captain of a cruiser chose to understand it. Nobody knew what the three-mile line was. Was it to be drawn from headland to headland ? They so claimed. They made maps and marked out a line, running the whole length of Prince Edwanl Island, within three miles of which we must not go. They made other Hues, so that the Bay of St. Lawerence, instead of being an open bay, an international bay, for the use of all, was cut up into preserves for fish, for the sole use of the inhabitants of the Dominion, by these artificial laus, drawn uiwn uo international authority ; and we never could know where we were, whether we were liable to seizure or not ; and we could not pre- dict what decisions the courts might make against us in case we were seized. It was a dangerous, a most unjust and unhappy state of things, the attempt to carry out the claim of exclusion at all, and nobody telt it more than Great Britain. She felt that it was, as one of the captains 1702 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMI88ION. of the royal navy said upon the stand the other day, iimneiiaely ex- pensive to Great Britain to Iceep up this armament aud thi8 watch along the coast by British ships, and more particularly by the small {>rovincial cruisers. It was perilous to confide to these men, the new )orn otiicers of the provincial cruisers, the right to decide (]ueationHot international law, questions of the construction of the treaty, at theii discretion, upon the quarterdeck, with a deep interest to secure what they were in search of, that is, vessels that could be seized. Then there was a guai'd of police to be maintained along the shr id information to be conveyed from point to point. The result was .ation, coUisioD, honest dift'erence of opinion; the American flshennan saying: "I ani more than three miles from that coast, I know," and the British cuinmander saying, with perhaps equal honesty, "you are less," and neither ablet(» determine it ; and the vessel is seized and carried into port, and uobod.r ever can determine where that vessel was when she was seized. Anil then we had pretty burdensome duties laid upon us by the legislatures of these provinces. The burden of proof was thrown upon every 8hi|» to prove that she was not subject to conviction, and she was liable to threefold costs if she failed ; she could not litigate the question without bonds for costs, and it seems to have been left to the discretion of the captor when he should bring his captured shi]> into port, until we hear at last a judge in one of the provinces calling for an explanation why it was that an American ship, unjustly seized and discharged by him, bad not been brought before him for months, until the voyage was destroyed, the men scattered, the cargo ruined, and the vessel greatly deteriorated: and no answer was given, nor did their majesties, < commanders ot the cutters, think it necessary to give any, and I do uppose it was, The whole subject became a matter of most serio^. jilomatic corre- spondence, and, as I had the honor to suggest (and it was too paiutul a suggestion to repeat), a very little change in the line of a shot miglit have brought these two nations into war; because, when passion is roused, when pride is hurt, when sympathies are excited, it is bard to keep peace between even the best governments and most highly edu- cated peoples. They feel the point of honor, they feel the sentiment that the flag has been insulted, that blood has been shed. The whole subject became too perilous to allow it to stand any longer. Great Britain was also led into difficulties with her provinces, by reason of their efforts to make the most of their three-mile exclusion, to which she was utterly indifferent. The provinces saw dt to make their lines a8 they pleased, and when they could not bring their great capes or head- lands of the bays near enough together to exclude us, then they in- creased the line of separation which the law established. If "the mountain would not go to Mahomet, Mahomet must go to the mount ain." If the bay persisted in being no more than six miles wide, then the provincials met it by a statute that it would do if it was ten miles wide; and they were telegraphed instantly from England, "That will not do ; you must not treat the American people in that way. Go back to your six-mile line," and they obeyed at once. Then they attempted to reconcile the whole matter by the aid of a suggestion from Great Britain to give us licenses to fish within the three miles upon a nomi- nal rent. '* They have always fished there," she said ; " we cannot have peace unless they do. We have tried to exclude them, and it is in vain. We must give up this exclusion ; but we do not want to give it up and surrender it for nothing. We do not care for their money, but let theni pay us a nominal license-fee as a recognition of our right to exclude. Very well ; they put the fee at fifty cents a ton, and many Americans AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1703 naid it; not, they said, because they considered the rig^ht to flsb farther 'ban tbey bad fished to be worth that amount, but peace was worth it, iiecarity was worth it. To escape the claws of the cutters and local itolice, to avoid the uncertainty of a contlict of judicial opinions, such as 1 bare had the honor to lay before you, they did pay, to some extent, the charge for the license. Then, as I have said, in that unaccountable and unaccounted for maDiier the license fee was iticreased from fifty cents to a dollar a ton, and from a dollar a ton to two dollar.s a ton, with the certain knowledge thatasouly a portion had paid the tlfty ceuts and a much smaller por- tion had paid the one dollar, probably none would pay the two dollars, aud 80 substantially it turned out. Now, why did they do it f I do not Itiiow, as I said before. I charge nothing upon tbom. I only know the i^ult was that we could not afford to pay the license. It was no longer what the British Government intended it should be, a license-fee of a merely nominal sum, as an acknowledgment of the right ; but it put us, imliceused, entirely in their power. Then they let loose upon us their cutters aud their marine police. Well, the two nations saw it would not do, that the thing must be given up, and we came first to the treaty of 1854, and for twelve years we had the free scope of all these shores to fish where we liked, and there was peace; and certainly the British Government had free trade, aud there was a profit to them, and, I hope, protlttous; and then we terminated that treaty, because we thought It o|)crated unequally against us. VVe got nothing from the extended right to Osb, while tbey got almost ever,\ thing from the extended free trade. Then came back the old ditficulties again. We returned to our duties, two dollars a barrel on mackerel and one dollar a barrel on her- rin^r, and they returned to their system of exclusion, and their cutters, and their police, and their arrests, and their trials. It became more and more manifest that they could not use their fisheries by their boats to profit, and we could not use them by our vessels to profit ; and all things bearing together, also the great difficulty that lay between us and Great Britain with reference to the Alabama cases, led to this great triamph, gentlemen, because, I do not care which party got the best of it at this or that point, it was a triumph of humanity. It was a triumph of the doctrine of peace over the doctrines of war. It was a substitu- tion of a tribunal like this for what is absurdly called the " arbitration of war." And now, gentlemen, that being the history of the proceedings, we have laid before you, on behalf of the United States, the evidence of what Great Britain has gained in money value by our tying our hands from laying any duties whatever, and she has laid before you the benefits she thinks we have gained b? the right to extend our fisheries along certain islands and coasts, and you are to determine whether the latter exceeds the former. Great Britain, I suppose, stimulated solely by the Dominion, called for a money equivalent, and we have agreed to submit that question ; therefore we have nothing further to say against it. We stand ready to pay it if you find it, and I hope with as little remark, with as little objection, as Great Britain paid the debt which was cast upon her by another tribunal. The opinion of counsel sitting here for seventy days in conducting the trial, and in making an argument on the side of his own country, is extremely liable to be biased, and I therefore do not think that my opinion upon the subject ought to be laid before this tribunal as evidence or as possessing any kind of authority. I came here with a belief much more favorable to the English cause— I mean, as to what amount, if any, Great Britain should receive — from that with 1704 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. which I leave the case. The state of things that was developed was a sarprise to many ; the smaU valae of the extension of the geographical line of fishing to onr vessels — I mean, to vessels such as we have to use — to the people of the United States, and the certain value that at- taches to the provinces in getting rid of duties, hiis given this snbject an entirely new aspect, and has brought my mind very decidedly to a certain opinion ; and I am not instructed by my governmf nt to present any case that I do not believe in, or to risk anything that we do not think is perfectly right ; and the counsel for the United States are of oDeopin- ion, that when we ask this Commission to decide that there is no balauce due to Great Britain, in onr judgment, whatever that judgment may be worth, it is what justice requires the Commission should do. I have finished what is my argument within the time which I intended last night; but, Mr. President and gentlemen, I cannot take leave of this occasion, and within a few da;\ s, as I must, of this tribunal, withont a word more. We have been fortunate, as I have had the honor to say already, in all our circumstances. A vulgar and prejudiced mind might say that the Americans came down into the enemy's camp to try their case. Why, gentlemen, it could not have been tried more free from out- side influence in favor of Gre.it Britain had it been tried in Switzerland or in German3\ This city and all its neighborhood opened their arms, their hearts, to the Americans, and they have not, to our knowledge, uttered a word which could have any effect against the free, and full, and fair decision of our case. The counsel on the other aide have met us with a cordiality which has begun friendships that, I trust, will con- tinue to the last. I say here and now, on behalf of my country, that we have had a trial under circumstances perfectly equal. We have bad the utmost freedom. We have had the utmost kindness everywhere. I can say, in respect to my associates in this case (leaving myself out), that America has no cause to complain that her case has not been thoroughly investigated by her Agent and counsel, and fully and with great ability presented to the court ; and I am certain that Gre:it Britain and the Dominion, represented here by an Agent from the Foreign Ofiiee, devoted to the work before him, assisted by the constant presence ot a member of the Dominion parliament largely acquainted with this whole subject, and with five counsel, one from each province of the Dominion, all capable, all indefatigable, with knowledge and skill, cannot complain that they have not been fully an«l ably represented. But, after all, the decision, the result, depends upon you three gentlemen who have under- taken, two of you at the request of your respective countries, and his excellency at the request of both countries, to decide this question between us. It has been said — I have heard it — that your decision will be made upon some {•eueral feeling of what, on the whole, would be best for the peace of the two countries, without much reference to the evidence or to the reasoning. Mr. President and gentlemen, we repudiate any such aspersion upon the character of the caurt. We know, and we say it in advance, not that we hope this tribunal will proceed according to the evidence, and decide in accordance with the evidence and the weigbt of reasoning, but it must be so, and we congratulate your honors and your excellency In advance, that when this det'ision shall have gone out, wiiether it be for the one side or the other, whether it be a pleas ure or a pain to the one side or the other or both, that it will be decided upon those principles which it is manifest the treaty determined it should be decided upon, not from some local or national view of policy for the present or future, not upon something which some hope may by-audby AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1705 ;egalt in something better than the present treaty, but that you will confine yourselves to exactly what the treaty asks and empowers you to do, to determine what now shall be the pecuniary result ; and I again congratolate this tribunal in advance that its determination will be sucb that, whatever may be the result and whatever the feeling, the tiro countries will know that the case has been heard under circum- itances the most favorable possible to fairness, before a tribunal ot their own selection, and that each of your honors will know that you hare been governed by principle and by that rule of conduct which. alone can give a man peace at last. . vir. FLWL ARGUMENTS OF MR. WHITEWAY ON BEHALF OF HEK BRITANNIC MAJESTY. Thursday, November 15, 1877. The Conference met. Mr. Whiteway addressed the Commission as follows : Tbe duty devolves upon me in taking my part in the closing of this ca^, which has now engaged your most earnest attention for a period of over live months, of addressing you, lirst, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and in the discharge of that duty it has not been assigned to me, nor is it incumbent upon me to refer to the various treaties which, trom time to time, have existed between Great Britain and the United States, relating to those important fisheries, which are the subject now DDder consideration. I apprehend that it is of little import, in respect to this case, whether the Reciprocity Treaty abrogated the Treaty of 1S18. as contended for by the learned counsel on the opposite side ; rel- egating oar position to the status existing under the Treaty of 1783 ; or what effect the war of 1812 had upon the then existing treaties. These are qaestions outside the matters now under discussion, and I shall not deal with them. It is sufficient for me to take the Washington Treaty of 1871, which has been correctly termed " the charter of your author- ityt'tbe bond under which you are acting, and make it the foundation of my argoment. I am sure that no one who hewtoundland, and the value thereof. Tbe fisheries of Newfoundland are of historic celebrity, and have been so since the day when Cabot, with his five vessels, steering northwest, on Jane 24, 1497, caught the first glimpse of Terra Nova; and rejoic- in2 in bis success, named the high projecting promontory, which now liears the name of " Bona Vista"; and it is recorded that in such abun- dance were the codfish seen, that Sebastian Cabot called the country BaccaUios, in allusion to the circumstance; a name which still designates an island upon the coast. Of that period, which embraces the first tentnry after the discovery of Newfoundland, we learn that by degrees there came to be attached to the cod fisheries on the Banks and around the coasts more and more importance; and that in 1578, according to Haclilayt, no less than 400 vessels were annually engaged in this employ. From tbence, until the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, the French, always (iiisferning the enormous value of these fisheries, availed themselves of fvery opportunity and pretext, for further and further acquisitions, and for securing a foothold in the island as a basis for fishing operations. By tbat tresity Great Britain was solemnly confirmed in the exclusive sovereignty of the entire territory, but the French were recognized as having the right of fishing concurrently with the English along certain |)ortioDS of the shore, and in the use of the shore as far as was needed for certain ])urpo8es connected with the fisheries. It is needless for me here to refer to the various treaties respecting the fisheries, which have been from time to time concluded between Great Britain and the United States, and between Great Britain and France since that date; suffice it to say that, prior to 1871, the United States enjoyed a liberty to fish between Quirpou and Cape Hay on the west coast, and between Cape Bay and the Bameau Islands on the south coast. By the Treaty of Washington, of the 8th May, 1S71, United States citizens acquired the right to take fish of every kind between Kameau Islands and Cape Eace on the south coast, and between Cape Race and the Quirpon Islands, comprising a large area of the most val- uable inshore fisheries of the world. We find a steady increase in the proossibiy be taken outside the three-mile limit, and in some cases, as Judge Ben nett tells ns. within hailing distance of the fishermen's homeii. I have so far given concisely the result of these fisheries in the past, and their present annual product, from which may be formed an idea of their probable yield in the future, aud these annual results are derived from the evidence of witnesses, whose testimony is incontrovertible— which no attempt has been made to assail. I would now draw attention to the evidence of scientists, who have been examined before this Com- mission. Professor Baird, called on the part of the United States, says that he, with a force of experts, naturalists, and gentlemen interested in the biology of fishes, has been engaged for five years in the proseca- tion of enquiries into the condition of the fisheries, and that his prin- cipal object has been to ascertain what natursil, physical, or moral caases influencetl fish. " I think," says he, " the cod at the head of fish at the present day. There is no fish that furnishes food to so many i)eople, 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." As far as he can ascertain, there is a partial migration of the codfish. They change their situation in search of food, or in consequence of the variation of tern peratnre, the percentage of salt in the water, or some other cause : aud at the south of Cape Coil the fishery is largely off shore ; th it is, the fish are off the shore in the cooler waters in the summer, and as the tea)i)er ature falls toward autumn, they come in and are taken within a tH miles of the coast. The fish generally go off-shore in the winter, buf on the south coast of Xetc/otindkind they maintain their stay inshore, or else come in in large abundance ; and the professor refers to the coast of Lab- rador and Newfoundland as specially favored localities — as places imhore where, among others, the largest catches of cod are taken, and, says the professor (p. 478 of United States Evidence), *' it is certainly a no- torious fact that herring are much more abundant on the coast of Sev- fonndland than they are on the coast of the United States ; though whether the herring that are wanted on the United States coast uoald AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1709 orconld not be had in the United States, I cannot say, but I do think tbatberring are vastly more abundant in Newfoundland and the Bay of Fondy than they are farther south." Professor Hind, upon the same subject, says that he has given his attention especially to ocean physics, the habits of fish, and has made a particular study of the action of the Arctic cu rrent, and the eflect of the Golf stream, tor a number of years ; agreeing with Professor Baird, be gives tlie cud a primary position among fishes, and that it requires water of a low temperature. It always seeks the coldest water when- ever ice is not present (p. 3, Appendix Q). He says also, "It is only where extreme cold water exists that cod is found throughout the year ; and apon the American coast it is only where the Arctic current striUes that cod is found through the year." A close study of history and authentic fishery records has enabled him to pronounce with authority that there are certain localities where the cod fisheries are inexhaustible, as the Straits of Belle Isle, the Grand Banii of Newfoundland, and, to use the professor's words, " that amazing UMig ground on the south coast of Newfoundland.^ " There is no portion 'fiftke trorW,^ he says, " where there is such an amazing supply of cod. It ias been so for three hundred years and xtpwards. Compared with European iikeries, Ike Newfoundland and Labrador are far superior in every respect."^ That the Newfoundland coast fishery is, on an average, compared with tbeXorw egian fisheries, including the Lofoden Islands (which Professor Baird speaks of as being one of the most important and productive fish- ing grounds), as five is to three, or where five quintals of fish are taken atKewfoandland, three are only taken on the coast of Norway, includ- ing the Lofoden Islands. He says the bays and all along the coast of >'ewfoundlaud, and also part of the Grand Bank, may be considered as the great spawuiug grounds of the cod, and the great cod fishery of the world ; the conformation of the coast, the depth of water, the deep bays and inlets, and the numerous islands surrounding Newfoundland, are pecu- liarly adapted to constitute that coast as the home of the codfish. (Hind, p. 6, Appendix Q.) " I think there is no part of the world where, owing to the orographic features of the coast line, all the conditions of life for the cod are developed to such an extent as in the northeast coast of Newfoundland, the northern portion of the Grand Banks, and the soatbern part of the island.'^ Tbe diagram carefully prepared by Professor Hind, showing the prog- ress of the Newfoundland fisheries from 1804 to 1870, is conclusive evi- dence of their continuously increasing value and importance. I do not wish to delay the Commission by referring to that most interesting evidence of Professor Hind, where he graphically describes the myriads of diatoms amid the icebergs of the Arctic Seas, and traces, link by link, tbe chain of connection between the lowest minute forms of life, and the food of all fish inhabiting the cool temperature of the Arctic current; following the course of that current along the shores and banks of British North America, teeming with cod and other cold-water fishes ; but let us proceed and see what practical men say on the subject, cap- tains of United States Bankers. Captain Molloy (British Affidavits, p. -50, No. 53), says : " From my experience and observation, I am of opinion that the Bank fishery off the coast of Newfoundland ib capable of vast expansion and development, toward which tl privilege of baiting and refitting iu the harbors of Newfoundland is iiHiispensable." And Capt. Joseph P. Deneef (British Aflfldavits, No 52, p. 50, Appen- dix G), confirms this statement in every particular. It is sufficient for^me to observe that Jjthe scientific researches and 1710 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. stady of these learned professors, and the practical experience of these United States masters of vessels, combine to prove the vast soarce of wealth now existing in the Newfoundland waters, and the probability nay, almost certainty, of there being still a richer mine of flsbery-wealth than Is apparent from their present partially developed state. My learned friend, Mr. Dana, admits the cod fishery to be the great fishery of his countrymen, and, quoting the late Mr. Howe, he alleges the impossibility of its depletion. I now come to the question of bait-fishes, and the taking of them by Americani^ on the coast of Newfoundland. It was attempted to be shown by my learned friends on the other side that salt bait is better and less expensive than fresh. In the establishment of either of these positions a very short review of the evidence of their own witnesses will show that they have utterly failed. Major Low, put forth as an important witness upon this subject, had been one year fishing in the gulf, three years fit- ting vessels for the fishery, two years a warrior, then a town clerk in Gloucester, and now an official in the post-office. Such a variety of oc- cupations, no doubt, gave him knowledge to speak with authority. He produces from the books of Mr. Steele an account of a cod-fisbing voy- age in the Pharsalia, in 1875 (p. 360, Appendix L), fishing with fresh bait ; and another account of a vessel, the Madame Roland, in 1873 (p. 363, ibid.), fishing with salt bait, and because the result of the Madame Boland's voyage in 1873 realized more than that of the Pharsalia in 1875, this, in the major's opinion, is clear, conclusive evidence that salt bait is better than fresh. But did it never occur to him that the cod fishery in one year might be very prosperous, and la another unsuccessful? that two vessels in the same year might fish very near each other, even with the same appliances, and that one might be fortunate and the other not so ? But the gallant major then makes a great discovery, that in the fresh-bait voyage there are some damaged fish, and be at once jumps to the conclusion that it is because fresh bait is used. Here is the evidence in answer to my learned friend, Mr. Dana (p. 362): Q. Before you leave that, I want to ask you in reference to an item there—" dam- aged codfish 1" — A. 13,150 pounds of damaged cod at 1 cent, $131.50. Q. Why should there be this damaged ci^iish ; what is the cause of it f [Here the gallant mtyor desires to make a favorable impression, but he evidently does not desire to ruin our case entirely, and he answers reluctantly.] A. Well, I have my own opinion of the cause. But he is pursued by ray learned friend, and with crushing effect he answers : Q. What do you believe to be the cause ? — A. I believe the cause is going in so much for fresh bait. This is terrible. 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 maob, aud didn't put so much salt ou it. W^hen she went into port so much, going into the warm water it heated. But upon cross examination, he says (p. 394 and 395, ibid.): 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 T— A. Yes. Q. Will you find in the trip-book, which you presented here, another case of a Grand Bank fishing-vessel fishing with fresh bait, where there has beeu any damaged fish for these three years, 1874, 1875, and 1876?— A. The schooner Knight Templar. '°""^° items of outfit, among others an item showing she was on a salt-bait trip.) Q. Then there is damaged fish on a salt-bait trip f — A. Yes. Q. Now find another case on a fresh-bait trip. (Witness refers to book.) AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1711 0 I don't think yoa will find any. You see, fish may be damageil on board a salt- hut vMwl fishing on the Banks as well as on a fresb-bait trip f — A. I see it. Q Now yon find there are damaged fish aa well with salt-bait fishing as with fresh. — ' 1 do find it. Q And it is upon that one case of damaged fish with fresh bait that yoa arrive at ia inclusion ?— A. I oonld not account for it in any other way. this roDclusion Q Bat it is this one case that you draw the conclusion from f — A. Yes. 0. And yon would lead the Commission to believe, then, that fish was 1 able to be dasiBged because of vessels going in for fresh bait, becansa 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 f — A. I withdraw as far as that is concerned. The gallant major has at last collapsed. Mr. Atwood is also a great authority upon this point. He evidently belongs to the old school, being seventy years of age. He had not tished ou tlie Banks for five and twenty years, his last voyage was November, 1851, and was really incapable of expressing an opiuion from experi- ence, having never used fresh bait. He endeavored to lead you gentle- men to believe that it was the opinion of all vessel-owners and agents ofvessels in Provincetown that the going in for fresh bait was of no advantage, and that they purposed discontinuing it. He said that he bad interviewed the agent of every vessel in Provincetown, but upon cross-examination it really appears that out of twenty-three or twenty- four agents of vessels he had held communication with four only, Cook, Wangb, Paine, and Joseph (p. 58, ibiel.), and it would seem that Mr. At- wood bad certain theories, and that he tried to enforce his opinion upon others as to this question of fresh bait. But what say practical wit- nesses, who have been called on the part of the United States and ex- amined by my learned friends upon this subject. Edward Stapleton lias been nsiug fresh bait, obtained on the coast of Newfoundland, for the last three years, and carrying on the Bants fishery, and says at page 12; "If a vessel alongside of you has fresh bait, yon are not going to catch your share of fish with salt bait." And at page 18 : Q, Yoa consider salt bait superior to fresh bait, I believe ? — A. O, no ; I think fresh bait is the best. Q, YoQ do adroit, then, that fresh bait is the best ? — A. O, certainly, when other vessels on the Bank have it. Q. When codfish see fresh bait they prefer it to salt bait f — A. Yes. Q, Cons quently you admit that it is of some advantage to you to be able to go to the coast of Newfoundland and get fresh bait f — A. 0, yes, certainly it is. Mr. Francis M. Freeman also says, at page 80 : Q. Is salt bait just as good as fresh ? — A. Fresh bait is the best. (^. Is it not more generally nsed T — A. When you can get it. Q. If you can it is much better than salt ? — A. Yes. Q. Frantically, the salt bait cannot compete with the fresh bait f — A. No ; it is not as good as fresh. Q, Don't the vessels that run over here from the United States and get bait from Nova Scotia use fresh bait altogether ? — A. Yes ; the Cape Ann vessels do. Q. Don't they from Gloucester as well ? — A. The Gloucester vessels use fresh bait altogether. Q. Then you consider salt bait preferable ? — A. No ; I never said so. Q. The fresh bait you consider preferable ?— A. Certainly. Q. But surely you don't mean to say that fresh bait is better than salt bait f — A. Tes. Q. Do you mean to say that you can catch more fish with fresh bait? — A. Always. Q. You can catch them faster f — A. Yes. Q. You are certain of it f — A. Yes. Mr. Lewis, at page 90, says, in answer to the query Q. It has been stated before ns that trawls require fresh bait. Has that been your experience?— A. It is better to have fresh bait. Q. Witnesses have told us that with trawls the bait lies on the bottom, and if it is not fresh the fish will not take it?— A. They will not take it as well as fresh bait, bat tbey will take it if they cannot get anything else, and if they cannot get fresh bait. 1712 AWARD OF THE FI8HEBY COMMISSION. Mr. Orne, at page 131, United States Evidence, makes the followine statement : ^ Q. You left Gloucester with salt bait ? — A. No ; I took enough fresh herrine to l&it oiy trawls once ; this was in 1870. If I remember right I went to the Brand Bank for halibut. I did not get a trip until alter I had gone in for fresh bait. Having thus referred to tbe opinions of some of the witnesses called by the United States themselves, and there are others who testify to the same effect, I will now call your attention to the evidence of those called on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty's Government. Mr. John Stapleton, page 229, British Evidence, stated that " there is only a certain season on tbe Grand Bank that the squid is there. When it is there they get it there, but when they cannot they come inshore and get it. They either buy herring or mackerel, or they catch squid. Whatever they cun get by catching or buying they put in ice and then go back." And in answer to the query, " Why cannot they prosecute the Bank fishery without this?" be answered, "Well, the fish won't •bite without something." Q. Cannot they bring these from their own country ?— A. Yes, that is all very true. It may be that the first trip, when they went from home they had bait. Bat tliat will last for only one one or two baitings. And if they cannot get bait on the Baaic then they have to haul up anchor and get it inshore. Q. Well, is it necessary for them, then, to buy bait from you f— A. Well, the salt bait will not catch the fish while there is other bait there. Q. For trawling it is absolutely necessary to have fresh fish ? — A. Yes, if it was not necessary they would not come. Mr. William McDonald, at page 311, ibid., says : Fresh bait is absolutely necessary to take codfish. Bank fishing could not be succesis- fully carried on without it ; American captains say they have to get fresh bait or tbey ^an catch no fish. Q. How did you catch the cod ? — A. We caught them with trawls. Q. What kind of bait did you use f— A. Fresh bait — herring. Q. Cannot you catch cod equally well with salt bait I — A. No. Q. How do yon know f — A. I have tried it. Q. Tell us the result of your experience f — A. I have been on the Banks with nothing 4)nt porgies for bait — we generally took a few barrels with us to start upon— and run out our trawls, having tbe salt bait, and there appeared to be not one fish round, for we could not feel a bite or get a fish. I have then ran to land, got herring, and gone • out to the same ground as near as possible, and put out the trawls and had au abund- ance of fish, where previously with a salt bait we got not a fish. Even if you bait your hook with a piece of salt porgie, and put a small piece of fresh herring on tbe point of the hook, you will have a fish on it. Q. Your evidence amounts to this, that fresh bait is absolutely necessary to catch codfish ? — A. Most undoubtedly. Q. And without fresh bait Bank cod fishing cannot be successfully carried on?— A. I am quite sure of it. Q. Yon are quite sure of it ? — A. I am quite certain of it from practical experience, I have tried it. Q. For how many years ! — A. Four or five years. It is some time ago, but I believe from what American captains say, that it is worse now. They have to get fresh bait ~or they cannot catch any fish, tbey say. Q. If the American vessels were not allowed to enter Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton for frosh bait, they could not carry on the cod fishery ?— A. No ; it would be impossible. Any man with common sense knows that. They might carry it on to a certain extent, but not successfully. Q. Have you ever conversed with American captains ? Do you know whether that is their opinion? — A. Yes. Q. They have so expressed themselves to you ? — A. Yes ; a number of times. There is not a year goes by but I talk with fifty of them. Q. That is the general opinion of those acquainted with the fisheries* — A. Yes: it is the general opinion. Q. Did you ever hear a man hold a different opinion f — A. I don't think I ever knew any man who held a different opinion. Q. If witnesses came here and told a different story, what would you say ?— A. I ^:don't know how they could. AWARD OB' THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1713 Mr. William Ro3S, collector of easterns in this city, says, at p. 349 : I think for the snocessful prosecntion of the cod fishery iresh bait is absolutely neces- larT' 1 sbould think a vessel using fresh bait would catch at least double the quautity of iisb, Ami not to weary the Commission, I will merely add that numerous otber wituesses have spoken to the same effect. Koff, as to the comparative cost of salt and fresh bait, I cannot do better than instance the case of the Pharsalia, as Major Low htis selected her as the most expensive trip, with fresh bait, made by any of Steele's vessels during three years — 1874, 1875, 1876. His evidence, at page 394, United States Evidence, is as follows : Q, Well, now, what induced you to make the selection of this trip as an illustration of the cost of a vessel using fresh bait and going to the Grand Banks? — A. liecause it covered so many ports which she entered, and the ditf^rent rates charged for ice and Q. Is it uot the most expensive trip that is in that book ? — A. I think not. 0, Turn np the other that is wore expensive. See if you can tind a more txpeusive trip than that. What years does that book covert — A. 1874, 1875, and a portion of 1876. Q. Xow, is not this the most expensive trip made by any vessel using fresh bait (luriug these .vears f—( After referring to the book) It may be. From what examination lbavenmdo,'l think it may be. Q. As far as you have gone, you find it to ba the most expensive trip ? — A. Yes. The Pharsalia's trip, therefore, appears to have been the most costly oDe be could tind, as regards fresh bait. At page 360 of the United States Evidence it will be seen that the whole cost of fresh bait, for one voyage, according to Major Low's ac- count of the Pharsalia, is $251.97, including ice, port charges, commis- sion to agents, &c. This is certainly much above the average. Now, then, let us see the cost of supplying a Grand Bank cod-tishing vessel with salt bait. At page 362, United States Evidence, tbe same witness, qaoting from Mr. Steele's books, puts the price of slivers at $8 per bar- rel, aud of salt clams at $11 per barrel. Francis Freeman at page 80, who has had several vessels upon the Grand Bank fishing, says (at page 82) that the average quantity of salt bait taken by a vessel of from 05 to 80 tons would be 50 barrels. Joshua Payne, another United States witness, who also fitted out vessels for the Grand Bank, says that one of his vessels took 40, another 60, and another 75 barrels. Assiimiiig this average given by United States witnesses themselves to be correct, aud accepting the valuation given by Major Low, and the tact stated by him in his account of tbe Madame Koland, that one-half was slivers and one-half clams, we get the following result : For a trip with 50 barrels of salt bait : i)at!?(i $200 00 ■iaaiin Si73 00 $4T5 GO Foratrip with 40 barrels of salt bait 380 00 Koratrip with (10 barrels of salt bait 570 00 Foratrip with 75 barrels of salt bait 739 00 These, then, according to tV'^ statements made by United States wit- nesses tlieuiselves, are the costs incurred by vessels for their supply ot salted bait, as against $251.97, as shown before, for fresh bait. I have, tben, clearly established, out of the mouths of their own wit- nesses, that fresh bait is superior to salt, and costs far less money. But it is quite unnecessary for me to argue as to the comparative value of tresh and salt bait. ' We have in evidence, from the American wit- nesses, the plain, simple fact, that the obtaining of bait from the coast of Newfoundland was adopted as a practice about four years ago; that 108 F 1714 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. it hs\» increased annually, autil in the present year nearly all the Amer- ican vessels have gone to the coast for that purpose. The practice has become all but universal^ and business men are not likely to do that which is inimical to their interests ; what further evideuce or proof cau be required on this question ? I will now proceed to consider the position taken by my learned fdend Mr. Foster, when he asserts that the United States flshermeti do not proceed to the coast of Newfoundland to fish for bait, but to buy it. i entirely join issue with my learned friend on this point. Apart from the bait actually caught by them, the arrangement under whicii the Amer- icans obtain the bait, which they allege that they buy, is to all intents and purposes, and in law, a taking or fishing for it themselves within the words of the treaty. It has been asserted that nearly one half of the crews of American vessels fishing upon the Banks consist of men from the provinces and from Newfoundland ; if, then, a master of a vessel so manned proceeded to Fortune Bay with his herring seine on board, or hiring a herring-seine there, then and there with his crew caught the bait be required, would it be contended that, because British fishermen were engaged in the hauling of that bait, that therefore it was not taken by the American masters ? Surely such a position would be absurd. Now, in reality what is the difference between this mode of proceeding and that practiced by the Americans for procuring bait? Let us set- what is done according to the evidence. In some cases (and these are are few) the American proceeds to St. Pierre, and there meeting a New- foundland fisherman, owner of a herring-seine, and who possesses a thorough knowledge of the localities where the herring are to be taken, he agrees with him for a certain sum for his services, and it may be for one or two men besides, and for the use of his seine, to proceed to the fishing ground and there to secure the necessary quantity of bait re quired by the banker. Or in other and the large majority of cases the American vessel proceeds to the residence of such fisUermau on the coast of Newfoundland and there makes a similar arrangement. Having arrived at the herring ground, the owner of the seine, with bis one or two men and the assistance of some of the American crew, haul and pat on board the American vessel all the bait that he requires, and some- times receives his payment according to the number of barrels required for baiting a vessel, and sometimes in a lump sum. Again in other cases where squid is required and caplin, he goes to a harbor, states that he requires so much bait, and then and there enters into a contract with a man to go and catch it for him, for which he is paid according to the quantity caught. It would be a subtle distinction to draw be- tweeji the man thus hired in Newfoundland outside the crew of the ves- sel to catch bait and the British subject who was hired in Gloucester to proceed to Newfoundland and do the very same work. How very differ- ent this contract is from a contract of sale and purchase. If the herring or other bait had been previously caught, barreled, and in bis store ready to be sold to the first purchaser who would give him bis price, then it would be a simple commercial transaction, but here the article required is a fish freely swimming in the sea. The American desires to capture it, and whether he captures it through the instrumentality of a British subject or other person and reduces it into his own possession for his own use it is immaterial, and never could there be a more suitable application of the maxim of law, qui facit per alium facit per se, than in the instance now before you. But this not the only way in which bait is taken by the Americans on the Newfoundland coast. They have of late taken seines on board their own vessels, proceeded to Fortune Bay, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1715 J (|,ere not only have they taken bait for their own purposes, bnt tbev bave taken it and proceetled to St. Pierre, have sold it to the French tisberioen, tbereby directly competing with the Newfoundlanders in a trade formerly entirely their own, and doubtless as it is a lucrative bus- iness tbe Americans will more and more practice it. They also catch baitflslies to a large extent. I would now call your attention to the evidence which sustains the position I have thus assumed. Mr. Killigrew, at p. 15S of the British Evidence, in answer to the (luestion— Q How do they obtain cajtlin and Hqnid f Do tbey take this bait themselves or ircliase it froui tiie people f — A. It is in this way — they generally hire a man who This man receives LnsaBeine, and tbe crew of the American vessel goes with him. ) much for the use of bis seine and for his services. 0. This has reference to caplin ? — A. Yes. Q, How do they obtain squid f — A. They purchase it if they can ; otherwise they catch it themselves. Mr. Bennett, at p. 140 of the British Evidence : Q, I want to understand whether in those localities American iisbermen have been (unstaatly comiug in during the summer for bait ? — A. Yes ; every day during the ^asoD. Q. Tbe bait was sometimes purchased from tbe people and sometimes caught by tkmselves ?— A. I think they always combined the two together. When taking tbe berrlD); themselves with seines, their crew would haul in the herring with the assist- ance of the seining-master, and when jigging for squid tbe crew jig what they can and the skipper bnys what he can. When seeking caplin they assist in the same way ; some vessels bring their own seines for the purpose of taking caplin. Q, What are tlie habits of squid f — A. Squid are never taken around Newfoundland eicept near the shore, on ledges, generally in a harbor or entrance to a harbor. Mr. John F. Taylor, p. 296 of the British Evidence : At Xewfoundlaud Americans sometimes fish for bait inshore. Mr. Tatrick Leary, p. 66 British Affidavits : I supplied him (James Dunphy) with bait. In 1870 and 1875 I gave him forty bar- rels of caplin each year He found tbe crew, and I found the seine and gear. He paid ine eight dollars each year for my services. John Mclniiis, a witness called on behalf of the United States, pp. llL'aDd 19u, says : Q, How many barrels of bait do you take each time ? — A. Sometimes fifty barrels, and sometimes forty. Some vessels take sixty barrels. (J. Po you pay so much a barrel, or employ a man and pay him so much in tbe liiiup!— A. We will employ a man that has a seine, and he will go catching herring forsomuih; it may bo $'M), $40, or |50 for all we want. If we want 40 barrels, we will give, say $40 ; if they are scarce, perhaps more. He will take a seine, and perhaps 1)6 two or three days looking after them. Q. Von say, "I will give you |30 or .$40 (as the case may be) to go and catch me so many barrels ?"— A. Yes; that is the way it is done, and then sometimes we give $10 for he. Q. Do you give any assistance in catching them ? — A. Sometimes we do. Q. Vou were asked as to the mode of getting bait, whether you employed those men that went for herring. Do you pay them wages, or pay them after tbe fish are tanghtf-A. We employ them before they go. Q. Bnt you don't pay them wages f — A. Yes, we have to pay them. If he goes and loses two or three days we have to pay him. Q. You don't pay them whether they catch or not ? — A. Y^es ; sometimes if I employ a man to go and catch them, if he loses three or four days sometimes I pay him. Philip Pine, planter, residing at Burin Bay, Newfoundland, says, p. W, British Affidavits : I am acquainted with the fisheries of Newfoundland by following the same and sup- plying therefor since I was seventeen years of age. 1 have observed a great number of United States fishing vessels in this neighbor- hood, there being as many as forty sail here at one time. These vessels came here for Mit and for ice. 1716 AWABD OF THE FIRHERY COMMISSION Kicliard McGratb, sub-collector U. M. customH, leHiiling at Oderin l^ewfoundland, p. 64, ibid.: I have seen United Staten vessels in this neigh borbood. In 1H74 four or flvei)rihr«.> veiiaels called in at the back of Odorin Island, having procnred icu in Umin. anU tnt-'tv miles from here hauled caplin fur bait. Robert Moray, sapplyinf; merchaut and planter, residing at Caitliu Bay, Newfoundland, p. 67, ibid.t I have become ac,i States fishing- vessels in this neighborhucMl. Last season I can safely nay I haw iiiiwanls of a hundred of such vessels either in this harbor or passing close by ;' tlnTtf wi>re ti\.' or six of these vessels in this harbor Inst year ; they came for bait— for niplin duriiii: the " caplin school," and squids afterward. This bait they hauled thcniNelvt-H in iiart and Jigged squids. I saw six dories belonging to one of their vessels on tlin " jiKuin • ffround " busily employed jigging for squids. They also purchase bait from onr )iroii| " being always in a horry to get their bait as quickly as possible to (irnceeil nKuiiitntli>' Banks. Caplin they regularly haul for themselves when caplin is nlniiKlniit, wliiih it always is until the season advances. Each vessel takes about eighty barrek fresli caplin, which they preserve in ice purchased from our people. The liiiit liuuletl anil jigged by these United States fishermen was taken in the harbor close to Hbori*, Peter Wiuser, planter, residinpr at Aquaforte, Newfoundlaiul, p. OS ibid. : I have been connected with the fisheries of Newfoundland by either prospcutin^ the same or supplyiug therefor since 1 was fourteen years of age. I have seen United States fishing-vessels in this harbor the past seaHoii as wfll as tho year previous, getting bait ; they jigged squids themselves in part, and what they ^tere short of catching they purchased from our fishermen. Caplin they hauled thomiielvf^ using a seine belonging to a person residing in this harbor, which wsn worked by American fishermen, except one young man, the son of the seine owner. Four of tlies*; vessels have been in this harbor at one time catching bait ; as many as lll'teen have been at one^ time in Cape Broyle ; I saw ten there one day whose crews were all en- gaged catching squids. In this immediate vicinity there were last summer not fewer than seventy of these United States vessels in our harbors during the cni)lin scliuo! ; and I am well informed that between St. John's and Trepassy not fewer than two hun- dred have frequented the harbors for the supply of fresh bait, which they promred partly by catching for themselves and partly by purchasing. I am led to believe that it is the intention of the United States vessels to come in upon our shores uiul into our harbors to catch bait to convey to their schooners on the Banks, so that Ihey may prosecnte the cod fishery uninterruptedly. The supply of bait by each L'liited Statei vessel per trip is about as follows : forty barrels caplin during the caplin school, aud, at I was told by one of the captains, fifty barrels siiuids. United States vessels make two and three trips for bait. I might multiply these instances ad infinitum, but I will only further call your especial attention to the affidavits read at the eud of the re- buttal testimony, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government (Xo. 1 to 8. Appendix Q), which amply prove the state of affairs above referred to, and that United States vessels have this year boon it d in Fortune Bay trawling bait with very large seines, !>iid p pplyiug ilie Frfncli. I would add with reference to the p" ' of Mr. Joseph Tierne\ . quoted by Mr. Foster in his speech, th lediately at> tlie answer with which Mr. Foster concludes his ex i, the followiii„ iiuestion and answer occurs in cross-examination : Q. Yon employ them and they go and catch so much b the custom; that is, out of Gloucester. for you ?— A. Yes, that is We have it also in evidence from witnesses of the United States, tl when vessels proceed to prosecute the cod fishery in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, they take herring nets with them, and by that means, them- selves, catch the bait they require. This is a practice which has existed for a number of years, and it must not be forgotten that the right to obtain bait on the coast of Newfoundland is an entirely new privile and is it to be supposed for a moment that thesame mode of operatKi AWAHD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1717 •roscciitinj,' the ffbicli tliey bave adopted with rej^ard to tbe cod fishery in the gnlf will „ot be that which the bankers will practice on the coast of Newfound- liodt I cannot conceive it possible that my learned friend, Mr. Foster, vrill serioiialy contend, under the circumstances set forth in the above (luotcd evidence, that the Americans obtaininj; in this manner that wbicb is indispensable for their efficient prosecution of the cod fishery, >i|iOui(l,by a subtlety of reasoning which I contend is utterly unsustain- able, be permitted to enjoy that which is of such infinite advantage to tbeiii, witliout yielding any equivalent whatsoever. Would this be in accordance with the simplest principles of right, equity, or justice! But apart from the aspect of the case to which I have just alluded, tbere is another feature to which I must draw your most serious atten- tion. Prior to your decision of the Gth September, it was assumed alike b\ tbe Xewfuundlanders and Americans that the right of traffic, trans- .shipinent, &c., was conceded by the Treaty of Washington to American tisbing vessels. But as by that decision it has been ruled that this has not been conceded, and that according to the construction of that de- rision by tbe learned agent for the United States, there has been granted ' iiorlglit to do anything except water-borne on our vessels, to go within tbe limits which had been previously forbidden," I must ask you to nmme tbat hereafter there will be no breach of the treaty in this sense liv American citizens. What would be the effect of this according to tbe strict letter of the bond? American fishermen must have the fresh bait, as I have shown, and the only way in which they will be able to obtain it will be by catching it for themselves. I must then claim from you an assessment of the value of this p<^'vilege on tbe basis that during tbe ensuing years of the operation of the Washington Treaty, United States citizens will be under the necessity of catching for themselves the bait wbicb they have not the legal right to buy. Surely my learned friends do not ask this Commission to assume that American citizens will hereafter surreptitiously avail themselves of privileges which do not of right belong to them, and that on this account the compensation now fairly and justly claimed on behalf of Newfoundland should be in any way reduced by reason thereof. And now, one word with regard to the winter herring fishery in For- tune Bay. It appears that from 40 to .50 United States vessels pro- ceed therti between the months of November and February, taking from tbence cargoes of frozen herring of from 500 or 800 or 1,000 barrels. Outhis point, I would refer you to the affidavits by Mr. Hickman, Mr. Giovauninni, Mr. Hubert, and others, pages 53, 57, and 59 of British Affidavits. According to the evidence these herrings have hitherto gen- erally been obtained by purchase. The trade is evidently increasing, as it seems tbat during the present year one vessel loaded 0,500 barrels. Mr. I'iUtillo, a United States witness, appreciated the right to catch so highly tbat be risked the confiscation of his vessel rather than aban- don his deteinnination to catch a cargo for himself. It is hardly possi- ble, then, to conceive that the Americans will continue to buy, possess- ing, as tbey now do, the right to catch. I desire next to pass on and consider the question as to the Americans exereisiu^ tbe privilege which has been conferred upon them of pros- ecuting tbose prolific cod-fisheries which I have shown to exist in the insbore waters of Newfoundland, where they have now the liberty to fisb. The number of United States vessels engaged in the cod fishery on the Gratid Bank and frequenting the coast of Newfoundland for bait, ac- cording to the evidence, would appear to be from 400 to 500 at the pres- 1718 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ent time. Mr. Fraser, at p. 173, British Evidence, estimates tbe mim ber at 500. The demands of a population of over forty millions necessa^ rily call for an extensive area for the fishing industry of the Dniteii States, and wherever they can pursue their labors with success there will the United States fishermen be found. And the inshore fisbe'ries of Newfoundland, containing an area of upwards of 11,000 square miles is a valuable acquistion to their present fields of operation. The Fiencli enjoy a similar liberty on the northeast and west coasts of tbeislaml to that which the United States now have upon the east anil south coarts. The latv^r are more productive fishing-grounds, and are in closer proximity to the Grand Bank|and other Banks. By the evidence before you it appears, and the fact is, that the French can and do carry on au extensive fishing business on the coasts where they have a right to tish. They send their vessels, of from 200 to 300 tons, from France, which an chor ap.d lay up in the harbors, fishing in their boats in the neighborhood. close inshore, during the summer, and returning to France with their car- goes in the fall of the year. Again, other smaller French vessels par sue the cod-fishing all around tbe west coast ; and as to the value set upon these fisheries by the French, some approximate idea may be ar- rivad at from the jealousy with which their right has been guarded by their government throughout the long and frequent negotiations which have from time to time taken place between France and Great Britain upon the subject. It is true that heretofore the cod and halibut fishery has not been prosecuted by United States fishermen to any cousiderahie extent on most parts of the coawt of Newfoundland, but still there is evi dence of their having fished successfully on the southern coast. Will iam N. Mulloy, of Gloucester, master mariner, states in his attidavitdi. 51, British Affidavits I know of two United States vessels that fished for codfisli inside tbe keys, Saint Mary's, that is on tbe inshore ground. I tished there myself. Philip Snook swears (p. 57, British AtHdavits): United States fishing vessels have fished on tbe inshore fishing grounds, biil I eaiinor give particalars further than that I have seen them so fishing ofi' Daii/ij^ Cove, near south point of Fortune Bay. George Sims (p. 133, British AflBdavita) says : I have seen United States fishing vessels and crews catching codfish on the New- foundland inshore fishing grounds, but cannot state the number, having uiuile no records. George Bishop, of Burin (p. 131, British Aflfldavits) also states: American vessels have fished for codfish on our grounds off Cape St. Mary's. Amer- ican masters partially refit their vessels uccasioually at this port, but have not Lert- transshipped their cargoes. William Collins (p. 62, British Aflidavits) says : American fishermen do sometimes fish on the " inshore fishing-ground " of Cape St. Mary's. I have seen as many as three of these vessels fishing there. Samuel George Hickman, residing at Grand Bank, Newfoundland fp, 58), says : I have seen our shore surrounded by American fishermen fishing for halibut ami cod- fish, but cannot say that all these vessels were inside three miles of a Hue from Leivi- land to headland ; I have frequently seen United States vessels fishing between Pa.*i Island and Brunette Islr.nd ; in some instances these vessels have been tisliing up the bay among the skiffs. I cannot •■'>eak of the quantity or value of their catchef*, bat I mO know that they destroyed the halibut fishery about Pass Island, and larjjely dam- aged the cod fishery of Fortune Bay ; one of their captains told nie " it was uo use for our fishermen to go fishing after United States fishermen." George Rose, of Little Bay, Fortune Bay (p. 54), says : United States fishing vessels have fished about Pass Island, and formerly nuide (jiKiti catches there. Captain Jacobs, of schooner , is said to have been ottered nint AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1719 thoaand dollars for bis load taken abont Pass Island. American fisbing vessels fisb- nz off and aboat Pass Island fished for balibnt and codfish, bnt chiefly for halibut. Mv Mtimate of the valae of thei*. catch is at least eqnal to ten thousand dollars per ionnifl, autl snob fishery was conducted exclusively within three miles of our shores. There is no reason for sapposing that the United States will not ex- ercise the privilege which they have, to an equal or even greater degree tbao the French use theirs. The prospects for lucrative results are more prumising to the United States than to France. The fishing grounds ate better and more convenient. During the years 1871-'72-'73, when the United States first had the privileges granted by the Washington Treaty, there was but an occasional United States vessel which went to Nevfoandland for bait. From 1873 to 1876 the number increased every rear: and in 1877, the present season, it is stated in evidence that an immense number — one witness, I believe, says nearly all the Grand Bank vessels have supplied themselves there with fresh bait — and some have been employed in catching herring and conveying them to St. Pierre and )IiqaeIon, for the purpose of sale to the French. They then enter into direct competition with our people. This, probably, is only a prelude to that competition in the Brazilian, West Indian, and European mar- kets which we shall have to contend against. The Americans have, by virtue of the right to land and cure their fish, the same advantages which we i)ossess for supplying those markets which now are the outlet of car products. This business, by Americans, is evidently a growing oDe, and as they acquire more and more intimate knowledge of the coast, its harbors, and fishing grounds, and their extent and productive- ness: as they find out, which they will do, that they can obtain their dsh close u|)on the coast, with all the conveniences which our inshore tishery af}'ord.s, including the ready facilities for obtaining bait close at liaDcl, with excellent harbors available for the security of their property, is it possible to conceive that there are not those who will prefer this JDvestuieut of their capital rather than incur the risk of life and prop- erty and those expensive equipments which are incident to vessels en- gaged on the Bank fishery ? Mr. Foster, in svn early portion of his speech, undertakes to show " why thefivshennen and people of the United States have always manifested snch a feverish anxiety " to gain access to the inshore fisheries. Ilis explanation is that, at the time the various treaties which contain pro- virions respecting the fisheries were concluded, the mackerel fishery in tbe(iulf of St. Lawrence, as an industry, was unknown, and that their efforts were directed to maintain their claim to the deep-sea fisheries. As a matter of fact, the mackerel fishing by United St.ates vessels in Canadian waters sprung up at a period subsequent to the Convention of ISIS. With the circumstances under which this branch of the fishing business was commenced I am unacquainted ; but, doubtless, a more intimate knowleer quintal of 112 lbs., green fish. Deponent also purchased a considerable qnantity of cod-oil from United States d'hermen, particulars of which he has not at hand. Also, Ricbarii Casliin, page G9, British Aflfltlavits : l'aitei?- AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1727 )Ir. Gallatin wrote to the Secretary of State on the 25th of December, the (lay followiug the signature of tbe treaty, as follows (extract from letter of Mr. Gallatin to Secretary of State, 25th December, 1814, p. On the subject of the fisheries within tlie juriHilictioii of fireat Britain, we have certainly joiieall tli»' coulJ be done. If, according to the construction of the Treaty of 1783, which H'S^iiiuied, the ri^ht was not abrogated by the war, it remains entire, since we most ex- ri!idtlr refused to renounce it, either directly or indirectly. In that case it is only an unset- lidsiibiect of diiTt-rences between the two countries. If the right must be considered as nbrogftled by the war, we cannot regain it without an equivalent. We had none to give but ibe recognition of their right to navigate the Mississippi, and we offered it. On this laxt supposition, iliis right is also lost to them ; and in a general point of view, we have certainly |o. pated point to gain sympathy, by a reference to what, in the United States answer to the case, is called an inhospitable statute. He says : A Nova Scotia statute of 1836, after providing for the forfeiture of the vessel found fishing, orpreparing to fish, or to have been fishing within three miles of the coast, bays, creeks, or harbors, and providing that the master, or person in command, should not truly answer the qnestions put to him in such examination by the boarding officer, he should forfeit the sum ofone hundred pounds, ^oes on to provide that if any goods shipped on the vessel were neized for any cause of forfeiture under this act, and any dispute arises whether thoy have been lawfully seized, the proof touching the illegality of the seizure shall be on the owner or claimant uf the goods, ship, or vessel, but not on tbe ofiicer or person who shall seize and slop the same. These are the very expressions which the learned Agent for the United States employed when he animadverted on that statute. He also states that he is not aware whether a statute similar to this one, which existed in Xova Scotia in 1868, has been repealed. In 1867, however, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the two Cauadas were confederated to- gether, and the matters relating to the fisheries and customs were then transferred to the Dominion of Canada, which has ever since exercised the sole power of legislation over those subjects. The best answer that can be given to Mr. Foster and his colleagues on this point may be quoted from high authority. The Agent for the United States, about t'l" imioA of his arrival here to attend to his duties before this Commis- c.aQ, published in the "American Law Review," a journal which speaks with quasi-judicial authority in Massachusetts, an article on the Fran- couia, having a prominent bearing on this case now before the Commis- sion. I only mention this fact in order to show the high character of the Review. This journal, alarmed at the views proclaimed by Presi- dent Grant, published a very able article on the subject, the writer being an eminent and able lawyer ; and this article deals with the ques- tion of preparing to fish, as well as with the question of trade, both of which have been discussed by my learned friend, the Agent forthe United States. In dealing with the claim of the right on the part of American fishermen to lie at anchor, clean and pack fish, and purchase bait, pre- pare to fish and transship cargoes, the writer says — Mr. Dana. Will you have the kindness to state by whom these views are set forth 1 Mr. BouTBE. I am not quite sure of the name. 1732 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. k¥' Mr. Dana. It is not Mr. Foster. Mr. DouTEE. No. Mr, Dana. You do not know the author ? Mr. DcuTRE. I think I do. Mr. Foster. Unless that is Professor Pomeroy's argumoiitj it is some- thing 1 have never before heard of. Mr. DouTRE. It is his argument, I am informed. ' Mr. Dana. I wish also to say that this Review has no quasi judieja! authority. It is private property, and edited by private peraons. Mr. DouTRE. I thus consider all publications of this nature. All these acts are plainly unlawful, and would be good gjrouncis for the confiscRtion of the oflfending ve.s el, or the infliction of pecuniary penalties. The treaty stipulates that "Amt ;. ican tiwhermen shall be admitted to enter such bays and harbors for the purpose of sliciter of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and obtaining water, tintl for no other purpose whatever " Even assuming, as has sometimes been urged, tiiat the words 'inr no other purpose whatever " refer exclusively to matters connected with the business spj grocees of fishing, the prohibition still covers all the acts enumerated. To use the bays and arbors as places of convenience in which to clean and pack fish, to procure bait, to [Jvepars to fish, or to land cargoes of fish, would be an iuvasion of the exclusive fishing rights witbii; the territorial waters secured to British subjects and denied to American citizens. 'Pre. paring to fish," if permitted, would render it almost impossible to prevent actual Hishiut;. When, from considerations of policy, statutes are made to declare some final result illega:, the legislature uniformly forbids the preliminary steps which are directly connected with that result, lead up to it, and facilitate its accomplishment. Thus, if Congress should ab- solutely prohibit the landing of certain goods in our ports, the United States OovornmeEt would doubtless listen with amazement to a complaint from foreign importers that " prepariiiji to land " was also prohibited. All customs and revenue regulations are framed upon thU theory. The provision of the Imperial and Canadian statutes m'vking it a penal offense for American vessels "to prepare to hsh " while lying in territorial waters, .seems, therefore, to be a " restriction necessary to prevent " their taking fish therein, and for that reason to be lawful and proper. The claim of right to sell goods and buy supplies, the traffic in wiiich the Nova Scotia act was intended to prevent, is thus commented on; This particular claim has not yet been made the subject of diplomatic correspondence he- twe"'- tiie two governments, but amongst the documents laid before Congri;ss at its presem session is a consular letter, from which we quote : " It (the Treaty of 1818) made no reference to and did not attempt to regulate the deep-sea fisheries, which were open to all the world. * * * It is obvious tnat the words ' for uo other purpose whatever ' must be construed to apply solely to such purposes as are in con- travention to the treaty, namely, to purposes connected with the taking, dryingr, or cutuu fish within thrc marine miles of certain coasts, and not in any manner to supplies intended for the ocean fisheries, with which the treaty had uo connection." All this is clearly a mistake, and if the claims of American fishermen, partially sanclioiiel by the United States Executive, rest upon no better foundation, they must bi^ abrtudani'i. In fact, the stipulation of the treaty in which the clause occurs has reference alone to ve- sels employed in deep-sea fishing. It did not require any grant to enable our citizens to engage in their occupation outside tlie territorial limits, that is, upon the open sea ; biu th<»y were forbidden to take, dry, or cure fish in the bays and harbors, They were per- mitted, however, to come into those inshore waters for shelter, repairs, wood, and water. " and for uo other purpose whatever." To what American vessels is this privilege iriviu; riainly to those that fish in the open sea. To say that the "lause "for no other purpose whatever" applies only to acts connected with taking, drying, or curing fish within the three-miles' limit, which acts are in terms expressly prohibited, is simply absurd. ItwoiiU be much more reasonable to say that, applying the maxim noscitura 8odis, the words "li.r no other purpose whatever "' are to be construcl as having reference solely to matters con- nected with r-"gular fishing voj-ages, necessary, ronveuient, or customary in the business ot fishing, and are not to be extended to other acts u( an entirely dift'erent and purely commercia! nature. President Grant declares that so far as the Canadian cla":n is founded upon an allegeJ constiiction of the Convention of li;'l8, it cannoi be acquiesced in by the United States. He states that dur'ng the conference which preceded the signing of this treaty, the Ikitish coin- missioi' .8 proposed a clause expressly prohibiting American fishermen from cavying i)" any trade with British s)ibjects and from ha^ .'Ug on board goods except such as might be necessary for the prosecution 01 ineir voyages. He adds: "This proposition, which is identical with the construction now put upon the Inngnsge nt the conventioL, was emphatically rejected iiy the American commissioners, and there'ipou AWABD OP THE FISnERY COMMISSION. 1733 ifM iiliMJiioneJi liy tbe British plenipotentiaries, and Article I, as it stands iu the conveutioa «3 jubstitott'd.'' The President has b.'en miaiuformed. The proposition alluded to had no co'incction with leiririie?* given in the latter parr of Article I, to enter bays and harbors tor shelter and , h/r smi!*'' P'^'P*'*^''' ' '^"'' ^''^'■"'■''•^ expressly and exclusively to the grant contained in the •'rme.'pftrt of the article of a right to take, dry, and cure fish on the coasts and in the bays /Libnulof aud Newfoundland. This is apparent from a reference to the negotiatious ••..;n*t!v>>9 On September 17, ]yi8, the American commissiout3rs submitted tneir first triitl ofa'reaty. The proposed article relating to the lisheries was nearly tlie same as • ),iBel:m*iIy adopted, including: a renunciation of the liberty to fish within three niiies of ier cj&stii and bays. The proviso was as follows : ' rmruhii.liifirtrer, That American fishermen shall be permitted to euter such bays and irwis for the purpose only of obtaining shelter, wood, wuter, and bail." Th" British counter projtct ffr>vnted a liberty to take, dry, ■> v\d cure fish on the coasts of New- •rin'iiMd and Labrador within much narrower limits than those demanded by the Amer- in pi«Bipi>'''''tiiiries. It admitted the fishing-vessels of the United States into other bays isiiiaibors "for the purpose of auelter, of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, ci obtaining water, and for no other purpose." It also contained the following clause : ■It is further understood that the liberty of taking, drying and curing fiah granted in the •.ri^'*'lin?P«rt of this article shall not be construed to extend the privilege of carrying on •:».it with ftny o!' His Britannic Majesty's subjects residing leithin the timits hertAnhtfore as- iijsidto t/t€ use of fishermen of the United States. And in order the more effectually to guard &iin smuggling, it shall not be lawful for the vessels of the United States e.ngagat in the :\v. lifktry tc have on board any goods, wares, and merchandise, except sach as may be L, t-ary tor the prosecution of the fishery." Messrs. Gallatin and Rsish replied, insisting upon a privilege to take, dry, and cure fish es tie coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador within the limits first demanded by them, and i;,ie« any articles not wanted for carrying on the fishery should be touud on board, would rspose the fishermen toendless vexations." On the llJth October, the British commissioners rr. ptsed Article I. as it now stands, which was accepted at once. There was no "iscussion n'aa alleged right of American fishermen to engage in trade, and no further < lusion on ■se?v:biect. Indeed, througho'U all these conferences the American commissioners were liwhiij to obtain as extensive a district of territory as possible on Newfoundland, Labra- :or. sud the Magdalen Islands for inshore fishing, aud paid little attention to the privilege — ■hrD apparent iy of small value, but now important— of using other bays and harbors for ■Lriie.' anil kindred purposes. The British Agents, on the other hand, endeavored to confine ['.- former grant within narrow bounds and to load it with restrictions. The rejected clause, ccacmiiDg trade and carrying goods, was one of those restrictions, aud in its very terms vkreJ alone to the vessels taking, drying, and curing fish on the portion of the Kewfound- ir,'i»i:d Labrador coasts made free to our citizens. It should be noticed that the proviso rxiily adopted omitted the right originally doiuanded by the Americans of entering other i^T* and harbors for bait, and is identical with the one at first submitted by the British pleui- tjieciiaries, strepgtli<;ned by the addition of the word "whatever" after the clause " for no (;,:« purpose '' It if evident, therefore that the British Government is not estopped from ' ;r\»:iig the claim now set up by American fishermen, und sustained by the President, and y.-iiiing tha occurred during the negotiations preliminary to the treaty. We must fai! back, then, upon the accepted doctrine*, of international law. Every nation ii- :lie imJoobted right to prescribe such regulations of commerce carried on its waters iiii witb its citizens as it deems expedient, even to the extent of excluding entirely some or »^; ['wign vessels and merchandise. Such measures may be harsh, aud under some cir- i3!!>ii»ni.'es a violation of inter-state comity, but they are not illegal. At all events, it does ."■■: W;)u;e a government to complain which now maintains a tariff prohibitory as to many I'.Cies, rtni which at one time paiiscd a seneral emitarffo and non-inttrawrse act There Tv:! to b(t> special reasons why the Dominion authorities may inhibit general commerce by i-Mioaiis eiiiraged iu fishing. Their vessels clear for no particular port ; they are aociis- :i!!rj toenier one bay or harbor after another as their needs demand: they might th!i» liTv on a coasting-trade; they would certainly have every opoortunity for succtssful ■ tiwiiug. Indeed, this would legitimately belong to the loca! c istoins and revooue sys- s!. and Lot to tiie fisheries, lie are thus forced to the cunctiiaiun '.hut American fishtnnen >■■ ri!) riijht to f titer the buys and harburs in question and -idl ^'oods or purchase supplies ' 'kan wood and tcater. Ir is not necessaiy to add a word to tbe able and impartial lattguage iM'U'd, except to suggest that if the uutiior had been uow writiug, he ■iigbt bave found a more forcible example of iiiho.spitable legislaliDU iiiati tiie "general embargo aud uou-intercour.se act,'' namely, the at- tempt to ev ade the plignted promise of the uatiou to remove the tax:i- / ./., 1734 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ': Kf tion from lish by taxing the cans — useless for any other purpose— in which the fish are sent to market. While restoring to the legislation of Nova Scotia its true character this article shows ulso which of the two decisions rendered, one bv Mr Justice Hazen, the other by the distinguished and learned chief jasti;" Sir William Young, must be held to be the correct one on preparing to fish. The latter's judgment receives from this impartial source an au- thority which it did net require to carry conviction to all unprejudiced minds. The necessity for the Nova Scotia statute of 1836, so much complained of, became apparent within a pretty short period. In 1838, as mentioned in the United States Brief, p. 9, several Ameri- can vessels were seized by British cruisers for fishing in large bays. Between the dates of the Nova Scotia statute and these seiz^re^ f'ho American Secretary of State had issued circuiiirs enjoini- - \iiierioaii fishermen to observe the limits of the treaty, but witL- ; tving what these limits were. Why did he abstain from giving bis countrymen tbc text of the Convention of 1818, Article 1st' They could have read i ■ it that the United States had renounced forever the lilwrty of tnkinp, drying, or curing fish within three marine miles of any coast, bay.cieek. or harbor, and that they could not be admitted to enter hhcIi hayn or har- bors, except for shelter, or repairing damages, or obtainiug wood and water, and for no other purpose tchatever. Every tisherujan would have understood such clear language. Statesmen only could imagine "bays" meant large bays, more than 6 miles wide at their entrant,. It was the privilege of eminent politicians, but not ot the tishermen. to handle that extraordinary logic which involves the coutention: 1st. That for the purpose of fishing, the territorial waters of every country along the sea-coast extend 3 miles from low- water mark. 2d. That "in the case of bays and gulfs, such only are territorial waters as do not exceed 6 miles in width at the mouth upon a straight Hue measured from headland to headland. 3d. That "all larger 'jodies of water con- nected with the open sea form a part of it." These words are taken from the Answer to British Case, pp. 2, 3). The fraraers of the Convention of 1818 must have meant those large bays, when they excluded Anuri- cf.n fishermen from entering into any bay, &c. The most that the fisher- man could have said, after reading the text, would be that it must have been an oversight, and he would never have thought of taking the law in his own hand and disregarding a solemn contract entered into by his government. But, with his common sense, he would have said: The convention could not mean the small bays, since I am told by American lawyers that it did not require a treaty to protect the small bays against our interference. (See the Answer to the Case, at page 2.) The word bay could not mean anything but those large bays, which, in the absence of treaty stipulations, might by some be considered as forming part of the open sea. And, acting on this plain interpretation of the most clear terms, the fisherman would have abstained from entering into any ba : except for the purposes mentioned in the convention. Old fishermen would, in addition, have tanght the younger ones that there was a para- mount reason why the American framers of the Convention of 181S could have no desire to open the large bays to their fishermen, for the reason that up to 1827 or 1828, that is until tea years after the conven- tion, mackerel had not been found iu large quantities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. If, then, the circulars of the Secretary of the Treasury to American fishermen failed to put the latter on their guard, when the Nova .Scot'.a AWAED OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1735 legislature showed snch firm determi nation to enforce the rights of her lisbermen and coerce the American to obedience to law and treaties, the responsibility of any possible conflict fell upon the American and not npcu the British authorities. Our friend, Mr. Dana, expressed, with vehemence of language which impressed us all, the serious consequences which would have followed if a drop of American blootl had been spilt in these conflicts. We have too good an opinion of our American cousins to thiuk that they would iiave been much moved if one of their countrymen had been killed while in the act of violating the law in British territory. The Uuited States have laws as well as other nations against trespass, piracy, and lobberj', and it is not in the habit of nations to wage war in the pro- tection of those of their countrymen who commit any of these crimes 11) a foreijru land. Tbe age of filibustering has gone by and no elo« {jaencecjiu restore it to the standard of a virtue. However, a state of things which is calculated to create temptations siicii as wore offered to American fishermen in Canadian waters should eat all times most carefully avoided, and it was the desire of both British ,,D(1 American statesmen to remove such dangerous and inflammable luisps of conflict which brought us to the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. l!y that treaty British waters in North America were thrown open to Ciiited States (iitizens, and United States waters north of the 30th de- gree of iiortb latitude wore thrown open to British fishermen, excepting thesalmon and shad fisheries, which were reserved on both sides. Certain articles of produce of the British colonies and of the Uuited States were admitted to each country, respectively, free of duty. That treaty suspendeil the operation of the Convention of 1818, as long as it was in existence. On the ITtli of Marcii, 18G5, the Uuited States Government gave notice that at the expiration of twelve months from that day the lieciprocity Treaty was to terminate. And it did then terminate, and the Convention of 1818 revived from the 17th of March, 1866. However, American fishermen were admitted, without inter.uption, to tish iu British American waters on payraeat of a license, which was col- lected at the Gut of Canso, a very narrow and the nearest entrance to wrtious of these waters. Some American vessels took licenses the first year, but many did not. Tlie license fee having been raised afterwards tew vesF "s took a license, and finally almost all vessels fished without taking any. Every one will understand the impossibility of enforcing that system. All America i vessels having the right to fish iu British American waters under t\\^' (Convention of 1818, those who wanted or professed to limit themselves to fishing outside of the 3-mile limit, had the right to enter on the northern side of Cape Breton without taking a license. As long as that license was purely nomina", many took it in or- der to go everywhere without fear of cruisers or luok ,a'l )n. When our license tee was doubled and afterwards trebled, the './..rlter of those i^hotook it gradually dwindled to nothing. The old troubles and irrita- tions were renewed, and many fishermen have explained before the Commission how embarrassing it was in many instances to know from tlie deck of a vessel how far from the shore that vessel stood. Thi'ee miles have to be measured with the eye, not from the visible shore, but iroin low-water mark. There are coasts which are left dry for several miles by the receding tide. When the tide is up, landmarks may be familiar to the inhabitants of tlie shore or frequent visitors of its waters but for the fisherman who comes there for the first or second time, or perhaps for the tenth time, but after intervals of years, it may ba a diffl- -Mi^ ite^'^ '^!p5s;i ■^§0^' iration of two years after notice given by either of the par- ties of its wish to terminate the same. The treaty came into operation on the 1st July, 1873. Gn-at Britain claims from' the United States a sum of #U,880iOOO for the concession of the privileges granted to the citizens of the United States for tht l)eriod of twelve years. On the part of the United States it is contetnted that the liberty of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1737 fisb'DS ii^ ^^^^^ waters and the admission of Canadian fish and fish-oil datytree in the markets of the United States, is equivalent to what Great Britain obtains by the treat3\ The questions now to be inquired into are : Ist. Is the British claim proved, and to what extent ? 2d. Have the United States rebutted the evideuce adduced on behalf of Her Majesty, and have they proved a set off to any and what extent ? Wiierever ^' mericans have expressed a disinterested opinion about tbe gulf and other Canadian fisheries, they have never underrated their value, as they have in this case, where they are called upon to pay for using them. At a time when no diplomatist had conceived the idea of laying the claim of the United States to these fisheries, on the heroic accomplish- ments of our army and navy from the old British colony of Massachu- setts, as we have heard from the eloquent and distinguished United States counsel, before this Commission — at a time when, emerging from war, fit occasions offered themselves for reminding Great Britain of what she owed to the bravery of Massachusetts boys, who had planted ber flag in the place of the French colors over this Dominion — jQ these times the right of fishing in those waters had accrued to tlie American people from no other origin than a concession by treaty, and DO other basis than the uti possidetis. When another commission is apiwiuted by England and France to settle the differences which exist between them in reference to the Newfoundland fisheries, I doubt much if the political oratory of our American friends could not, with a little change of tableaux and scenery, be turned to some account — such as the French reminding the English people of the miseries endured by Jacques Cartier during the winter he spent at Sable Islanu on his way to Newfoundland, Louisburg, and Quebec to bring European civilization among tbe aboriginal tribes. Although it is hard to vouch for anything in such matters uf fancy, I doubt much whether France will recall the heroic deeds of her Cartiers ami Champlains to make herself a title to these fisheries. She will not make such light work of her treaties as our friends have done. lu tbe line of historical titles adopted by our learned friends, the Scandinavians would wipe out even the claim of Columbus, for three or four centuries before the discoveries oi the great Genoese navigator, some of their fishermen had visited profitably the Banks of Newfound- laud. Mj- learned friends should be as much alarmed at the conse- qaeuces of their fiction, as Mr. Seward was when, dealing with the head- land (luestion in the Senate, page 9 of the British brief, he pointed out tbat the construction put upon the word bay, by those who confined them to Ijodies of water six miles wide at their mouth, would surrender all the great hays of the United States. While listening with pleasure to the '.larration of the groat achieve- ments of tbe Massachusetts boys, we could not understand why they sbed their blood for tlio.se poor and unproductive fisheries. We looked a little at history, we searched for a confirmation of the pretensions of I iir friends, and we lound a very ditt'erent account, in the writings of ilieir great statesmen, both as to the basis of their claim and as to tbe value )f tbe fisheries. •'oliM i^uiucy Adams, who represented with others, as has already ie'Mi mentioned, the United States, at the Treaty of Ghent, in 1814, collected in.''»>rmation. He applied to Mr. James Tdoyd. and thisgeutle- iiau, wilting from Boston, on the 8th of March, 1815, communicated to ^'4:**f-- '* 1738 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. him what will be found from page 211 to page 218 of his ''Duplicate Letters." A few citations will not be out of place here : The sliores, the creeks, the inlets of the Bay of Fundy, the Bay of CIial{Mirs, and \U Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Straits of Belleisle, and the Coast of Labrador, appear to Imvt- been designed by the God of nature as the great ovarium of fish — the incxliaustible re- pository of this species of food, not only for the supply of the American, but of the Euro- pean continent. At the proper season to catch them in endless abunilaneo, littlo more oi effort is needed than to bait the hook and pull tlie line, and occasionally even this is not ne. cessary. In clear weather, near the shores, myriads are visible, and the straml is at tiineH almost literally paved with them. The provincials had become highly alarmed at the expansion of thii^i flslicry and trade ' jealous of its progress and clamorous at its endurance ; they, therefore, of late years, Imve repeatedly memorialized the f vernment in England, respecting the fislniries carried on by the Americans, while the whon, body of Scottish adventurers, whose trade both in imports and exports, and control over the inhabitants, it curtailed, have turned out in tnll cry and joined the cliorus of the colonial governments in a crusade against the euuruauhnients ot the infidels, the disbelievers in the divine authority of kings, or the rights of the provinces, and have pursued their objects so assiduously that, at their own expense, as I am informed from a respectable source, in the year 1807 or '8, they stationed a watchman in somefueonthh posi- tion near the Straits of Canso to r.ount the number of American vessels ir/j., i passed llwst utrmts on this employ nient, who returned nine hundred and thirty-eight as the numhtr artmiUy axur- tained by HIM to have passed, and doubtless many others, during the night or in stuniiy ur thick weather, escaped his observation ; and some of these aggressors have distinctly lookcil torward with gratification to a state of war as a desirable occurrence, which would, by its existence, annul existing treaty stipulations, so injurious, as they contend, to their interests and those of the nation. The coast and Labrador fisheries are prosecuted in vessels from 40 to 120 tons burden, Carrying a number or men, according to their respective sizes, in about the same proportion as the vessels on the Bank fishery. They commence their voyages in May, and get on the fishing-ground about the first of June, before which time bait cannot be obtained. This bait is furnished by a small species of fish called caplin, which strike inshore at tbat time, and are followed by immense shoals of codfish which feed upon them. Each rf.ssel sekclshn own fishing-ground, along the coast of the Bay of Chaleurs, the (iulf of St. Lnicrencf, Ik Straits of Belleisle, the coast of Labrador, eren as far as Cumberland Island, and the entrance of Hudson's Bay, thus improving a fishing-grounJ reaching in extent from the 4uth totiie tJ8th degree of north latitnde. In choosing their situation, the fishermen generally seek some sheltered and safe liarhor or cove, where they anchor in about sir, or seren fathoms water, unbend their sails, stow them below, and literally making themselves at homo, dismantle and convert their vesseli into habitations at least as durable as those of the ancient Scythians. They then cast a net over the stern of the vessel, in which a sufficient number of caplin are soon caught to supply them with bait from day to day. Each vessel is furnished with four orfice light Imni, according to their size and number of men, each boat requiring two men. Tliey leave the vessel early in the morning, and seek the best or suificiently good spot for fishing, which is frequently found withiil a few rods of their vessels, and very rarely more than one or tint mites distant from them, where thoy li&\\\ the fish as fast as they can pull their line.s, and sometimes, it is said, the fish have been so abundant as to be gaffed or scooped into the boats without even a hook or line ; and the fishermen also say that the codfish have been known to pursue the caplin in such quantities and with such voracity as to run iu large nui.ibers quite out of water onto the shores. The boats return to the vessels about nine o'clock in the morning, at breakfast, put their fish on board, salt and split them ; and after havinw fished several days, by which time. the salt has been sufficiently struck in the fish tirst caught, they carry them on shore and spread and dry them on the rocks or temporary Hakes. This routine is followed every day, with the addition of attending to such as liavo been spread, and carrying on board antl stowing away those that have become sufficiently cured, until the vessel is .illed with dried fish, fit for an immediate market, which is generally the case by the middle or last of August, and with which she then proceeds inmiediately to Europe or returns to the United States ; and this fish thus caught and cured is esteemed the best that is brought to market, and for several years previous to that of 1HU6 was com- puted to furnish three-fourth parts of all the dried fish exported from the United States. The following sluleraents, to be found on page 219 of the work, were furnished to Mr. Adams by a person whom he qnalifles as a verj* re- spectable merchant, who dates his letter Boston, Miiy 20, 1815 : My calculation is, that there were employed in the Bank, Labrador and Bay fisheries, the ysars above mentioned, l,23i vessels yearly, viz, 584 to the Banks, and 648 to the bay and Labrador. I think ttie .581 bankers may be put down 3(5,540 tons, navigated by 4,()27 men and boys (each vessel carrying one boy) ; they take and cure, annually, 5Ut,70U quintals ol AWARD OF THE FI8HESY COMMISSION. 173a li«h; they averape about three fares a year, consume, annually, 81,170 hopsheads salt ; tlie mnw cost of these vessels is about $ ions, that tish iu the South Channel, on the Shoals and Cape Sables, their number 300 ; they carry about 4 or 5 hands, say 1,200 men, and take about 75,000 quintals of fish, annually ; consume 12,000 hogsheads of salt, and make about 4,000 barrels of oil ; their fish is gen- erally sold for the Wst Indies and home consumption. There are another description of fishing vessels commonly called Chebacco Boats or Pink Slerns; their number 600; they are from 10 to 23 tons, and carry two men and one boy each, say, 1,H00 hands ; they consume 15,000 hhds. of salt, and take and cure 120,000 quin- tals of tish, annually. These fish also are wholly used for home and West India market, escept the very first they take early in the spring, which are very nice indeed, and are sent lothe Bilbao market in Spain, where they always bring a great price ; they make 9,000 bar- rels of oil ; these vessels measure about 10,300 tons. There are also about 200 schooners employed in the mackerel fishery, measuring 3,000 tons, they carry 1,600 men and boys, they take .50,000 barrels, annually, and consume 6,000 libds, salt. The alewive, shad, salmon, and herring fishery is also immense, and cousumes a great quantity of salt. Whole number jf fishing-vessels of all descriptions 2, 332. Measuring 115,940 tons. Number of men navigated by 1.^,059 Salt they consume 265,370 hhds. Quantity of tish they take and cure 1 , 353, 700 quintals. Number of barrels of oil 50, .520 barrels. Number of barrels of mackerel .50, 000 barrels. There are many gentlemen who assert, and roundly, too, that one year there were at the Labrador and bay, over 1,700 sail beside the bankers ; but I feel very coufident they are midi mistaken, it is impossible it can be correct. Tben Mr, Adams gives the autbority of his approbation, at page L'33, to the following statements from " Coiquhoun's Treatise on the Wealth, fo.7er, and Kesources of the British Empire," second edit., 1815. Tlie»a/Me of these fisheries, in table No. 8, page 36, is estimated at £7,550,000 sterling. "New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, from being both watered by the Hay of Fundy, enjoy advantages over Canada, which more than compensate a greater sterility of soil. These are to be traced to the valuable and extensive fisheries in the Bay of Fundy, which, in point of abundance and variety of the finest fish, exceed all calculation, and may be considered as a mine of gold — a treasure which cannot be estimated too high, since with little labor, com- paratively speaking, enough could bo obtained to feed all Europe." (pp. .'?I2-313.) Since the trade with the United States has been so greatly obstructed, the produce of the fisheries in the British colonies, thus encouraged by the removal of all competition, has been greatly augmented ; and nothing but a more extended population is required to carry thia valuable branch of trade almost to any given extent. ijSfe.^' ''*'^ ^ *> ',. (!•{«* ii^. W^^^;t:^:---l4ii^ ^4'^fj-' IM'^0^ ■«>*■'!; 1740 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. si: :.'il,;i. "It will be seen by reference to the notes in the table annexed to this chapter, that the i iMb'Uants of the United Slates de'ive incalculable advantages, and employ a vast uumber "> men and vessels in the fisheries in the river St. Lawrence, and on the coast of Nova Scotia which exclusively belong to Great Britain. This dense population of the Northern States an! their local situation in the vicinity of the most prolific fishing stations, have euabled them ti acquire vast wealth by the indilgeuco of this country." (p. 313 ) ^' " It ought ever to be kept in view, that (with the exception of the small islands of St Pierr* and Miquelon restored to France by the Treaty of Paris, in May, 1840) the whole of the most valuable fisheries of North America exclusively belong at this present time to the British Crown, which gives to this country a monopoly in all the markets in Europe and the Wmi Indies, or a right to a certain valuable consideration from all foreign nations to whom the British Government may concede the privilege of carrying on a fishery iu tliese seas. " in "Private fisheries are a source of ^reat profit to the individuals, in this and other countries who have acquired a right to such hsheries. Why, therefore, should not the United K\ne- dom derive a similar advantage from the fisheries it possesses within the range of its extensive territories in North America (perhaps the richest and most prolific in the world), by declar- ing every ship and vessel liable to confiscation which should presume to fish in those seas without previously paying a tonnage duty, and receiving a license limited to a certain period when fisn may be caught, with the privilege of curing sucn fish in the British Territories ! All nations to have an equal claim to such licenses, limited to certain stations, but to permit uoue to supply the i'ritisij West Indies, except His Majesty's subjects, whether resident iu the colonies or in tho parent state." (p, 315.) St. John's or I'rince Edward's Island. "Fisheries. — This island is of the highest importance to the United Kingdom. Whether the possession of it be considered in relation to the Americans, or as an acquisition of a great maritime power, it is worthy of the most particular attention of government. Mr. Stewart has justly remarked, in his account of that island (page 296), that the fishery carried on, from the American States, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for some years past is very extensive, and is known to be one of the greatest resources of the wealth of the Eastern States, from which about 2,000 schooners, of from 70 to 100 tons, are annually sent into the gulf. Of these about 1 ,400 make their fish in the Straits of Belleisle and on the Labrador shore, from whence what is intended for the European market is shipped off without being sent to tiieir own ports. About six hundred American schooners make their fares on the north side oi the island, and often make two trips in a season, returning with full cargoes to their owu ports, where the fish are dried. The number of men employed in this fishery is estimated At netweeu fifteen and twenty thousand, and the profits on it are known to be very great. To see such a source of wealth and naval power on our coasts, and in our very harbors, aban- doned to the Americans is much to be regretted, and would be distressing were it not thut the means of reoccupying the whole, with such advantages as must soon preclude all com- petition, is atforded in the cultivation and settlement of Prince Edward's Island." pp. 3b, 318. It must be remembered that these statements were for the last 10 years of the last, aud the first 10 years of the present century. We are not informed where the 50,000 barrels of mackerel were theu caught, but we have the opinion of Senator Tuck, cited at pagesOaud 10 of British Brief, who says : Perhaps I should be thought to charge the Commissioners of 1818 with overlooking our interests. They did so in the important renunciation which I have quoted, but they are obnoxious to no complaint for so doing. In 1818 we took no mackerel on the coast of British possessions, and there was no reason to anticipate that we should ever have occasion to do so. Mackerel were then found as abundant on tl.e coast of New England as anywhere iu the world, and it was not until years after that this beautiful fish, in a great degree, left our waters. The mackerel fishery on the provincial coast has principally grown up since ]&li, and no vessel was ever licensed for that business in the United States until 18IW. The Commissioners in 1818 hud no other business but to protect the codfish, and this they did iu a manner generally satisfactory to those most interested. From the assertions of seemingly well informed Gloucester officials, accepted as such by the American counsel, the state of things described by these Boston gentlemen iu 1815 would have undergone a complete change, not progressively and iu accordance with tae laws of nature ; but, on the contrary, the species and quantity of fish caught in our waters, and the number of vessels aud men engaged in that business, ffi!.*i JWt.i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1741 iffbt ia our have gradnally become more and more insigDifloant. The magnates of cod aud mackerel from Gloucester and other ports, who had draped themselves in lofty statistics for the Centennial, have come here to ex- plain once more that all is not gold that glitters. They took off their Centennial costume, as people do after a fancy ball ; they humbled them- selves to the last degree of mortification, contending that the gulf fish- eriesbad reduced them to beggary, they having lost, some $325, others only $128 ou every trip they had made there during scores of years in succession. People who do not know those hardy and courageous fish- ernieu of Gloucester would hardly believe that some of them have gone through 170 trips consecutively without ever flinching in their Spartan stoicism, under an average loss of $225 each trip ! Wlio should wonder if in their disgust of such an ungrateful acknowledgment, mackerel should have gone to distant zones where they could be better appreci- ated ! t Cool philosophers thought they wore bound to reduce to nine the wonders of the world. They were mistaken. Here is that wonderful Wffu of Gloucester, State of Massachusetts, in the United States of America, which has been built, and has grown up rich and prosperous, by accumulating losses and ruins upon former losses aud ruins. The painful history of its disasters should be inscribed as the tenth wonder. Fishing, uo doubt, like all other industries, has its fluctuations of suc- cess and partial failure ; but as it rests upon an inexhaustible supply to be found somewhere, it never can be said to be an absolute failure. It was only within a few years that experimental science was applied to fisb. Science is diffident, as shown by Professor Baird ; in fact, science teaches uncertainty and unbelief, because the more a man learns, the more be finds himself ignorant; the more he labors to know if what he thought to bo one thing is not another thing. The witnesses from Gloucester are foremost in that school of philosophers who doubt of their own existence. Their town is already a myth ; their families would have soon been the same; and, alas ! themselves, if they had been too long before this Commission, would have to kick each other to know whether they were myths or living beings. I will have a more fitting occasion for reviewing the evidence brought on belialf of the United States generally. For the moment the contrast was rather tempting — between what Americans of our days thought of oar fisheries, and what their ancestors thought almost a century ago. I proceed now to show that the British claim has been proved. Mr. Dana. That was as to the cod fishery. Mr. DouTRE. I think they have made very little difference. Mr. Dana. Cod-fishing is prosperous now. Mr. DouTiiE. It must not be forgotten, as one of our learned fri^^nds expressed himself in reference to other matters, they have now a point tocarry. When Mr. Adams was collecting his information he had no point to carry, but simply to give a plain statement of facts. Those rich fisheries, which were spoken of in such glowing terms in 1815 have, it is asserted, declined to nothing, because we ask for their value. I never lieard the matter more plainly and squarely laid down than it was yes- terday, by my learned friend, Mr. Whiteway, when he said, " Now, that yon possess these fisheries, how much would you ask for their surrender ?" If we were to turn the tables, in this manner, we would see the Glou- cester gentlemen coming here and describing the fisheries in Centennial colors. Mr. Dana. Our testimony was all to the effect that the cod fishery is still profitable in Gloucester. 1742 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. M Mr. DouTttB. I thiak at this boiir we must uuderstand the beariuir of the testimony, or we will uever do so. The fisheries in Maine bavp been completely destroyed, and no longer exist. 1 will read from tbe testimony on that point in a few moments. The number of American vessels frequenting the BritishAnierican waters could not be estimated with any degree of precisioji. Witnesses could only speak of what they had seen, and but very few of tlieui could within a short time, go over all the fishing-grounds and make an esti mate, even if they had gone round with that object in view. Tbev liad to trust to what they had heard from other parties, who about tbe Haiiie time had been in other portions of these waters, and by conibiniug the knowledge acquired from others with their own they were able to ^m a statement of the number of vessels frequenting those waters. Captain Fortin (p. 328 of British Evidence) states that iu the Province of Quebec only, the extent of the coast on which the flsheriea of Canada are conducted is about 1,000 miles ; and Professor Hind (p. vii of his valuable paper) estimates the area of coastal waters conceded to tbe United States, by the treaty to be about 11,000 square miles. Ameri- cans have been in the habit of fishing all around the Buy of Fundy and on the southeast coast of Nova Scotia, without counting the gulf; but the bulk of the American fleet entered the gulf, principally by tbe Gut of Canso, and also by going round Cape Breton, or by the Strait of Belle Isle, coming from Kewfoundland. We have a mass of evidence tbat they were on all points at the same time and in large numbers. Babson, 20th American afiidavit, estimates the American fleet at 750 sail ; Plumer, 22d American affidavit, estimates the American fleet at 700 sail; Pierce, 24th American affidavit, says from 700 to 8U0 sail; Oerring, 26th American affidavit, says 700 sail ; Wouson, 3Uth Ameri can affidavit, says 700 sail ; Embree, 167th American affidavit, says 7oii to 800 sail ; Grant, 186th American affidavit, says 700 sail. Bradley, the first American witness examined before the CommissioD, in answer to tbe American counsel (p. 2) : Q. Give an approximate amount to the best of your judgment. — A. 600 or 700 certainly. I have been in the bay with 900 sail of American vessels, but the number rather diminisheil along the last years I went there. Everything tended to drive them out of tbe bay, cutters, and one thing and another, and finally I went fishing in our own waters aud did a good deal better. Graham (p. 106 of American Evidence) undertakes to contradict Brad ley, but finally he has no better data than Bradley to guide himself, aud after all his efforts he admits the number to have been 600 sail. This was during the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty, and on tbis point, as well as on all others, it is to that period that we must refer to tiud analogy of circumstances. The average catch of these vessels presents naturally a great diversity of appreciation, aud on this, the causes which divided the witnesse.s are more numerous than those concerning the number of vessels. First the tonnage of the fishing-vessels, varying from 30 to 200 tons, must have regulated the catch more or less. When a vessel had a full cargo. she had to go home, even if fish had continued to swarm around ber. Then the most favored spots could not admit of the whole fleet at tbe same time. They had to scatter over the whole fishing area witb fluctuations of luck and mishap. We must add to this that many ot the crews were composed of raw material, who had to obtain their edu- cation and could not bring very large fares. Some naturalists have expressed the opinion that fish are inexhaustible, and that no amount of fishing can ever affect the quantity in any manner. When it is AWARD OF THE FI8HERY COMMISSION. 1743 n trad ict Brad- tbuiigbt tliat one s\ng\e cod .-larrics from three to five millionH of eggs tor reproduction, one niackevel balf a million, and one herring 30,000, as te.stitieil by Trofeasor Baird, on pages i'}6 to 461 of the United States Kvideiice, there was some foundation for that opinion, but several causes bave been admitted as diminishing and sometimes luining altogether gotiie apcoies of iish. Predaccous fish, such as shark, horse-mackerel, dogfish, blueflsh, and probably many others, have had both effects on gome species. (See Professor Baird's evidence, at pages 402, 470, and A more rapid mode of destruction has been universally recognized in the use of seines or purse-seines, by which immense quantities of fish of all kinds and sizes are taken at one time. By that means the motlicr fish is destroyed while loaded with eggs. Fish too young for coDSUiuptiou or for market are killed and thrown away. It in the uni- versal opinion among fishermen that the inevitable etfect of using purse- seines must eventually destroy the most abundant fisheries, and many American witnesses attribute the failure of the mackerel fishery on their om) coast in 1877 to that cause. It is true that this theory is not accepted by Professor Baird, who, however has no decided opinion on the subject, aud who has given the authority of a publication which he controls to tbe positive assertion that this mode of catching fish is most injurious. (Pp. 476, 477.) When a vessel of sufficient tonnage is employed, that is from 40 tons upwards, the catch of mackerel has varied from 300 to 1,550 barrels in a season for each vessel. Here is the evidence on the subject of mackerel : Chiverie, British Evidence, p. 11, makes the average 450 barrels per vessel in a period of 27 years. Some years that average reached 700 barrels per vessel. MacLean, p. 25, says the average has been 500 per vessel during the twenty years, from 1854 to 1874. Campion, pp. 32, 34, 38, average for 1803, G50 barrels; 1804, from 600 to 700; 1805, over 670 ; 1877, some caught 300 barrels with seines, iu cue week. One vessel seined a school estimated at 1,000 barrels. Poirier, p. 62, average catch 500 to 600 per vessel in one season. Harbour, p. 79, average catch 500 per vessel in one season. Sinnett, p. 84, average catch 500 per vessel in one season. Grenier, p. 87, average catch 509 to 600 per vessel in one season. McLeod, p. 98, average catch 500 per vessel in one season. Mackenzie, p. 129, average catch of mackerel 700 barrels per vessel. Grant, p. 182, average catch of mackerel 600 to 700 barrels per vessel. Purcell, p. 197, average catch 250 per trip. McGuire, p. 210, average catch of mackerel 600 per season. Forty-four other witnesses, examined on behalf of the Crown, and cross-examined before the Commission, have stated the same fact. These statements are confirmed by the following American witnesses: Bradley, Amer icau Evidence . P- 2, 600 barrels. iitapletou, p. 10, 600 4< Kemp, p. 6:{, COO to 700. Freeman, p. 7.">, 600 to 750. Friend, p.] 19, 520. Orne, p. 127, 2S'S per trip = 466 per season Leighton, p. 140, 361 .( = 722 %?3. « p. 156, 342 u = 684 Rowe, p. 161, 246 ft = 492 Ebitt, p. 175, 375 t. = 650 Cook, p. 181, 280 (( = 560 Smith, p. 186, 274 (< = 548 M^i- :HmL.-lf. m 'tl IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A 1.0 I.I U2 |22 Ik 2.0 ■•25 III U ,,.6 4 6" ► % ^l '^'J ^ /A '^ '/ Hiok^raphic Sdences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WfiSSTER.N.Y. 14580 (716) 172-4503 1^ 1744 AWARD OF THE FI8HEBY COIillI88ION. llelanb, Admi'Icmi ETid«nc«, p. 191, 0»rd«r, p. «I9. Martin. p. ill I, Tamer, ■' p. tnn, Rowe, •• p. «iri, LakeiDftO, " p. 'JsK*, 457 per trip = 1)14 per mmod. 'i40 •' =z4eO " tf73 " =r)4fi " 870 " =M0 " «r>9 " =518 •' 44:» •• -HMtt " In order t'jat niiy one may verify the correctness of this estimate for everv witnens, I m»y state that this is the process throtii;h which I ar- rived at it : I took the niimlier of barrels oanght in each trip hy everv witness, and divided the total by tlie number of trips. 8ome witneWs have made more than that average ; others have made Ibms. 1 altstaiu from taking the larger and the smaller catches ; and, in this reHpect, I liave followed a mo, per vessel. Roy, p. 203. Has seen 250 to 300 American vessels cod-fishing. John McDonald, p. 374. 600 quintals. Sinnett, p. Si<. 300 draughts or 600 quintals. The followini; relates to herring : Fox, onstome officer; Brit. £vid., p. 114. 600,000 barrels entered outward since 1854; at least one-half of the vessels have failed tore- poit. This is near Magdalens. AWABD OF THB FI8HEBY COMMISSION. 1745 Pnraell, p> 108. Fifty vessels flshiog and catching each 1,000 bar- MoUm, p. 235. In Bay of Fundy, 100 to 125 American vessels Hsh- jgg for berriog in winter, and catching 7 to 10 million herrings, which weDttoEastport. Loid, p. 245. Fron $000,000 to $1,000,000 worth of herring caught MDnally by Americans fh>m Point Iiepreau:c, including West isles, Cimpobello, and Grand Manan, fiay of Fundy. McLaaghlin, p. 254,255, estimates at $1,500,000 the annual catch of ;<.r log by Americans around the island and the mainland of Uay of Fanily. Halibnt, pollock, hake, haddock were canght by Americans all over Caoadiau waters, bnt in smaller quantity, and their separate mention hen voald take more time and spiice than the matter is worth. Uow- erer, we will see what is said concerning these different kinds iu the ftammary of evidence concerning the inshore fisheries. la the discbarge of my duty to my government I have thought proper to go over grounds which lay at the threshold of the question at issue ; first, because the representatives of the United States Government had selected tbem as a fair field for surrounding that question with artiUcial cloods of prejudice and fictitious combination of facts and fancy ; and Id the second place, because I thought that the main question would be better understood if the path leading to it was paved with a substantial and truthful narration of the circumstances which had brought this Commifwiou together. The United States are bound to pay compensation, not for fishing generally in waters surrounded by British t<>rritory, but for being al- lowed to fish within a zone of three miles, to be measured at low-water mark from the coast or shores of that territory, and from the entrance of any of its bays, creeks, or harbors, always remembering that they had the right to fish all around Magdalen Islands and the coast of Lab- rador, without restriction as to distance. The functions of this Com- Diiasioa consist in determining tho value of that inshore fisheries, as eomimred to a privilege of a similar character, granted by the United States to the subjects of Her Majesty, on some parts of the United States coasts, and then to inquire what appreciable benefit may result to the Canadians, from the admission of the produce of their fisheries in the United States, free of duty, in excess of a similar privilege granted to the United States citizens in Canada : and if such excess should be as- certained, then to apply it as a setoff against the excess of the grant made to the United States over that made to the subjects of Her Maj- esty. As the learned Agent and connsol, representing the United States, hare often criticised the acts of the colonists, when they constrained the Americans to execute the treaties and to ol>ey the municipal laws, first of the separate provinces, and then of the Dominion, probably with the object of contrasting the lilieraiity of their government with the illiberal- ity of our own, I would like to ask which of the two governments went more opeu-banded in the framing of the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington T Did we restrict the operations of the Americans to any 'Atitnde or geographical point over any part of our waters 1 Not at all. We admitted them everywhere ; while on their part they marked the 39th parallel of north latitude on one of their coasts, to wit, the eastern H^-coast or shores, as the heroalean column beyond which we oonld not be admitted. The immediate and practical consequence was that we granted the liberty to fish over 11,900 miles of sea-coasts, where the 110 F 1746 AWARD OF THE FIRHEBY COMMISSION. balk of the fishing is located ; and we were granted the right to fish over 3,3()0 miles of sea-coasts, where no fishing is done, of any conse- quence, by the Americans themselves, and where no UritlHli subject has ever been seen. (As to aiea, see Prof. Hind's paper, page VII.)' Iq {1,}^ instaiHte the Americans cannot contrast the gooarticulur f Air. DouTBE. To the cod fishery also. Codfish is taken on bauks. Mr. Dana. It is a question of names — what you call a bank tisherv. Mr. DouTBE. Is not the result of the whole evidence, on both sideK, that fish is to lie found on the coast, within a few miles, or on banks, and nowhere else f This is the practical exi>erience of nil fishermen. Now, science explains why it is so. That class of evidence is unauinious on this most im|K>rtant particular, namely, as to the temperature neces- sary to the existence of the cold-water fish in commercial abundance, such as the cod and its tribe, the mackerel aud the herring, which in- clude all the fish valuable to our commerce. According to the evidence I shall qnote, the increasing warmth of the coastal waters of the United States as summer advances, drives the fish oft' tbe coast south of New England into the deep sea, aud puts a stop to the summer fishing for these tlsh on those parts of the coast in the United States — a condition of things due to the shoreward swing of the Gulf Stream there. On the other hand, it is stated that on the coasts of British America, where the Arctic current prevails, the fish come inshore during the summer mouths, and retire to the deep sea in the winter months. Professor Baird sajs, '^n page 455 of his evidence before the Commis- sion, si>eakiug of the codfish in answer to tbe question put by Mr. Diina. " What do you say of their migrations ?^ Answer. The cod is a fish the migrations of which cannot be foUowod rca<]ily, liecatise ii is a deep-sea tisb aud does not show on the surfm-e, as the mackerel and herrinp ; but m tnr as we can ascertain, there is a partial miffration, at least some of the tisk don't sii-iu to re- main in the same localitie.« tbe year round. They chan(^ their situation in seurcli ot food. or in comitiiueHc* of the rarui/io«« in the lemperalure, the percentage of salt in tin- walvr, or some other cause. In the south of New England, south of Cape Cod, the fishing is larpiv off shore. That is to say, the fish are all the coast in the cooler water in tlic xiiminer, and as the temperature tails approaching autumn, and the shores are cooled down to a cer- tain degree, they come in and are taken within a few miles of the coast. In the uorllieru waters, as far as I can nnderstand from the writings of Professor Hind, the fish geiieially f;o offshore in the wintertime, excepting on the south side oi Newfoundland, whetc, I am iu- AWARD OP THE FI8HKKY COMMISSION. 1747 formd, IIh^7 maintain the'r nlny, or else como in In Inrire nuinbern; bnt in thu Bay of FuDdT) OD the coaat of Maine, and Htill farther north, they don't remain as cioie to the •bora lawiDMrM iu utiier seaaoua. Yoa will observe tbat Professoi' Bainl liiuita \i\n statement tbat the varm water in Ruiniiier drives tbe (i.sli oft' tbo consts of tbe United States to the south of New England only. Tbe water appears to be cold enough tor them on the coast of Maine in summer to permit of tbeir coming in* dhore. But now let us see what he says of tbe condition of tbe tisberies there. In his official report for 1872 and 1873, tbe following remarkable stateuent is to be found : Whtlevrr may be the importanre of increai«in(; tbe supply of salmon, it is triflini; com* %uti with the restoration <>i uur rzhauBled cod finh^ries ; and should these he broueht back w tbeir orif^nal condition, we sliall find within a short time an increase of wealth on our fborei, the sinount of which it would bo diflScuit to calculate. Nut only would the (general prosperity uf the adjacent Htates bo enhanced, but in the increased uumbe( of vessels built, in ibe \*tf(er number of men induced to devote themselves to maritime pursuits, and in the rancrsi stimulus to everythinf^ connected witli the business of the seafarinir profession, we ihoiild be rec<)verin(; in a (treat measure from that loss which lias Iteen the source of so niuih Isiiienlation to political economists and well-wishers uf tiiu country. — {Page XIV, Htfort of CummissioHtr of Fi$h and fisheries, l^'i-T-i.) it thu.s appears from tbe testimony of Professor Uaird, tbat the cod are driven ort'tbe shores of tbe United States south of New England by tbe ibcrrase of temperature in the summer months, and on tbe New Eng- laud and Maine shores tbe cod tiKberies are exhausted. Tbe only con- clusiouH that can be drawn from these facts are tbat tbe sole dependence of tbe United States Hsbermen for cod, which is tbe most importanccum* iiiercial 8t>a tlsh, is, with tbe single exception of George's Shoals, alto* jietlierin waters off tbe British American coast line. Professor iliiid says in relation to this subject and in answer to the questions — Wbat about the cod f Is it a iish that rc<|uire8 a low temperature ? — A. With regard to tiieapawniiifr of cod, it always seeks the coldest water wherever ice is not present. In all tbe fpswuiu); ((rounds from the Strait of Belie Isle down to Massnchusetts liay — and they are very iiuineKius indeed — they spawn during almost all seasons of the year, and always in tbotelucalitics where the water is coldest, verging on the freezing point. That is tlie freezing jKiiut of frenb water, nut uf salt, because there is a vast ditfereuce between the two. Tlie cause of tbe spawning of tbe cod and the mackerel at certain ))oiuts on the United States coasts is thus stated by tbe same witness : Q. Now take the American coast; show the Commission where the cold water strikes. — A. .\ccoidiiig to Professor Haird's reports tliere are three notable points where the Arctic current impinges upon the banks and shoals within the limits of the United States waters iiiJ where tbe cud and mackerel spawning grounds are found. If you will bear in mind tbo luge limp we had a short time ago, there were four spots marked on that map as indicating simnniiifr f^rouiids fur mackerel. If you will lay down upon the chart those points whicli i'rotesaor Verriil has established as localities where the Arctic current is brought up, you will tiudtlistthey exactly coincide. One spot is the Qeortj^e's Slioais. !So dependent is the cod upon cold waters for its existence- tbat Pro- fessor Baird tells, in reply to the question put by Mr. Thomson, " Could nxi, from your kuowledge, live in the waters which are frer being too warm, and tbe evidence of the witness is confirmed bv tbe following evidence of Professor Hind. Q. Are tbnse three Ashing localities on the American coast. Block Island, Oeorge's Dank, ud Stellwagen's Bank, in Massachusetts Bay, aftected every year, and, if so, in wbat 1748 AWARD OF THE FI8HEST COMMISSION. way, by the Action of the Golf Stresin T— A. The whole of the coMt of th« I'oitH Ht.^ MUtb at Cape Cod b effected by the Gulf Streain during the aummer eMUon. At St^^ ton the lempersture in vo warm, even in June, that the cod and haddock cana«4 itt^f there. Thejr are all driren off by thia warm influx of the aummer flow of tb« <.a:f •Sm^" The aame obaerration applies to certain portions of the New England comi.— i R«iiBtui Erideace, p. 3. ) 1141 The teMtimony of the»e two scientiflo witiiesaes then tmr^^ fom pletely with reference to the important question of temperatnre. We all know of the enormous fleet annually sent by the Americans to tL«- Grand Iianks of Newfoundland, the Nova Scotia Banks, and the varioQ* Banks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. With the exception of the com paratively small quantity of cod taken on the United Staten coaxt^ in sprinj; and fall, and on George's Shoals, the greater part of the f 4,831,(MiO worth of the cod tribe, which the tables put in br Profeftsor Baird sht w us to be the catch of last year of United States tinhermen. must necessarily hare been taken in British-American waters, or off Brit- ish-American coasts, for there are no other waters in which Aniericau» take this fish. Turning now to the mackerel, we shall find that the same prevailing in- fluence, namely, that of temperature, actually defines the sitawnincr an^a and limits the feeecial facts connected with the fishing operations pursued on the coasts of the cstnary of the St. Lawrence, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from Cape Cbatte to Uasiit), and Cape Despair, on the south side, and from Point Ues Monts, on the north side of the estuary, to Seven Islands, thence to Mingun, thence to Natashquan, an immense stretch of coast line. Tbe witnesses from the Province of Quebec have more to say about col con- demned. Defended. Sold for $2,tM)l ; money paid to credit of receiver-general, after deducting costa and charges. Samuel Qilliert, 51 tons, Richard Hanan, maatar, Olonceater, Mass., U. 8., seized 24iii July, 1871, by N. Lavoie, achooner La Canadieune, about two miles N. W. by \V. from Perroquet Island, near Mingan, on the north coaat of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. At the time of capture, achooner was taking fresh codfish on board from one of tier Hats alongside. Two of her tMNita were actively fishing at a diatanco of 45U vards from shore. and men on board were in the act of hauling in their linea with fiith caught on their hoolts. When aeized, boats were half*full ot freshly-cauglit co«lfish, and had alao on board tishini;- gear uaed for cod-fiahing. Owner admitted having fished, but pleaded as an excuae tbat he waa under the impression that the provisions of the Washington Treaty were in opem- tion. Tried in the admiralty court at Quebec. Veaael condemned. Vessel releaaed lor coata. Enola C, 66 tons, Richard Cunningham, master, Gloucester, Mass., U- S., seized '29ih May, 187t;, by L. H. Lachance, schooner StelU Maria, less than two miles from the shore in Trinity Bay, north shore of Gulf of St. Lawrence, Province of Quebec. Actively fishing at time of capture ; had lieen fishing all day with trawl nets aet from 50 to (MO yarda from shore, and extending 5 or 6 milea along the coaat between Point Des Mouts and Trinitj Bay. When captured, veaael waa becalmed inside of two milea of Trinity Bay ; had on deck two freahcanght halibuts, and two of her men were at the time engaged raisini; tr««l« aet cloae in Trinity Bay. On their coming alongside of vessel, it was aacertained they hfJ two halibuta in their boat. Maater admitted having committed the offense, but bofrged hard to be let off, on account of this being hia firat offenae. Had been warned, before comiujc to Trinity Bay, not to fiah within limita. At time of aeianre vessel had on board a cargo of about 8,000 pounds of halibut and aalt. Sureties discharged. James Bliss, 02 tons, Allan Mclsaaca, master, Gloucester, Mass., U. S., seized lf*tb June, 1872, by L. H. Lachance, schooner Stella Maria, within H miles of the east end ot Anticosti Island, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Province of Quebec. At time of capture was anchored within 1) miles from the she ?, between Point Cormorant and the east end of Anticosti Island. Actually fishing for halibut witb five trawl nets set around the veaael, between 50 yards and 1^ miles from the ahore, and had been fishing there for three daya pr^ ▼ions. Maater acknowledged the offense, and stated that he had been warned by hia ownen not to expose their vessel. Sureties discharged. Dr. Pierre Fortin, M. P. P., testified before the Commission as to the large number of British establislimeiits engaged in the cod tisberies ou As to bait for And, with res| AWARD OF THE FISHERY CUMMI88ION. 1751 the MNitli shore of the river St Lawrence, to the hend of Bnie dee Cbalfton. and on the north shore of '.lie river and Gnlf of St. Law- itiee. Dr. Fortin, examiued by myself, testified as follows : 0 All thoiw eKiabliihnwnU deal exclasiveljr in codf— A. Yes, their principal biisiueM ii mlRfii. 8oinvtiin«!i herring and mociterel are dealt in, but not much. Tlie principal is Q. IX) sny of tliose establishments resort to Newfoundland for cod f— A. No. Not at all ; "n Vrll, wlierc i^ all their rod cansht T— A. Oh the ihorr. »nd from bomt$. 0. 1$ all the cod thej deal in caufhl in Quebec waters 1 — A. Yes. a With biniiiiT— A. Yes, and thejr fish from the shore. a Wbst l(ind of boats T Open b«Mits T — A. Fishinffboats manned bj two men. a Name tlie banks and their extent, which exist in these waters. — A. On the north ihon I know of only two banks of small extent — St. John or Minfi^'tn <^nd Natashquan. Q. 8t. .Jobn and Mingan are the Mme thing f — A. Yes, the same bank. Six or seven nilei from the iihore. g. Of wlistlenf^th is it T — A. They lie six or seven mili>N from the shore, but they merge ioh) iho thosi Huberies. They are not distinct from tliu hIiokI tinheries. They are sewu or rjrbl mile* in |pn((th. Q. Wbst in the length of the Natashquan T— A. It is about ten miles in length. Thexe m til tb« banks on the north side. Q. Now, on the south side T — A. Well, from Matano to Cape Gaspd, in what is called the rirer St. Lsm rence. there are no banks. The fishing is all carriuil on within thret^ miivs, ID<1 sometime!) within two miles. Then there are two banks opposite the shore of Uaspd uhI Bay Cbsleur. There is a bank called Point St. IVter's Uauk, which is very sumll, ten tr'lMout It is a very small bank, three or four miles in extent. Then there is Bank Mitcott. or Orphan, a bank lying off the coast of Miscou ; also off the coast of Oaspu or tiny iy«ur, a distance of about twenty miles— fifteen or twenty miles. Q. Now, tsking into acconnt these banks, could you stiite how far from the shore, or, ntbtr, cunid you state what proportion of the whole quantity of cod taken is caught within ihrac miles f— A. Taking into account that only our people that are settled in St. John's Kirer, and a place called Long Point, visit this Mingan or St John Bank, also that but few liilwrmen from Natashquan go on the bank, that is of our own fishermen, and taking into Kcuuot that our fishermen generally go on tho bank only in two or three places, I Nliould thiolc that raom than three-fourths, I should say eighty per cent., or up to eightyfive per KDt. of the codfish taken by Canadian fishermen are taiten inside of British waters. As to bait for the halibut fishery, Dr. Fortin said : Co<1fish is as good as Q, What is the bait used for halibut T — A. Herring and codfish. »nj. It is firmer than herring, and holds well on the hook. They put a large bait uii, so thai the xmail codfish cannot take the bait, because the object of the halibut fiithors is to ulie iiutbing but halibut. When they take codfis'i, they hiive to throw it overboard. Q. And as codfish, as well as herring, iire taken inshore, they have to como inshore ? — A. Ym, they i-DDie in close to the shore for halibut. And, with respect to codfish, Dr. Fortin continnes : Q We'l, what bait is used for codfish f — A. The bait they use are capliu, launce. herring, mtrlcerpl, itnielt, squid, clam, trout, and chub. (j. Where do they generally keepf — A. Near the shore. The capliu and launce fiih are nn tbe Hlmre. rolling on the beach sometimes, and our fishermen catch many of those with iiip all titken ore, and from Cape Oaspout 140 miles. Q. That is on the south coast f — A. Yes. Q. Do you know anything of the north coast ?— A. I have some knowledge of the north coast, but am not so familiar with it as with the south coast. Q. What extent of coast on the north side do vou know T — A. About 160. Q. That would make a length of three hundred miles of the river coast, that you are acquainted witht — A. Yes. Q. Is it to your knowledge that the Americans have been fishing on that part of the rirer St. Lawrence ? — A. O, yes ; they have fished near my place very ofien. Q. When did thev begin to fish on that part of the river t — A. About 1834. Q. The time of the Reciprocity Treaty T— A. Yea. Q. Until then you had never seen much of them f — A. O, yes. I saw many during Ike ten years previous to that. AWABO OF THE FI8IIEBY COMMISSION. 1763 Q Hut tbcjr came in Urf^e nnmbera sftar that data f— A. Yri ; thojr cama in lar|fe num- Irn for *'>*'*'' *'" "' Mv«i> y*>*T». Hut altar that tiiey came in luai Duuibari. g Yon mean during tha laat year* T— A. Yea. n Ai ttw tima thajr wara frequrntinff that part of the rivor, how many nail have you any kMwIrJff* of M viaiting the coMt f— A. From Cape Gaap^ to Cape Chatte t q. Yen, on the north ahore alao 1—\. About *M0 or 3U0 aalla. g. Hrboonari f— A. Yea. What wa* the general tonnaf^e T— A. About 70 or 80 tona. That ia the aTeraifoT — A. Yea; there would be aoroe M tons av* aomo 130, You lav that many viaitad during one aeaaon f — A. From apriu(f to fall ; O, yos. After thu I'reaty uf Reciprocity T— A. Not so much. You mpan not so much after the treaty waa terminHt« or 2*1 milea <>if the north ahore. On the south shore there are notif at all ontaide. You can't catch off beyond three miles on the south shore. (^. Where are those 15 or '.JO milea ? — A. From Mingan. (^. iiaveyou any knowledge of the catch that one of those schooners would take ; neither ifar iari^st nor tbo smallest T Take an average. — A. About between ^00 or (iUU barrels, each \t»t«]. (j. For the whole season T — A. Yes ; because some of them made two trips and some tiirw. H. Well, then they would not take 500 or CUO barrels each trip T — A. No, no; I mean for ilir whole neaaon. g. In ihe c-od as abundant now as it was 30 or 40 years ago f Do you get as much t— A. 0. ret ; aa much as 3U or 40 years ago. I am sure of it. ■° • • • • • • Q. Have you any idea what quantity of fish is taken by the Canadians in that part of iberivert— A. O, yea; I have a nienioranduni here. I calculate that the catch of codfish i:m Cape Chatte to Cape Oaspe, along the coast, is about 2tH),W{) quintals of dry fish, valued at i4.hi> a quintal. Q. Do yuu know if much of that is exported to the United States 1 — A. Not at all ; not •ny. Q. Now, M to the mackerel. Is that the fiah for which the Americana were fishing on ihit part of the river t — A. Yes. Q. Where ia the mackerel taken generally t — A. It is within three miles, because always the fat mackerel ia inaide of a mile — close by. Q. Well, from the knowledge you have of the locality, do yon think you would see any American aehouuers if they were prevented from tiahiug within three miles of the shore t^ A. No. Q. Would it be profitable for them f— A. They cannot do it. They would not come be- nuse they wuuld not catch enough to pay expenses. Mr. James Jessop, of GasiK', examined by Mr. Weatberbe, testifies as follows : Q. Ad a matter of fact, where do they get most of the bait, on the shores or on the Dauidtf— A. More inshore than on the Uanka. Q. Do the Americans come inahore constantly for bait ?— A. They may not come on our tborea, but on other shores they do. Moat of them go to Shippengan, which ia a groat place for fiahiuf; herring. The herring come in from the Banks of Shippegau ; the Americans Micli theoi and also follow them inshore. (j. The Americans come from the Banks on purpose to catch bait f — A. Yea ; and wheu the; fto out of the bay they get fresh bait when the herring aciiool ia passing out. Q. How long doea fresh oait last T— A. It will only keep fresh one day. Q. Tiiat ia when there is no ice on board to preserve it 1 — A. Yes. Q. Where there ia ice, bow long will the bait keep fresh 1 — A. Two or throe days. Q. From Cape Chatte to Cape Oasp^.^ow fur from the ahore did the Americans fiah t — A. From Cape Chatte to Cape Gasp^ the Americana came in along the shore. I never fished there. I have passed up and down and seen American vessels fishing for mackerel right iloDg the shore. Q. Did you see or hear of Americans fishing for mackerel outside of three miles from ilioref— A. No; all within one mile, one mile and a half, and two miles of the shore. Q. Did you ever hear of any fishing outside three miles t — A. Not on that coast. Q. On the north side of Bay Chaleurs where are mackerel found T — A. The great body of mackerel ia along the shore. * A few may be caught outside in deep water, but the mackerel make into the ahore and come after small bait. 1754 AWARD OF THE FI8HBRY COMlilBSION. J. Wbvra •!« moat of Um oiackmwl MUf hi ?— A. Handy to Um than ; tomatimM k ■. i • half out. BomotiBiM not flvo aona oat. ""* Q. Do yon know from lh« Amorioana thamaalvai whathar th<>y eatoh ttip g^tmHint t|>rt nt tha niackanl inakora f— A. Yaa. Tha Taaaal I waa on board flahad inahora with lioat«/ 7'u Teaaal waa at anchor in Nawport harbor. O. How far from tha land T— A. About 300 yards. Q. Did you catch all tha Hah thareT— A. Thare ware no Bsh io the harl>or ; wecMtht tham in a cove called Carnaval. * Q. How far from theaboraf — A. About two cablea lenvth. We fot 100 barrd* on* thy (|. Did you catoh your iah far from the ahore f— A. The farthest w«t cauglit miffht be halt a mile off. Q. How many did you catoh T — A. I could not lar eiaotly, but we pretty u(«rly loadrj her. I left her, and ane afterwards iaft to transship her cargo, Q. Do the Americans fish alon|f your shores for cod 1 — A. They do. Q. Within three miles from shore f— A. Yes. Q. To any extent r— A. They don't flsh codfish to any great extent within tliret mM from shore. Q. Where do they 6sh for cod T — A. On Miscon Hank and Hank Orplian. Q. What is the numl)er of tlie lieet engaifed in fiithiuK on Miscon liank nlune f— A. I have heard my man sftv from 40 to 50 sail. Q. You would put the averaifo at 40 sail T — A. Yen. O. Do you know what is the number of the cod-fishing fleet in the bay on an sverare each year f — A. From 300 to 400 vessels. Q. Nearer 400 than 300 T -A. Abmit 4(N). Q. Where do these cod-fishermen get the l>ait they u«eT — A. A great deal of It iiiiihon< along our coast. Q. How do they get itt— A. By setting nets inshore, and sometimes by buylni; It. Q. What kind of fish do they catch for bait Y — A. Herring. I hnve Hoen tliein wining herring. I have heard that they jig squid and bob mackerel. Q. They catch caplin t— A. Yes. Mr. Joseph Ooiiteau, of Cape Despair, exaoiined by inygelf, gives the following evidence : I am 42 years of age. I live at Cape Despair, in the connty of Gasp^. I am a fiHheriiwn, and at present employ men in the fishing ousiness. Tliis fitthery is carried on sloni; tin- coast irom one to three miles from the shore, and also on Miscou Bank. The American* fish there. I have seen as many as 40 sail fishing there at the same time. The AnwricMi* Procure their bait along and near the coast. Thebait consists of honing, caplin, and aquiil. 'he cod-fishery cannot be prosecuted to advantage with salt bait. The Americans cannot bring with them to Miscou Bank a sufficient supply of bait. In 1857 I titthed in an Ameri- can schooner called the Maria. I do not remember her captain's name. The schooner «ru fitted out at and started from Portland. During tlie first three months of the voyage, wr fished for cod along Capo Breton, the Magdalen Islands, and Miscuu Bank. At Cape lire- ton we took the cwl at distances of trom a mile to a mile and a half from the shore. We fished at about the same distance from the shore at the Magdalen Islands. We took S^td quintals of cod. We caught about three-nuarters of our load within throe miles of tlie coiut off Cape Breton and the Magdalen Islanas and the remainder at Miscou Bank. We pro- cured our bait on the Cape Breton shore. Mr. Abraham Lebrao, of Perce, examiDed by Mr. Weatherbe, tells the ComiuissioQ where the Americans procure their bait: Q. Where do they procure their baitf — A. The generality of them procure it on the ooajt. Q. How do they get it T— A. In nets. They take herring in nets. Q. And what else Y — A. Squid ; tbey also seine oapliu on our coast. Q. Where do they get their nets with which they catch it T — A. They bring them with them. Q. Where did tbey get the bait after the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty N- A. Thej ran the risk of capture to obtain it within three-miles limit. Q. Year after year f— A. Yes. Q. How do yon know that t— A. I have seen them do so. The witness is then asked about halibut : Q. Halibut are canght along the north shore of the river St. Lawrence for the distance of 180 miles, to which you have referred t — A. Yes. (j. And they are taken on the coast of Anticosti, and along the south coast, and alonff the other coasts, on the south side of the St Lawrence, which you have mentioned ?— A. Yet, air ; from Cape Chatte to Cape Gasp6 ; this is a <:elebrated coast for halibut. AWARD OF THE FIflHBBT COM1II8SIOK. 1756 Q j^m kilibnt eaagbt on th« iborM of Qup6 ud tb* Bay of Chalwin ? — A. They are « iitrt bwn caught than. Q By «Im>ii> '■ ^^ balibat fiibarr canlad on t— A. Cbleflj by the Americana. 0 Am bow are they caught t— A. With trawli. Q What effect baa their mode of flabinff had en the aoaat aa a haUbnt>flabery ground T— 1. with nyard to halibut, it baa injured tba fiaherr. Q B/wEat means T— A. By overfishing. Halibut is a fish which does not reproduce iurlflike the cod, and of course the fishing is thus aifected and injured. Q Bt whom has this OTerfishing been done t— A. By the Americans. Q. Dnrioff how many years t— A. It baa been tlie case aa long as I can remember; that ujirn It^ to the time when I left the north shore, in 1(173. They have fref|uented the (oait from year to year. Q. li the halibut fiiihery carried on now on the south shore f — A. At present halibut are ttrr Msrce there, but formerly they ware very plentiful on this coast. Mr. John IloUiday, who parsaes the flabinff business on an extensive icale at the mouth of the Moisie Biver, testified, iu bis examination by Mr. Thomson, as follows : Q. Wdl, do you take no halibut or hake f — A. We take a few halibut, not of any great Donwnt, this yenr past. g. Why is that f It used to be plenty.— A. They used to be, but since 1868 or I860 the rout i> aesriy cleaned of halibut by the American fishermen coming there. Two of them wm taken in my neighborhood ; that !a, two of their vessels were taken by the cruisers. q. What becsme of them f — A. I think they were lH>th condemned. Q. Well, were those halibut taken within three miles of the shore?— A. O, yes ; within ibout a mile and a half of the shore. Q. There was no doubt, then, about the fact of the infringement of the law, for which tk(iMTem«l8 were taken T — A. I have seen several of them leave the coast and leave their iioM. When they saw the cruisers come they stood out to sea, and came liack a day or two afterward aud picked up tlieir lines. Q. That was within three miles f — A. Yes. (}. How near T— A. About a mile and a half. Q. I do not know whether the atmosphere there is of that peculiar character that a res- kI within half a mile will think she is three miles out f — A. They could not well think that. Q. Yon can generally tell when you are withiu three miles? — A. Yes ; at alleveuts within I mile and a half. Q, Well, you say that in 1868 and 1869 the American schooners came there and fished oat the halibut 7 — A. Yes ; they cleaned them out. <^. What kind of fishing was it f — A. With long lines or trawls. (J. There were a great many hooks upon them? — A. A great number; there were sev- tral miles of tliem. Q. What was the effect of that, cither to your own knowledge or from what you have iiMrdt— A. The whole of our inshore fishermen fished codfish and halibut. We get none DOW, or next to none. Q. No halibut, ^ou mean f — A. No halibut. Q. Are they a fash that keep pretty close to the bottom, as a rule?— A. Yes. Q. Therefore they are the more liable to be taken up by the trawl 1 — A. That is the method idopted in thiit country of catching them, altogether. Q. Before the Americans came with a trawl, how did your people take them T — A. With bind' lines. Q, Were they reasonably plenty in those days t— A. Yes ; a boat has got from eight to ten. Now they very seldom get any. Q. Weil, bad the hand-line fishing been continued, and those trawls not introduced, is it oris it not your opinion that the halibut would be now there just as it used to bo? — A. I think it would be as good as previously. Q. In your opinion, then, this trawl-fishing is simply destructive?— A. To halibut. SATURDAY, November 17, 1877. The Oonference met. Mr. DoQtre continued bis argument in support of the oase of Her Majesty's Government, as follows : iffljf itflmMe your Excellency and your Honors : When we separated yesterday, I demanded and obtained an adjourn* ment until Monday, as I considered I required that time to lay before 1756 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the Goramission the matter in issae, in its different aspects; and I am still of opinion that I wonld have fulfilled my duty in a more complete manner if the arrangement of yesterday had been adhered to. How ever, a very pressing demand was made upon me to meet tbis afterDoou in order to close my part of the argument, and leave the way free and clear for my successor on Monday. With a strong desire to comply with the demand from gentlemen with whom I have been acting so coi dially so far, and with whom I hope to act cordially up to the time of our separation, I made an effort to be able to present myself before the Commission at this hour. However, I shall have to deal, I fear, in a very ineffectual manner with the matters that remain to be considered. I have taken particular care in arranging the evidence and argument not entirely for the reason that your honors required any information fh>m me to form your opinion ; I think after this long investigation the mir;'amber8 of fishermen were produced by the United States to show tbat they themselves had fished at Banks Bradl«^y and Orphan, and other Banks and shoals, and at the Magdalen Islands, outside of British waters, who, by the way, nearly all suffered loss, but scarcely any of these witnesses undertook to show tchere the fleet fished. On the con- trary, they almost invariably qualified their statements by showing that they spoke only of their own individual fishing. The learned counsel for the United States impliedly admits that un- less there has been produced witnesses contradicting the British evi- dence as to '' habit," the British Case is made out. There is a singular absence in the vast number of witnesses and affidavits produced on both sides for twelve weeks — there is a singular and marked absence of contradiction, and upon the principle involving " habit," enunciated by Mr. Trescot, the evidence can be relied on with confidence, as fully and completely establishing the claim. The learned Agent, Mr. Foster, in his very able speech, contends that the British claim is not made out because there are but a trifling quantity of fish caught by Unit«d States vessels within the formerly prohibited limits; but it can be clearly shown that he is entirely mistaken as to the weight and character of the evidence. He says : If the three-mile limit off the bend of Prince Edward Island and down by Margaree, where oar fishermen sometimes fish a week or two in the autumn (and those are the two points to which almost all the evidence of inshore fishing in this case relates), if the three- mile limit had been buoved out in those places, and our people could have fished where they bad a rifj^ht to, under the law of nations and the terms of the treaty, nobody would have iieard any complaint. Almost all the evidence in this case of fishing within three miles of the shore relates to tbe bend of Prince Edward Island and to the vicinity of Margaree. As to the bend of the iiltnd it appears in the first place that many of our fishermen regard it as a dangerous pl>c«, ana shun it on tbat account, not daring to come as near the shore as within three miiei, becaose in case of a gale blowing on shore their vessels would be likely to be wrecked. He also says : There is something peculiar abo'ut this Prince Edward Island fishery, and its relative pro- portion to the Nova Scotia fishery. As I said before, I am inclined to believe that the great- ttt proportion of mackerel caught anywhere inshore, are caught off Margaree late in the nllT"' "^''^ United States vessels, on their homeward voyage, make harbor at Port Hood, and lie there one or two weeks ; while there they do fish within three miles of Mar- gVM laland ; not between Margaree Island and the main land, but within three miles of 1°^ "'^ii^ ohoreg ; and just there is found water deep enough for vessel-fishing. Look at ihe chart, which fully explains this fact to my mind. Margaree Is a part of Nova Scotia, 1758 AWARD OP THE FISHEBT COMMISSION. "U v>^ and Profesaor Hinj aavs there is an immenu boat-catch all alonf^ tho outpr coaxt of N Bcotia, and eatimaies that of the mackerel catch Quebec furoishea 7 per c-eiit. (he doe, "^^ ■aj where it comci firom), Nova Scotia, UO per cent., New Urunswivk. li ner »ni !"*! Prince Edward lalmd 10 per cent. ' **"'• »'"1 This is also lorom the learned Agent of the United States : When I called ]?rofiBnor Hind's attention to that, and remarked to him that ] had not heard much about the places where mackerel were caught in Nova ScotiH, hi* said it wu because there was an immense boat-catch on the coast. If there lias been any (•videiice oi United States vesiiels fishing for mackerel within three miles of the shures, ur more than three miles from tlie shore of the outer coast of Nova Scotia, it has escaped my attontion I call my friend's attention to that point. If there is any considerablp eviileuce, I do not know but I might say any appreciable evidence of Uniteu States vessels tishin^ for macli- erel off the coast df Nova Scotia (I am not now speaking of Margaree, but the coast of Nuva Scotia), it has eccaped my attention. As to Cape Breton, very little evidence haa lj«eu given, except in leference to the waters in the neighborhood of Port Huod. Providing IHr. Foster \vere correct in the view he has put forward of the evidence, he might wiih some reason urge the Cointnissiou to refuse the award claimed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Nothing could be more unjust and unfair to the character of the Can- adian fisheries than to adopt the statement of the learned Agent as to Prince Edward Island and Margaree as the correct result of tiie tacts established by absolutely uncontradicted evidence now bel'ure the Com mission. It is trne tliat the main efforts of United States counsel were exerted to impeach tUe large array of respectable witnesses who testified to the great wealth of the fishery in the bend of Prince Edward Island, and the constant use of those grounds by United States fleets, liut if Mr. Foster shou d ever again have occasion closely to examine the whole evidence given in this case on both sides, he will find that, beyond the efforts to tiepreciate that tract of water between the North Cape and the East Point, and that at Grand Manan, there is scarcely a line ot testimony o fered by him or his learned associates to shake or contra- dict the evidence given respecting all the other vast and rich Canadian fishing grou nds. The evidence of the value to and use by AuiericaQ fishermen of all the coasts of Nova Scotia from the Bay of Fuudy east ward, all around the island of Capo Breton, the north shores of the coasts and bays of New Brunswick to Gaspc, and the entire coast of Quebec, wi:hin the jurisdiction of the Commission, is almost, if notab solntely, uncontradicted. This applies as well to the affidavits as to the oral tef'timony, and it may be staled here of the British affidavits, what cannot be said of those of the United States, that they are strikingly corroborated by the testi mony of witnesses both on the direct as well as the cross-exaiuiuatioD. I here produce a number of extracts and references, which are more than sufficient to convince even our learned friends on the other side, that they have taken only a very partial view of this case. And I call Mr. Foster's e8i;)ecial attention to these witnesses. At the risk of being con- sidered tedious I cite this evidence, because the statement of my learned friend was emphatic, and he threw out a special challenge in asserting that there was but little evidence of fishing by Americans, except at the two places mentioned by him. The pagiis refer to the British Evidence : Page 7!). — Mr. George Harbour, a resident of Sandy Beach, Gaspc, was called as a witness, and gave evidence of the Americans ti.shingfur mackerel in that locality. He says: "They came in right to the shore, close to th(! rocks. Upon an average, they take 500 barrels in a season (two trips). He has never seen them fishing for mackerel outside of three miles." AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1759 /Vim 83.— Mr. William S. Sitinett, a resident of Griffin's Cove,Ga8port, Gasp^, gave evidence that be "lias seen American vessels fishing for mackerel 25 yards from the Point" Page—. Hon. Thomas Savage, of Cape Gove, Gasp6, says in his evi- dence, tbat '' the fishing grounds extend from Cape Gas})^ to Cape Chatte. As soon as the mackerel come in, the American fishermen take that fish, aodthe Gaspe fishermen cannot get bait." Page 276.— Mr. James Joseph testifies that he has seen the Americans fisbiug from Cape Chatte to Gaspe right along the shore, all within one or two miles from the shore. Page -Sii.—yir. Joseph Conteau, of Cape Despair, Gasp^, called as a vitoess, says tbat ** the Araeriuaiis flsb along the coast of Gaspu, from oue to tbree miles off shore." These witnesses are confirmed and supported by Wm. McLeod, of Port Daniel, Gasp<); Philii) Vibert, of Perce, Gasp6; James Baker, Cape Cove, Gasp^; Wm. Flyn, Perce, Ga.sp<^'; Abraham Lebrun, Perce, GasjH' ; Louis Roy, Perce, Gasp^. Page l^.— Mr. James McKay, deputy inspector of fish, Port Mulgrave, after giving evidence of fishing close inshore off Cape Breton, in 18G2, says: "In 1872, fished in American schooner Colonel Cook, and caught 400 barrels on second trip — three-fourths caught inshore. Caught 800 barrels of mackerel in two trips in 1H72. In 1873, caught 3G0 barrels in tffo trips. The greatest portion of the fish were taken about Cape Low, Cape Breton, ' close inshore.' " Page 220. — Mr. John Stapleton, of Port Hawkesbury, C. B., says in his evidence that be has fished in American vessels " in Bay Chaleur, on the west coast of New Brunswick, to Escnminac and Point Miscou, from Point Miscou to Shippegan, and thence to Paspebiac and Port Daniel, (iuwu to Gaspe, round Bouaventure Island as far as Cape Rogers. Page 243. — Mr. James Lord, of Deer Island, N. B., gives evidence that tbe Americans "take as much as the British fisbern:;jn on the mainland from Point Lepreaux, including West Isles, Campobello, and Grand .Manaii." Page'Sil. — Hon. Wm. Ross, collector of customs at Halifax, formerly a resident of Cape Breton, and a member of the privy council of Canada, gives evidence as follows: "The American fishermen fish for mackerel on the Atlantic coast of Cape Breton, from Cape North to Scatterie, in August, September, and October, fishing inshore and off siiore, but more inshore than off shore." Page 374.— Mr. John McDonald, of East Point, Prince Edward Island, !y Mclsaac, East Point, Prince Edward Island. ■P«(/e 384.— John D. McDonald, Sonris, Prince Edward Island. i'«ffe388. — Peter 8. Richardson, Chester, New Brunswick. Page 3U9 — Mr. Holland C. Payson, fisliery overseer at Westport, Nova Scotia, says in bis evidence that St. Mary's Bay, the coast around 1760 AWABD OF THE FI8HEBY COMMISSION. Digby Neck, with Briar Island and Long Island, are valuable fishiDi; gronnds. The Two Islands, in 1876, exported about $200,000 worth of fish. This district is frequented by small American schooners, who flgb for ood, halibut, pollock, and herring. Mr. Payson's evidence is corroborated by that of Mr. B. H. Uugglea of Briar Island, Digby, Nova Scotia. ' Page 407. — Mr. John C Cunningham, of Gape Sable Island, Nova Sco- tia, says in evidence that Uuite^63 I commenced mackerel fishing in the American vessel Messin», and that during that year we fished in the Bay Chaleur, and took home with us six hun- dred barrels of mackerel daring the fishing season of that year, one-third of which quantity, I would say, was caught within three miles of the shore. 10. That about 200 of the American vessels get their bait on the Nova Scotia coast, and, in my opinion, without the bait obtained there tbey could not carry on the fishing. IL Then there is also a fleet of 40 American vessels which fish off Grand Manan. They average 350 barrels of herring per vessel, which are caught close to the shore. Ghas. W. Dunn, fisherman. Prince Edward Island : 1. That I have been engaged in fishing for aboat twenty-eight years, winter and summer, in both boats and vessels, having fished in the cod-fishing on the Banks for about seven winters. I have also fished mackerel in the gulf with the Americans, from the summer ol 1U68 till 1871, and also in the hali bat fishery on these coasts. 2. At Auticosti we could often see the halibut on the bottom when w6 were trawling. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1761 Tbi«' ,„,j would be about two or three hundred yards from shore. I have seen ten thonsand hiiibnt a day caught at Anticosti, in waiter where we could see bottom. This halibut iAttJ i» th« best payinff fishery that I have ever been in. I have made ninety dullars in twtlredays as one of the hands at that fishery. Jas. Houlette, fisherman, Prince Edward Island : 1, That I have been engaged in fishing for fifteen years, in vessels belonging to the (nited Statps. I have fishM all about Ray Chaleur, from Port Hood to Seven Islands, at thf Msi^daleiis, all along this island coast, and two years mackerel-fishing on the American jhorM, and many winters cod-fishing. John K. McDonald, farmer and fisherman, Prince Edward Island: 13. That almost all the Aweriean fighermen fish close in to the shore of the different prov- uuaofiht Dominion, and I do not think the Americans would find it worth while to fit out lor the gn\{ fithing if they could not fish near the shore. The year the cutters were about thf .Americans did not do very much, although they used to dodge the cutters and fish in- ibore. Alphouso Gilman, fisherman. Prince Edward Island : ;. That when the mackerel first come into the bay, they generally come up toward Bay Cbaleur, Gasp^, and round there, passing the Magdalen Islands on their way. It is up terethat the American fleet generally goes first to catch fish. Joseph Campbell, Prince Edward Islautl, master mariner, 9 years, United States vessels : 2. That from the year 1858 to 1867- 1 was constantly and actively engaged in fishing aboard imericau vessels, and during that time I fished on all the fi jfoihl Patch, when the American vessels, to the number of fifty or sixty, would come along, ind by drawing off the fish spoil my fishing. During that trip the Americans, I would say, uught fuily three-fourths of their fare within the three-mile limit. Xathaoiel Jost, master mariner, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia: '2. 1 have also seen many American mackerel-men engaged in taking mackerel around the cost of Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, and eastern side of New Brunswick, and many of these fished inshore. I would say that there were at least four hundred American Te$i all jiirjife nuiiibers of them made it dangerous for Nova Scotian fishermen, and I have lost iMuy u night's sleep by them, in order to protect our vessels. I have seen in Port Hood Iwliur altiiut three linndred sail of American vessels at one time, and it is seldom, if over, that a third of them are in any harbor at one time, and I have been run into by an American |<'lioorierat P(irt Hood Harbor. From 1871 to 1875, inclusive, I have seen the Americans iu large numbers around Prince lildward Island, eastern side of New Brunswick, and around Cape Uretun. I have seen many American vessels on the above-mentioned coast engaged in talcing codfish. UlF 1762 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Jeffrey Cook, fisherman, Lunenburg;, Nova Scotia : 2. While in the Bay of Chaleur, the summer before iMt, I saw manr Amcricaa rtau' there e;i|;aged in fishing, and have also seen manj of them there ftthine *iii<» i<^i i haTe counted, the summer before last, fifty American vesM-l:* within ihrt^tounh* of t « from each other. The most of the American vessels which I saw fished iu»bore woaiij tC above-mentioned coasts. I saw them take both codfish and mackerel insbore. wjihin tLi ' miles of the shore. Mackerel are taken mostly all inshore, and 1 wuuld not fit out • tm*' to take mackerel unless she fished inshore. ***' James F. White, merehaut, Priuce Edward Island : 13. The mackerel, in sprinff, come down the Nova Scotian shore, and then ftnke uii irc bay to the Magdalen Islands ; from there some shoals move toward the bend vl iLi« i^^j^a •nd others toward Bay Chaleur, OasiM*, and round there. The Americaits a/e weil x ouioiik^ with this habit of the mackerel and follow them. They have very smart »cbuc>iit^i> uni (•• low the fish along the shore, taking their cue, to a great extent, ffi/m what thev >«« vni U«u doing. John Champion, flsherniau, Prince Edward Island : 13. On an average there are eight hundred American vessels engaged in the o>d. kak<-. «r } mackerel fisheries in the bay, that is, including this island coast, the Mairdaj«-n UUnds, tL« New Brunswick and Nova Scotian coasts. There have been as many as Hhtt-ti buiiail . f them in a day. Wm. Champion, fisherman, Prince Edward Island : Was one year in an American vessel, down eastward on this island, and abr>ut Port Hocfl, Antigonish, Cape George, and other places in that direction ; the beats and also liie e CaDso, Nova Scotia : !. During the years that I was employe*! in fi^hinc. the namber of American vessels fish- iur tor iDHcid'rel imd cuilfiNh in t)ie Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the coHHt of Nova 8cotia would, to the best of my knowiedee, tnugt from «ix handrel to seven hundred each year. Tbf averagp iiiuiiber of men to eaoli vessel wuold be aboot fifteen. Jacob Groser, fl.sberman, Lower LaHave, Nova Scotia: ■2. Fviir yrars ago I was in the Bay of Chaleur, and for many years constantly before that time vear (liter year. Five years ago I have Mren in the Ray of Chaleur from two to three handrrd American vessels iu one tleet. The mo«l of tbe««- vessels took mackerel and they look tb-^ must of their mackerel inshore, and veiy seldom caught much mackerel beyond thrw miles trom the shore. Philip LeMontais, Aricbat, agent of Robin & Co: The harbor of Cheticamp is much frequented by American fifihiu|;-ve8sels, and I have seen It one tiDie aluiip the shores between six bnmired and eight hundred tishing^-vessels, most of which were American. These vessels were iisbing for mackerel along the shore of Cape Breton. Md lugrabam, Yariooutb, Nova Scotia : 2. About six hundred American vessels, from all ports, are engaged in fishing iu Csna- diin waters; the average number of men is about founeen : this is within my knowledge ihe past tifteeu years. They tish for mackerel, c>Mldsb, and halibut, from Bay de Chaleur loCapeFurchu. Page 110. — John Morien, of Port Medway, Nova Scotia, proves fish- JDgfor mackerel by American vesi^is at Gafie Cau»o, within half a mile of the shore. Page 111.— John Smeltzer, of Lnnenburg, testifies that he has seen American vessels fishing for mackerel in the back harbor of Lunen- burg. Page 115. — John Bagnall, of Gabarns, Cape Breton, proves American fishing- vessels in Gabarns Bay, northeast side of Cape Breton. Page 118. — Ryan Murphy, of Port Hood, Cape Breton, swears that he has known as many as 700 American vessels fishing in the gulf and the shores aroand Nava Scotia, Cape Breton, and the Magdalen Islands. Page 126. — H. Robertson, of Griffin's Cove, Gasp^, proves an extensive mackerel fishery by Americans at Griffin's Cove, and neighboring coves. Page 126. — Donald West, of Grand Creve, Gaspe, swears to over 100 Americau scltoouers in Gaspe Bay, yearly, for mackerel fishing. Page 127. — Michael Mcluuis, of Port Daniel, Bonaventure County, Quebec, testifies that the mackerel fishery by Auiericans has been car- ried on, on an extensive scale, on that shore. Pages 134 and 136. — John Legresly and John Legros, of Point St. Peter, Gasp^, prove a large number of American mackerelers in Gasp^ Bay (luring and since the Reciprocity Treaty. Daniel Orange and Joshua Monraut, of Pa.spebiac, Gasp6, swear that they have annually seen a large fleet of American mackerelers in Bay of Chaleur. Page 138 to 190. — Forty-nine others, all of GaH|>6, swear to the con- tinnal use by the United States fishermen of the fishing-grounds inshore of that region, and to the annual presence of a large fleet of American fishingvessels in the Bay of Chaleur and Gaspe Bay. The following persons also testify that the Americans fish on all the 1764 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 'w shores of Nova Scotia, eaHtern and nortlieni shornH of Cape Breton An- tigouish Bay, east coast of New Uruiiswiuk, and Bay Giialeur : ' Paf;e of affidaviU. 156. W. Wyse, Chatham, New Brunswick. 181. Gabriel Seaboyer, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. 182. I'utrick Mullins, Sydney, C. B., Nova Scotia. 190. John Carter, Port Mouton, Nova Scotia. 102. Thomas Condon, Guysboro', Nova Scotia. 2U0. Matthew Monroe, Guysboro', Nova Scotia. 200. Isaac W. Uenn^lls, Ca|)e Breton, Nova Scotia. 206. Joshua Smith, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. 207. Martin Wentzel, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. 209. Alexander McDonahl, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. 216. Amos U. Outhouse, Digby, Nova Scotia. 226. Robert S. Eakins, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. 227. John A. McLeod, Kensington, Prince Bdward Ishmd. 2iO. Angus B. McDonald, Souris, Prince Edward Island. 233. John Mclntyre, Fairfield, Prince Edward Island. 237. Thomas Walsh, Souris, Prince Edward Island. 239. Daniel Mclntyre, Prince Edward Island. 217. John Merchant, Northumberland, New Brunswick. From end to end the British evidence shows that the United States fishermen carry on their operations within the British territorial watm. I beg here to introduce a few instances from the evidence of the United States witnesses who were protUiced to prove that the mackerel fish ery was carried on in what is called by the United States coansel " the open sea." Timothy A. Damks, of Wf>llfle<>t, Mass., tiaherman, calloi] on behalf ufthuGovernmm of the United States, aworu aud examined. By Mr. Foster : Question. How old are you ? — Answer. Seventy years. Q. Were yuu en^^af d in inackere fiHliinj; durini^ a f^ood nviny years T— A. Ye*. Q. How many years did yon come to the i^ulf to iish mackerel T — A. Sevmitcen yetra. Q. What year did you begin and what year end 7— A. From 1846 to 187:(, I believe, In- clusive ; one year out. Q. Were you in the same schooner all the linint — A. Yes. Q. What was tlie name of the vessel T — A. Pioneer. Q. What tonnaiJ^T— A. 62 tons. Q. New or old measurement f — A. Old measurement. Q. Were you captain all these years f — A. Yes. • » • • • • • Q. Where did yon do your principal fishing in those places ; more than three miles from «hore, or less ? — A. More than three miles. Q. If you were a young man and fisherman once more, and wanted to come to the ^nlfu catch mackerel, would you be prevcnt<*d from doing it by the fact that yuu were furbiddcn to fish within three miles of the shore ?— A. I think so. By Mr. Weatherbe: Q. If you were forbidden to come within three miles of the Rhore, would you come M allY — A. It would be under certnin circiim.stances. If there were no iish with us and plenty there, perhaps I might ; I cannut say as to that. Q. From your experience, if you had been n-stiiclcd, during all these ycnrs yon cameto the bay, from coming to within three miles of the shore, you would not have come?— A. 1 tbiuk not. Stephen H. Martin, master-mariner and fisherman, of Gloucester, was called on behalf of the Government of the United States. Here are some extracts from pages 212 and 215 of the American evidence: By Mr. Dana : Q. But you did not fish within the three-mile limit f — A. No. Q. Can you not find out from reports of vessels aud from your own observation wheretbe j fish are T — A. Yes. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1765 Q Yoa k«ep jonr ears and eyes open all the time 7011 are fisliinff T— A. Yes. Q It if not necessary, actually, to eo in and try if you find vessels leavinff a place ithoat cstchiu? anything, to discoyer that this is the case T — A. No. ' Q And 70U onve to jaa|^ a^ to tlit< presence of fish, a ((nod deal from the reports of oth- Jv'_A. Ym. a great many men have a choice as to tishin(( grounds ; this is the case (((rrwbere. whether iu cod, halibut, or mackerel fishing^. Some fish one way and some iDoiWr. , . , • • • Q. From your experience in the bay— a pretly lonjj one — do you attach much importance loihr ri|ri)> o* ti^^hin); within three niilen uf the nhore 1 — A. Well, no, I do not thiuK it is of UT jniportsiife. It never was no to me. By Mr. Wcatherbe : Q. Vou never tinhed so close to the shore as that /—A. Sometimes we diJ. We fiithed witbiii live niiled of Hird Kockx. Q. Anil williiii lour mile.s of them T— A. Well, yes. 0. iliit joii liid not generally run in ho cIomj t — A. We mii;ht hnve done so. I could not trilriai'tly liow tar utfwc fiithtd. We u»ed to catch our Ksn on ditlereut days iu diflToreut (J. Von were linked whether you would not have your ears open and your understanding lokDuw wlierf (itlier people caught their tilth, and your answer was that some people had ibfir choice .'— .\. Ye«, sir. if. That 1* to *»}', that some |>eop1e have their choice to tish in certain places and others IB Jitft-relil plHce.H /— A. Yes. g. And ilmt i* the only answer yon gave T I suppose that you did Iiear where others nfn- lishinjr. Iluv*? you given a full answer f— A I have given a full answer. (^, Vou niUHt have heard where others have tished 1 — A. Of course, if a man gets a full trip on Orpliaii liank he will go there again. y. He Joi'g nut cHie where <»ther« have iished ? — A. No. (j. Then it is possible that some tish altogether in one place and some altogether in iDoiker place !—X. Well, I don't know auythiug about that ; I only know my own ex- perience. (j. Tlien you can give no idea where fish are caught except your own actual experience t -A. Well, I know wherit people have said. Q. That is just what Mr. Dana asked yon. I want to take the same ground that he did that yunr ears were opened and you understood. Your answer was simply that some bid their choice 1 — A. If I spoke a vessel and he said there was a good prospect at Kradley I should go there. If he said there was good fishing on the Magdalens I should go there. (^. I thought that your answer was that some would have their choice ; that no matter what tber heard they would still go to the same places T — A. I would go where I got good tiiches tne year before. Q. Then you didn't hear of others fishing in other places T — A. I have beard of tbcm fish. in^at Bradley aud Magdalens and up the gulf. Again: Q. Now, I don't want to trouble you with reading any opinions, but about what time was itaMertaiiied that the mackerel- fishing was inshore f — A. I could not tell. Q. At the time you mentioned it was not known that it was an inshore fishery at all f — A. No, not to my knowledge. Q. It was after it was ascertained that it was an inshore fishery that you heard of a diffi- olty about the limit f — A. Yes. By Mr. Dana : Q. I wish to ask you with reference to the last question when yon ascertained that the uackerel fishery was an inshore fishery 7 — A. I stated it was not in the year liiSfi. Q. Mr. Weatherbe asked you when you first ascertaiued that the mackerel fishery was an inhore fishery, and whether this or that happened before you ascertained that it was an in* thore fishery. Now, have yoa ever learned that it was an inshore fishery in distinction from u outshore fishery T— A. No. Q. Well, what do you mean when you speak of " after you understood it was an inshore iihery." Do you mean mainly or largely inshore T — A. No. We would hardly over catch uj inshore in the first part of the season. Some parts of the year they did take them in- tbore and off shore, too. <). Taking them all through, where did you catch them 7 — A. Most of them are caught iff ahore. By Mr. tYeatherbe : Q. I asked when it was that the difBcnlty first arose about the limit, and whether it was »ft«t it was considered an inshore fishery ; that is. ':<9?— A. I referred to the year ':i8. It •u an inshore fishery when they fished there. When vessels didn't fish there, you could Ut call it au inshore fishery. 1766 AWABD OP THE FI8UEBT COMMISSION. Tbe attempt of many witneHses to flhow that the flHhing was all car- ried on outside of three miles, was amusing, to say the leaRt. Isaac Burgess, of Belfast, Maine, fisherman, called on bolialf of th« Government of the United States, sworn and examined by Mr. FoRtt^r This witness fished in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in thti vonra 18(i4 1860, 1872, and 1874, and, excepting on one day, all his tiukiiig was out- side of three miles. By Mr. Weatherbo: Q. You CMUght your mackorel four inilea ofFf — A. Yen. Q. What proportion? — A. Half of them : I could not tell. Q. I suppose that would be the distance you would select as boinp; good tishiu|;'-\ Yea, air. Q. That would be the best fisbingryon have T— A. Yes, sir. Q. I suppose most of the fishermen fished that distance f — A. Yes ; they goiiprnllj g«hi>il off there near four or five miles. Q. It is considered about the best fixhinir. four or five miles f— A. Yes; it m. Q. I suppose in some places the fish would go in three and a half miles T— A. \e.» ; umc fish do. Q. You would not mind comini; in three and a half miles if you were four mileii nut; I suppose sometimes they would manage to get in three miles Y — A. No vmm\ that I haT« ever been in. Q. I am not speaking of the vessels, but the fish ; is there anything to stop them at four miles t— A. No. Q. There is no obstruction of any kind ; just as good water !— A. Yea ; only a little ihil- lower. Q. Just as good feed f — A. Yes. Q. Perhaps better feed ?— A. Well, most generally the gales drive them off, but they cone back again. Q. I suppose when the wind is a little off shore the best feed would be iuside, ulose iat- Yes. Q. Closer inside than four miles t — A. I should say so. Q. They would then go in pretty closet— A. Yes. Q. You would then go in there and drift off t — A. Yes. Q. And the fleet would do that. We have evidence of that. The floet woald run in as close as they could get and then drift off f — A. Yes ; that was the way they tiithed. Q. As close as they could gel in t — A. Not within four miles. Q. I was referring to a litHe closer. I wanted to come in a little closer if I could. I «u throwing a little bait. — A. Well, probably there might have been some fellows got io handier. Q. Some would go in handier T — 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.) George Friend, of Gloucester, whose evidence is to be found on page 119 of the United States, was produced and examined by Mr. Foster. He had many years' experience of fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, having fished there every year from 1855 to 1860, and owned several fishing-schooners, two of which were seized, but afterward released. He gave evidence that the great l>ody of his mackerel were caoght more than three miles from the shore. He was cross examined, and at page 123 the following record ap- pears: By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. Between 1868 and 1876 you had five vessels fishing t — A. Yes. Q. And you made three mackerel trips? — A. Yes, Q. And you lost money by them T — A. Yes. Q. Where did the vessels fish — outside of the three-mile limit t — A. I could not tell you. Q. You have no idea where they fished f — A. No. Q. You had three vessels fishing in the bay ; you sent them there 1 — A. Yes. Q. They came home, and you lost money by the trips ? — A. Yes. Q. And you undertake to say that you do not know and never made any inqmty whether the vessels fished inshore or outside t — A. Yes. Q. You never made any inquiry about it t — A. No. ▲WABD OF THE FI8HEBY COMMISSION. 1767 This witness also stated that he was not aware whether any of these resMls bad flsbing licenses from the Gauadtan Govern men t. 0 Ii lira privilef^e of aainff the inshore fishery of any use to you as flsheruien T — K, No ; wtionsliT' I <**y "**■ Q. Do you know that practically yourself f— A. That is ray opinion. Q You never fi«h«(l inshore T— A. No. 0 Tlicrefore you are not able to say so from your own knowlorlKP ? — A. I fished off ihore for the very reason that I thought I would do better there. I had a perfect right to (omeiMbore. g, Vou lost money, you say T —A. Yes. g. Did yo" evp'" ""7 •""I'"'* fishing T— A. No. Q. But you say the privilege of inshore is of no value ? — A. That is my opinion. q, For what reason T— A. I gave you my reasons. It would keep the vessels out of the liirbon. and they would get more mackerel. q. What elite 7— A. Then we would nut have so many draughts. They lay in the harbors too long, and go into harbors when it comes night. Q. U it not the prtctice for the fishermen to run into the shore and drill off, and then rnn in again 7— A. It is not always you can drift off shore. Q. li the privilege of going inshore an advantage to you ? — A. If the mackerel were in- ihora, it would certainly do an advantage ; if they were not iushore, it would not be an ad- TADtaffe* Q. Yon never tried whether the inshore was not better that the outshore fishing ; why did rou not try it T — A. Because I thought I could do better outside. Q. Year after year you lost money. As a businoss man. why did you not try fishing in- ihore lilie other iishermen who have made money T — A. I don't know where they are ; they ire very much scattered. Q. Why did you not try f — A. Because I thought I could do better off shore. Q. Do you know of any vessel which fished within three miles of the shore t — A. Not penonsliy. Q, Wliv do you say not personally T— A. Because I do not know any oue. I never saw them in tiiere fishing. q. Did you hear of any vessel which fished inshore f — A. I could not tell what I have heard. Q. Hivoyon heard of vessels fishing inshore T — A. I could not answer that. Q. Did yon ever make any inquiries ? — A. No; I was not interested. Q. You fislied off shore, lost money, and never tried to fish inshore, and never made any inquiries as to whether there was good fishing there or not 7 — A. Yes. This is from the record of the evidence of Charles H. Brier, of Bel- fast, Me., called on behalf of the Government of the United States : By Mr. Doutre : Q. Can you find out easily whether you are three miles or four miles or five miles off f— A. I don't know how we can. Q. Suppose you were about fivo or four miles, would you call it off shore or inshore T — A. I would call it inshore. Q. Then what leads you to say you caught about half of your trip inshore and half out T — L Because we did, I suppose. We had a license to fish iushore and we did. Q. You were not afraid of going in there ? So long as you found fish you fished there T — A. Yes. Q. Well, you had no reason whatever, had you, to take a note of the quantity taken in- (hore or outshore ; what reminds you now of the fact T — A. I don't know anything to re- mmd me, only that we fished about half the time off shore and caught about as many fish I as in. Permit to refer to one locality to show how completely onr learned brethreo on the other side have ignored our evidence. I select this iustance because the absence of contradiction is, perhaps, unusually strikiog. Grand M anan, on the west side of the Bay of Fundy, I have iDtimated, has received the especial attention of United States counseli and man,v witnesses were called to contradict the very strong case made out by Mr. Thomson there. Let roe call your attention to the other side of that bay, and to the attention bestowed to that part of the Province of Nova Scotia by my learned friend, Mr. Weatherbe. If you look at the map yon will find 8t. Mary's Bay on the south western most corner of Nova Scotia, on the eastern shore of the mouth of the Bay of Fundy. From Gape Split, 1768 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. near the head of the Bay of Fuiidy, follow down the eHsterti Hhorn of that bay to Brier Inland, at the very extremity of DiKby N(H;k u Ktrii) of rocky «oil, averaging one or two miles in width, which fonuH tbe barrier between the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary's Bay, a buy nix miles in width at Petite PttsMage. From Brier iMland go to the lu'ad of 8t Mary's Bay thirty milus, and follow the sinuositieHot' tbu opposite coast to its mouth, and proceed southwardly along the shores of the old Vm^^,\^ settlement of Clare toward Harrington — that anciiiiit town which w;is founded by tlHhermeu t'roui Capo Cod, who settled there with their I'iiiui. lies in 1703. Here is a coast line on the western part of Nova Scotm i'.mi or 300 miles, including the whole length of Digby and Aiiiiii polls (Joiiiitits with the finest /ones and currents and temperature uu the globe loia cieut flshinggronnd, swarming within three miles of the shore, as you win ii|„| by turning to the 413th page of the British evidence, with codjixh, huildmi;^ pollock, halibiUj herring^ and mackerel. In 124 hours, with the Speetlwujj, Professor Baird would extend the list of edible tish very niii(;h. It is true, we did not call witnesses from every part of this eoasst. It would have occupied too much time. We did, however, pioduue sunicietit evi dence. Take Brier and Long Islands — about 14 miles in their entirti coast line. These islands are within about ilve or six hours' sail ot thf United States, and will in a few months be almost connected by rail, after you cross St. Mary's Bay, with Halifax. The inspector of fisheries at Brier Island, Holland C. Payson, who was crossexamined by Mr. Daiiii, has carefully collected information. The people of these two islaiitls alone catch #200,000 worth of fish annually. It would be fair to put the catch of that entire coast at three millions and a half. Ezra Turner, from Maine, whose testimony is to be found on page 235 of the Ainerii can evidence, and who has fished in the British waters for thirty or forty years, swore that Maine is bankrupt in the fisheries from eiiil tu end. This is corroborated by a number of American witnesses, and by the official records of the nation. In the American Answer it is claimed that the poor people of our fish- ing villages are saved from destitution by tbe American fisberineu. Mr. Payson and Mr. Buggies — the latter a descendant of the celebrated General Buggies — say their people do not pay a cent of poor-tax. The almost destitute fishermen from the bleak coasts of Maine and from New England, since the Treaty of WaHhington^ during the last four years throng these friendly neighboring coasts of ours, and from these two islands alone they carry away annually from one-third to one-fourth as many flsh as are caught by the inhabitants — say $50,000 worth. They come with small vessels, which ihey haul up or anchor, and tbey estab- lish themselves on the shore and carry on these fisheries side by side with their Canadian brethren. This exercise of the right is gradually growing annually. These American fishermen admit their distressed condition at home, and the great advantages they enjoy by access to our coasts. These fisheries of oars, with those on the Xew Brunswick shore, including tbe Grand Manan, are a great blessing to our neighbors. This is no fancy picture. Here is a list of the affidavits filed to establish the facts. Here are the facts from fourteen men, whose statements could have been fully sifted : The statements of Holland 0. Payson and Mr. Buggies as to tbe value and extent of the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy and the southern coast of Nova Scotia are corroborated by the affidavits ot^— 155. Joseph D. Payson, Westport, Digby County. 207. Livingston Collins, Westport, Digby County. ▲WABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1769 318. WftllAoe TraHk, Little River, Digby County. nS, Geo. E. Moaely, TiverUin, Digby County. O20. Gilbert Merrit, Sandy Cove, Digby County. m JuHepb B. Denton, Little Uiver, Digby County. 521. John McKay, Tiverton, Digby County. •ji*!'. VVIiitfieUl OutliouHe, Tiverton, Digby County. •Tjl'! John VV. Snow, Digby, Digby County. irj3, James Tatterson Foster, I'ort Williams, Annapolis. jo{ jjyroii J*. Ladd, Varmoutb, Yarmouth. iil'5. Samuel M. Kyerson, YHrmoutb, Yarmouth. r>40. Tiiomus M liner, Parker's Cove, Annapolis. ••40. James W. Cousins, Digby Town, Digby. Mure thuii seven weeks before the United States Agent closed his case, we prwiiiced two of the most intelligent and respectable men in the dis- trivt' VVbile Mr. J)ana was cross-examining them, his countrymen were oa the shores of Digl)y fishing with their vessels. A messenger in a few hoars could have detected any exaggeration in their statements. From tbat hour to the end of their case not one word of all that evidence has beeu coutnuiicted or shaken. These New England tlsherraen continue under tbe Treaty of Washington to pursue their ancient calling and their number is increasing on the western and southern shores of Nova Scotia aud at (irnnd Manan, and all around the Bay of Fundy. Mr. Dana calls this practical pursuit of the fisheries in British waters a fraucbise, an incorporeal faculty. Call it what you will, is it not a great advantage to liis countrymen ? Is it not the salvation of the State of Maine f Is it not atl'ording an increasing number of Americans safe and fiteady employment f These fisheries do not fail. I invite the careful attention of tbeCommission to pages 399 and 412 of the British evidence. Are these fisheries not supplying cheap aud wholesome food to citizens of the United States? Is it not making hardy sailors of her stalwart sons! Mr. Dana can appreciate that. Mr. Foster says he fails to find any evidence, except as to the bend of Prince Edward Island aud Mar- garee. Can you " pencil in hand," measure by arithmetic the benefit of the right of fishing to the people of a whole coast who have been trained to DO other pursuit, and whose families are dependent on the return of tbe boats from Brier Island and the other coast of Nova Scotia ? What goes on here at one extremity of these wonderfully varied and pro- lific fisheries is going on at the other extreme — at Gasp^ and the mouth of the St. Lawrence, and at all other points varied by the circumstances of place. I wish to call your attention to an error — shall I say a geographical errorf— of our learned friends. The learned Agent for the United States says he can figure this question up pencil in hand. He admits with all tbe assistance of Mr. Babson and his figures (which are not evidence at all) he admits one link in the chain of his argument is wanting — the Port Mulgrave returns of 1875. Does the learned Agent know that the Port Mulgrave returns are entirely incomplete. Mr. Foster seems to be laboring under the delusion that every American fisherman reports him- self as he passes through the Strait of Canso. This is really not the case. Look at the map and read the evidence and then see if it is pos- sible to say how many fishermen never sail in the direction of the strait. All round the eastern and northern side of the Island of Cape Breton there are the finest mackerel grounds in the Gclf of St. Lawrence or the world. No United States witnesses could be produced to call this a dan- gerous coast. There are a number of fine harbors — the ancient port of lAaisbarg among the number— open all winter. This latter port is 1770 AWABD OF THE FISHEBT OOMMISSION. now connected by forty miles of railroad with the maKnifloDt harbor of Sydney. James McKay, of Port Mulgrave, inspector of fish, wa examined as a witness before the Oommission. He says, • stationed in the Gut of Canso can get an accarate list o that go through there. To do so is a moral impossibility." James Pnroell, revenue oflBcer at Port Mnlgrave, say:*: < of light-dues collected would not be a fair return as sbowii number of vessels that pass through the Out of Canso.'* B. M. Smalley, fisherman, of Bedford, Maine, was called the United States and examined. I invite the Commissi* his evidence : H called and * No one man 3f the vessels 'Tbeuumber >g the actual on behalf of mers to read QneBtion. Now don't yon think the same finh go out anci in f Is it jonr idea that certain schools keep in one place, and certain schools in another f — Answer. Yes, it in mv opinion the mackerel go oat and in, and we know thej do. But it is my positive i dea that the \mi fish that go into the Bay Chaleurs go through the strait and by l^dney. ^_ 3. Do yoa mean the Strait of Canso ?— A. No ; the Strait of Beiieisltj, and come down to ^U Isaac Archibal Q. What time T — A. Well, they are passing up and down there after the i nonth of Augujt, until they all go oat. Q. Yon think these are not the same as you catch off the nortb of thu island'— A No, I don't. Q. Do yoa think your opinion is general t— A. Yes, sir. Here are a few extracts from the evidence on file: Archibald B. Skinner, inspector of fish at Port Hastings, Cape Breton, has been 32 years engaged in the fishing business, and has Ween a practi- cal fisherman : Daring the Reciprocity Treaty a large fleet of American fishing- vessels c ime to this cout daring the summer season to carry on a fishing business. The number i acreatted dnrinr the treaty, until at the termination a fleet numbering hundreds of vessels < vere engaged in fishing around the coast of Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Prince Edward Isla: id, aad the Mag- dalen Islands. These principally took mackerel and codfish, but they ttok other fish m well. A htrge portion of the American fishing-fleet is now going every year u| the eastern aide of Cape Breton, and fishing in the vicinity cf Suaterie, Cape North, and tht sectioua around there. I understand that these grounds are very rich in fish. To reach these localities they are under no necessity whatever of passing through the Gut of Canso. They may, directly after they come from the Bay of Fundy, either pass along the coast of Nova Scotia and reach the Gulf by way of the northern part of Cape Brttton, or pass north in the vicinity of Newfoundland. George C. Lawrtuce, merchant, Port Hastings : Not nearly all the American fishing-vessels passing through the Straits of Canso are noted 4>r reported. A great nuraber pass through every year that have never been i oted or reported •t all. The Newfoundland herring-flttet from American portti go thither along tin eastern side of Cape Breton instead of passing through the straits, and toward the latter pi >rt of the aeaton large quantities of the most valuable mackerel are taken by Americans on (he eastern shore of Cape Breton, betweeneyond the three miles. At a time when the imaginative faculties of the learned American Agent and counsel bad not been appealed to by their government — at a tiiue when it bad not yet been discovered that the Americans derived their title t^ our fisheries from tbe achievements of a Massachosetts army and navy — our American friends bad another basis to rest their claim, also not to be found in the treaties. Until quite recently, American flshermen were under the firm impression that the mackerel was an American-born fish, from the neighborhood of Newport, Bock Island, Gape Heulopen, Cape May, and other places on tbe American coasts, which were and are spawning grounds. Under that notion, whatever mackerel was to be found in Cana^lian waters were nothing bnt the mi- grating product of the fertile American coasts. That theory was touch- ingly impressed upon tbe minds of the Joint High Commissioners dur- ing the winter and in the early spring which preceded the Washington Treaty. The mackerel of the Canadian waters were represented as a 1772 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. species of strayed chicken or domestic daok and pigeou which the owner bad the right to follow on his neighbor's farm. At that time they had no interest at all in depreciatiog our tisb, for Gauadian mackerel'were then quoted at the highest rates on the markets of Gloucester aud Bog. ton ; this was avowedly the case. They had even prepared statistics for the Centennial, in which these fish were at the highest price quoted on these markets, because it was only the prodigal sod wliioh was thus offereortant witnesses before this Cuuuiiii- sion, David W. Low, notary public aud postmaster of Gloucester, who could not ignore, and ]>erhaps, wrote himself this affidavit. In answer to the 34th question (p. a3): '^The amount of remissiuu of (hities on Canadian fish, and the free market of the United States for their mack- erel and other fish, saving the expense of cutters, ant' tbe benefits of a large trade from the American vessels, the admission to our coasts for menhaden and mackerel, will aggregate an advantage of nearly two million dollars a year in gross amount." I may here mention the fact that two other witnesses wrote at full length the amount " two hundred millions." (Affidavits IS and 19:) ''For this we obtain the privilegeof pursuing a fishery, which, after deducting expenses, will not uet to the American fishermen ten thousand dollars a year." The United States Agent and counsel, who have made » successful effort to exclude from the consideration of this Commission tbecommer cial advantages resulting from the purchase of bait and supplies, aud of transshipping cargoes on our coast, have thought proper to collect a mass of evidence to prove the commercial advantages resultiug to Brit- ish subjects from the Washington and Reciprocity Treaties. For in- stance, Messrs. R. V. Knowlton and Edward A. Hortou, of Gloucester, value at $200,000 per year the bait sold by Canadians to Auiericaus; and at half a million dollars per year the goods sold to Americans for refitting. The principal witnesses brought from Gloucester came here with such prejudiced minds, not to say worse, that their examination in chief seemed like an attempt to blind this Commission with one-sided state- ments, from which, at first sight, evolved a mystery which took us some time to penetrate. Taking their figures as tbey first gave them, it seemed a piece of folly for any American fishermen to have attempted, more than once or twice, to have fished in British waters, as the result of each trip constituted a net loss — the quantity of fish taken beiug al- most insignificant, and in quality unfit for the American market. Tlieir statistics were arranged to create that impression. The statistics with the names of several firms who had pursued such an unprofitable busi- ness for a period of twenty -five and thirty years consecutively were fur- nished. We could not find in our experience of things aud men, an ob- stinacy of that magnitude in mercantile affairs. Tbe cross-examiuatioD of these witnesses, extracted piecemeal, presented these trausactious nnder a different aspect, and it turned out, after all, that tbe Gloucester vessel owners and fishermen had had all along more sense than the wit- nesses wanted us to suppose — it turned out that the fish caught in our waters wrre highly remunerative in quality, and was in quality branded AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1775 in the Eostou aud Gloucester markets far p.bove the American shore nackerel. I have now done with this portion of my snbject, and I have said all I have to say with reference to the evidence brought in support and in foutradictiou of the British Case ; aud 1 now desire to deal briefly with what has been pleaded as an ottset to our claim. Wlier we come to deal with the privileges granted by the Americans to the subjects of Her Majesty in British North America, we liud them to be of two kinds: Ist. Eight to fish on the southeastern coast of the United States to the 39th parallel of north latitude. 2d. The admission, free of duty, of fish and fish oil, the produce of British North American tisheries into the United States market. As to the privilege of fishing in American waters, this Commission fill have very little difficulty in disposing of it. In the first instance it has been proved that the most of the fish to be found in these waters are caught 30 and 90 miles off shore, almost exclusively on George's {, aud the British fishermen would not derive their right of fishing there from treaties ; but from international law. In the second place no British subject has ever resorted to American waters, and the province of the Commissioners being limited to twelve years, to be computed from the 1st July, 1873, there is no possibility to suppose that they will ever resort to these waters, at least during the treaty. There remains then bat one item to be considered, as constituting a possible ofi'sett, that is the admission, free of duty, of Canadian fish and fish-oil. This raises several questions of political economy, which will be better dealt with by my colleague who is to follow me, and I will limit myself to say that if the question, now under consideration, were pending between the fish- ermen of the two countries, individually, this would suggest views which cannot be entertained as between the two governments. The controverted doctrines betweer free traders and protectionists as to who pays the duty under a projective tariff, whether it is the producer or consumer, seems to be solved by this universal feature, that, iu no country in the world, has the consumer ever started and sup- ported an agitation for a protective taritt"; on the contrary we find every where directing and nursing the movements of public opinion on this matter, none but the producers and mannfactnrers. This cannot be explaiued otherwise than that the mauufacturer receives in addition . to a remunerative value for his goods the amount of duty as a bonus which constitutes an artificial value levied on the consumer. It is in most instances the consumer that pays the whole amount of the duty. Id a few cases there may be a proportion borne by the producer and there is no process of reasoning or calculation to determine that prO' portion. When duties are imposed on articles of food which cannot be classed among luxuries there seems to be no possibility of a doubt that the whole duty is paid by the consumer. Salt cod or mackerel will never be called luxuries of food. A duty imposed upon such articles has had the effect of raising their cost far above the amount of duty, and had thereby the effect of increasing the profit of the producer at the ex- pense of the consumer. For instance, a barrel of mackerel which would have brought $10 when admitted free, will bring $14 under a tariff of $2 per barrel ; and statistics will be laid before the Commissioners to prove that fact, which I will not undertake to explain. This being so, however, wonld it be equitable to subject the Canadian Government to the pay- ment of an indemnity to the United States for providing American citizlens with a cheap and wholesome article of food when it is evident that the Z 1776 AWAKD OF THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. ''I "*">** i Canadian fishermen have, aa a rule, been benefited hv the existence of an American duty on the product of their fisheries ? The Goremoieot of the Dominion any more than its inhabitants have not suff^ered id an an preciable manner from the imposition of duties on fi.sh, and tbe remig! sion of that duty has been profitable only to the consumers of tbe United States or to the merchant who re-exports Canadian fi>«h to foreign conntries. We may, therefore, conclude that in a fiscal or pecuniary ik>u^ of view the remission of duty almost exclusively profits the citizens of the United States. The admission of the United States fishermen to British waters at this period is pregnant with advantages unknown under the Reciprocity Treaty. Of late numerous new linesof railway have been built in all the British provinces bordering or in the immediate neighborhood of the United States, especially in the Provinces of Quebec. New Bruns- wick, P. £. Island, and Nova Scotia. A new industry consisting in the carrying of fresh fish all over the continent as far as California bag sprung up of late. With the confessed exhaustion of most of tbe Ameri- can sea fisheries this industry must find the largest part of its suiiplieg in British waters. To these varied advantages must be added the political boon conferr«d npon the United States, of allowing them to raise and educate, in the only possible school, that class of seamen which constitutes tbe outer fortification of every country, and of protecting her against the advance of her enemies on the seas. Would it not be a monstrous anomaly, if by means of an indirect compensation, under the name of offset, tbe Ca- nadian Government should be taxed for creating a United States navy from which alone Canadians might entertain apprehensions in the future? I am sure any tribunal would pause before committing sach a flagrant act of injustice. Your honors will remember, I am certain, that although the Treaty of Washington is apparently made for a period of twelve years, it might become the starting point of a perpetual treaty of peace, if not stained by the verdict of this Commission, as an iniquj tons instrument. It is, on the contrary, to be hoped that future diplo- matists will find, both in our proceedings and in the award, the elements upon which to base an everlasting adjustment, which will forever settle the question of the British North American fisheries. On presenting snch a result to the three governments interested in this matter, ve would collectively and individually feel proud of having been associated with this international trial. I cannot close these remarks without acknowledging the ralaable aid I have received from Professor Hind's book, filed in this case. As a specialist, in the several branches of science connected with this case, he elucidated several grave questions, aud gave the key to a great part of the evidence. My learned friend and esteemed colleague, Mr. Weatherbe, with whom I more particularly consulted, aud who was so well acquainted with every spot in Nova Scotia, directed my attention to those parts of the evideuce which brought in relief the advanced \mt occupied by this province in the fisheries. To both, I here tender mv most cordial thanks. The inexhaustible patience and endurance of year honors during these proceedings, extending over a j)eriod of live months, were only equaled by tbe exquisite urbanity and kindness witb which we have all been treated. To my other British and American confreres before the Commission, I wish to express a feeling of fellowship which I will forever cherish. The American and British Agents and tbe Sec- retary will also be associated in my remembrance with one of tbe most pleasant incidents of my life, enliv sued by their sincerity of purpose, and the uniform good will they have brought to bear in the discbarge of their onerous duties. AWAHD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1777 IX. FINAL ABGUMENT OF MR. THOMSON OS BEHA.LF OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY. Monday, N'ovember 19. The Conference met. J/ay it please your excellency and yovr honors: It has DOW become my duty, after this long and tedious inquiry has been concluded, as far as the evidence is concerned, to present the final argumeDt on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I could wish, in view of the great importance of the issue, that the matter had been placed in abler hands. I shall not go very much into the historical gwn from the Bay of Fiindy, and they are oi opinion that duriiig the present season that rirht should not be exercised in the body of the liay of Fundy, andthat American fishermen tbuuld not bn interfered with, either by notice or otherwise, unless they are found within three miles of the shore, or within three miles of a line drawn across the mouth of a bay or creek which is less than ten geographical miles in width, in coufurniity with the urruuge- nent made with France in 1H39. American vessels found within these limits should be warned lliat by engaging or pre- mae to engage in fishing, they will be liable to forfeiture, and should receive the notice 10 depart which is contemplated by the laws of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Islund, if within the waters of one of these colonies under circumstances of suspi- cion. Kut they should not be carried into port except after willful and persevering neglect of lbewamiD;;s which they may have received, and in case it should become necessary to pro- cwi to rort'eiture, cases should, if possible, be selected for that extreme step in which the ofeow of tisking has been committed within three miles of laud. Her Majesty's Government do not desire that the prohibition to enter British ba} s should btpnerally insisted on, except when there is reason to apprehend some substantial invasion of British rights. And in particular, they do not desire American vessels to be prevented from navigating the Gut of Canso(from which Her Majesty's Government are advised they iDiybe lawfully excluded), unless it shall appear that this permission is used to the injury of colonial fishermen, or for other improper objects. I have it in command to make this communication to your lordship's as conveying tl.e detision of Her Majesty's Government on this subject. I have, &.C., EDWARD CARDWELL. I quote these instructions and make these observations in order that hereafter it maj- not be said that the views expresvsed by the American counsel in regard to the Bay of Fundy and the Gut of Canso were ac- ceded to by being passed sub silentio by the counsel for Great Britain. With these preliminary observations, I shall return to the main ques- tion, and here I may say that some weeks back, when your excel- lency and honors arrived at the conclusion that this inquiry should be closed by oral instead of written arguments, I foresaw that great difti- CDlties must occur if counsel were expected to do what counsel ordinarily do whilst closiug cases in courts of justice. If the immense mass of tes- timony, covering many hundreds of pages, together with the voluminous appendices and addenda to the evidence, were to be gone over and the relative value of the testimony on either side to be weighed, it seemed cer- tain that the several speeches closing this case, on either side, must necessarily extend over weeks. I had some curiosity, when my learned friend, Mr. Foster, commenced his address— and a very able one it was — to see in which way he would treat this matter, and whether or not he voald attempt to go over all this evidence. He quite reassured uie when be said : A peat mass of testimony has been adduced on both sides, and it might seem to be in ir- reconcilable contiict. B It let us |not be dismayed at this appeardnct!. Tliere are certain landmarks which cannot be changed, by a careful attention to which I think we may ex- pect to arrive at a tolerably certain conclusion. I thought he had made an epitome of the evidence, and had attempted to sift it, but 1 was "dismayed" afterwards, when I discovered that, sofarfrom considering himself bound by the testimony, he conveniently Ignored nearly the whole of the British evidence, and that the small por- tions to which he did refer, he was pleased to treat in a way that did ffiuch more credit to his ingenuity as an advocate, than to his spirit of tair dealing with the witnesses. 1 therefore did not feel at all relieved oy Ills course. Throughout his speech, as I shall show, there have been Pi '"I'll 1780 AWARD OP THE FIHIIKRY COMMISSION. A RoricH of UHNiiinptionB, without the RlighPHt cvidoiicM on wliich to bai>(> them. It WiiH 11 most ndinirahle siieech in every reHpect, lint one. it had little or no foiuuhition in the fnctH provetl. It wmh uii iulniirubio and inKeniouR 8|M>euh, I admit, and the Hame may Im> Raid of tho H|iecclieg of Ilia learned eolloagneH. It waa an admirable Rpeecli in a bad caiixo. Fortnnntely, I feel that I am not hero for the purpoHo of iniiUHiiritit; mv RtrenKth n» an advmmte a);ainNt that of ilndgo FoHter. Wi^roitHo I am very much afraid I Rlionld go to the wall. Hut I have JuHtthiHrnl vantage over him, aa I think I Rliall aatiafy you before I hrve doii(>,thiit my eauRO conUI not bo injured even by a had advocate; and I think I Bhall rIiow you that liiR eauae has been nuule the very best of by » won derfnlly good advocate. Now, I think that probably the pro|)er courRe for me to take, is to go throngii those speecheR, and after having done ro, to turn your attention Romowhat to the evidence. 1 take the very pleiiRant and liuinorons Rpeech of my learned friend Mr. Treacot, which certainly gave nioaRreat deal of amuRement, and, I hnmbly conceive, put me very mncli in the position of the man who waa l)eaten by hiR wife, and who, Ix'irig rcmon strated with by \m friendn for permitting it. Raid tliat it pleased her and didn't hurt him. The Rpeech o* my learned friend pleased him, ami didn't hurt ur a bit. I will ahow why. In the courRC of his argument he referred to a minute of the Privy Council of Canada, made in iinswor to Karl Kimberly Rhortly after the Treaty of 1871 was negotiated be- tween the two countries. Mr. Trescot laid groat stress upon the fact that tiiis was not a treaty between the United States and Canada, but that it was a treaty between the United States and England. No per sou disputea that proposition. It is not doubted. But I suppose timt no person will dispute the fact that, although England is noniinully the party to the treaty, the Dominion of Canada is vitally inturi'sted in the result of this Cotnmivssion. There is Just tl'.is difference between this treaty and an ordinary treaty between the United States and England, that, by its very terms, it was wholly inoperative as regards the llritish North Anierican possessions, unless it were sanctioned by the Dominion Parliament and the le;;i$la tnre of Prince Edward IsUuul, which at that time was not a i)art of the Dominion. In this respect it tliifored fron» an ordinary treaty, iiiasmnch as by the very terms of the treaty the Dominion of Canada had a voice in the niatte.. But I am willing to treat the matter as Mr. Troscot has been pleased to put it, as one between England and the United States alone, as the High Contracting Parties. You will recollect that, in the Answer to the British case, it was put prominently forward that this treaty was not only a boon to the Dominion, but that it was so great a boon that the premier of this Dominion, in his place in Parliauieut, made a speech to that effect, which is quoted at length in the Answer. Now, it may be right enough to quote the statements of public men in each of the countries. They are representative persons, and may be supposed to speak the language of their constituencies. Therefore I do not complain of their words being quoted. But I was surprised when, in the course of this inquirj', it was argued — I do not know whether it was by Mr. Foster or by one of the learned gentlenieu asso- ciated with him — that these speeches were calm expressions of opinion by gentlemen not heated in auj- way by debate. It struck me that that was a curious way in which to characterize a debate in the House of Commons, upon a question vital to the existence of the ministry for the ime being. 1 thought that was just a case where we had a right to expect that the speeches delivered on either side would probably par- AW tjkeofapnrtiRnn that the Kovernmt (oald in (lelVnse o „fnt« weakened t view. 1 1 lid my h siieechea in their i thei* would have A, Macdonald and i what they knew fiiatever. What around this tabUi yet, can it l>e tha ('araphell, or any have been qnoteil, Therefore, I think saying, without m< about matters of spfeches ought to cot has relieved nn to this minute of i rear in which the legislature of Cami of the Commission eot, including Mr. (rie8,audespeciall The minute is as f( PrMenl: The lion. I Sir George Et. Cm tier, bell, tk« Hon. Mr. Chi Francis Hincks, the Ho To His Excellency tlioE ViifUpleate your excell The committee of th Kimberlej'g diHpatcb to liw treaty signed at Wai which has since been ra' iostructioDS to Her Ma, held by the Commission ultimo, explnininf!^ the f the United States Comi the Fenian raids of I MM The committee of the the imporiant 8ubject.s d that they will consult tl of Her Majesty's Gove: Kcnrdance with public The committee of the miinteuance of cordial : Kmpire, and they woul Cu&disD Parliament 1 liltely to endanger the | 'key would not have he tbey have always claiii Kimberley observes, H MTing acted on the inl The general (lissatisfiacl >iCuitda,and whichi In WMt as in the mari AWARD OF THE FIHHKKY COMMISSION. 1781 tikeorapiirtiMnii chnra(!t(>r, niid not only ho, but that it wiih inovitabic tb»ttli«K'<>^*'''"""'"'^ NpenkerH would iihu llie HtronK(i>4t ar^rnrniMitH tli»y ^qI,I intU't't'iiNn of lli« action of tlivir U>ii;e of the matter had any of us aroiinil tiiis table before hearing; the evidenct; f Noru« whateve'-. And yet,cflii it be that Hir .lohn A. Macdoiiald, Dr. Tapper, Mr. Stewart ('Stntes as to the relative duties of friendly states m ntimoof p«ace It is unnecessary to enter into any lengthened discussion of the conduct of the United Stiiei during the last six or seven years, with reference to the organixntion of consiilcrable nmii- bers of the citiisens of those States under the designation of Fenians. The vifWK of thr Canadian Government on this subject are in possession of Her Majesty's Govcriiment ' mhI it appears from the Protocol of Conference between the High Conunissioiicrs that tlie BiitUh Conmiissioners presented the claims of the people of Canada, and wore instiiated tn iitiite that they weie regarded by Her Majesty's (fovernment as coining within the class of sub- jects indicated by SirKdward Thornton in his letter of tifitb January last, as siibjwtsfortbe consideration of tlie Joint High Commissioners. The Earl of Kiniberley states that it ynu with much regret that Her Majesty's Uovernment acquiesced in the omission of these claimn from the general settlement of outstanding (|uestions between Great Britain and tlio United States; and the committee of the Privy Council, while fully participating Id that rcerei, must add that the fact that this Fenian organization is still in full vigor, and that there seems uo reason to hope that the United States Government will perform its duty as a friendly ndeb- bor any better in the future than in the past, leads them to entertaiu a just apprehension that theoutstandiu ' subject of difference with the United States is tlie one of all others which isof special importance to the Dominion. They must add that they are not aware that during tne existence of this Fenian organization, which for nearly seven years has been a cause of irritation and expense to the people of Canada, Her Majesty's Government have madeanj vigorous effort to induce the Government of the United States to perform its duty lo t neighboring people, who earnestly desire to live with them on terms of amity, and who dur- ing the civil war loyally performed all the duties of neutrals to the expressed satisfuction of the Government of the United States. On the contrary, while, in the opinion of the govern- ment and the entire people of Canada, the Government of the United States neglccte ' until much too late, to take the necessary measures to prevent the Fenian invasion of 1870, Her Majesty's Government hastened to acknowledge, by cable telegram, the prompt action of the President, and to thank him for it. The committee of the Privy Council will only add, on this painful subject, that it is one on which the greatest unanimity exists among all ciasseii of the people throughout the Dominion, and the failure of the High Coiiimissioiiers to deal with it has been one cause of the prevailing dissatisfaction with the Treaty of \Vasbin([ton, The committee of the Privy Council will proceed to the consideration of the other subject of dissatisfuctiou in Canada, viz, the cession to citizens of the United States of the right to the use of the inshore fisheries in common with the people of Canada. The Earl of Kimber- ley, after observing that the Canadian Government took the initiative in suggesting that a joint British and American Commission should be appointed, with a view to s, .tie the dis- putes which had arisen as to the interpretation of the Treaty of I818, proceeds to state tb«l "the causes of the difficulty lay deeper than any question of interpretation," that "the dis- cussion of such points as the correct definition ot bays could not lead to a friendly agreement with the United States," and that " it was necessary therefore to endeavor to find au equiva- lent which the United States might be willing to give in return for the fishery privileges." In the foregoing opinion of the Earl of Kiniberley, the committee of the Privy Council are unable to concur, and they cannot but regret that no opportunity was afforded them of com- municating to her Majesty's Government their views on a subject of so much importance to Canada, prior to the meeting of the Joint High Commission. When the Canadian Government took the initiative of suggesting the appoiutmentof a joint ISritish and American Commission, they never contemplated the suriender of their letri- torial rights, and they had no reason to suppose that Her Majesty's Govoriiuieiit entertained the sentiments expressed by the Earl of Kiniberley in his recent dispatch. Hud such seiiti- nients been expressed to the delegate appointed by the Canadian Government to cunterwiib his lords-hip a few months before the appointment of the Commission, it would at least have been in their power to have remonstrated against the cession of the inshore fisheries; audit would moreover have prevented any member of the Canadian Government from acting as* member of the Joint High Commission, unless on the clear understanding that no such ces- sion should be embodied in the treatjr without their consent. The expediency of the cession of a common right to the inshore hsberies has beeu defended on the ground that such* sacrifice on the part of Canada should be made in the interests of peace. The comniitteeol the Privy Council, as they have already observed, would have been prepared to recommena ▲WiBD OF TnE FISUEBT COMMISSION. 1783 inr necFMAry roncmsion for no desirnhln nn objort, but they niuiit remind the Earl of Kim- lifrler thit the orif^inHl propo«ition of 8ir KdwHrdThurnton, an apptmrs by his letter of '.^(Sth Jtauitrr, wu that "a friendly and complete undemtandini; Hhould bu coriio to between the mo loverntnenlH as to the extent of the rights which belunir to tlie citizens of the United jiutfeMnil Her Majesty's subjects respectively, with reference to the Hsheries on the coasts of Her Msjexty'H possessions in North America." In hii reply, dated 30th January last, Mr. fieoretftry Fish informs Sir Edward Thornton tbit the Pregitlcnt instructs him to say that " he shares with tier Majesty's Government the ipprecistion of the importance of a friendly and complete understanding between the two mrernmeDtg with reference to the subjects specially suggested for the consideration of the prnpoied Joint High Commission." Id accordance with the explicit understanding thus arrived at between the two govern- mrnti, Esrl GrHnville issued instructions to Her Majesty's High Commission, which, in the ijpiiiioo of the conmiittee of the Privy Council, covered the whole ground of controversy. The I'uited Stales had never pretended to claim u right on the part of their citiiens to fish nitblD three marine miles of the coasts and bays, according to their limited definition of tbo Inter t«rm; and although the right to enjoy the use of the inshore fisheries might fairly iiire been made the subject of negotiation, with the view of ascertaining whether any proper eqairtirntH could be found for such a concession, the United Stales was prechulcd by the (iri^iuai correspundence for insisting on it as a condition of the treaty. The abandonment oi the exclusive right to the inshore fisheries, without adequate compensation, was not, there- lure, necessary in order to come to a satisfactory understanding on the points really at issue. The committee of the Privy Council forbear from entering into a controvor»lal discussion u to the expediency of trying to influence the United States to adopt a more 'iberal com- mercial policy. They must, however, disclaim most emphatically the imputation of dosiring 10 imperil the peace of the whole empire in order to force the Ainericau Government to AMfi its commercial policy. They have for a considerable time back ceased to urge the I'nited States to alter their commercial policy, but they are of opinion that when Canada is asked to surreuder her inshore fisheries to foreigners, she is fairly entitled to name the propar equivalent. The committee of the Privy Council may observe that the opposition of the lioveminent of the United States to reciprocal free trade in the products of the two countries wu just as strong for some years prior to 1854 as it has been since the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty, and that the Treaty of 1854 was obtained chiefly by the vigorous pro- tection of the fisheries which preceded it ; and that but for the conciliatory policy on the iubject of the fisheries, which Her Majesty's Government induced Canada to adopt after the abrogation of the Treaty of 1854 by the United States, it is not improbable that tuere would have been no difiiculty in obtaining its renewal. The committee of the Privy Council have adverted to the policy of Her Majesty's Government because the Earl of Kimberley has stated that there is no difference in principle between a money payment and " the system of licenses calculated at so many dollars a ton, which was adoptea by the colonial government for several years after the termination of the Rfciprocity Treaty." Reference to the corre- spondence will prove that the license system whs leluctanfly adopted by the Canadian Gov- irnment as a substitute for the still more objectionable policy pressed upon it by Her Majes- ty's Government, it having been clearly understood that the arrHiigenieiit was of a temporary character. In liis dispatch of the Ud March, 1H(J6, Mr. Secretary Cardwcll observed : "Her Majesty's Government do not feel disinclined to allow the United States for the season of Ic^ the freedom of fishing granted to them in 1854, on the distinct uiiderst sliding that un- less some satisfactory arrangements between the two countries be made during tlie course of the year this privilege will cease, and all concessions made iit the Treaty of rs.^>4 will bo liable to be witlidrawn. The principle ot a money payment for the concession of territorial rights has ever been most repugnant to the feelings of the Canadian people, and has only been entertained in deference to the wishes of the Imperial Government. What the Cauadians were willing under the circumstances to accept as an equivalent was the concession of certain couimercia I advantages, and it hits therefore been most unsatisfactory to them that Her Majesty's Gov- erament should have consented to cede the use of the inshore fisheries to foreigners for con- siderations which are deemed wholly inadequate. The committee of the Privy Council need not enlarge further on the objectionable features of the treaty us it bears on Canadian in- terests. These are admitted by many who think that Canudii should make sacrifices for the general interests of the empire. The people of Canada, on the 4)tlier luind, seem to be un- sble to comprehend that there is any existing necessity for the cession of tlie right to use iheir inshore fisheries without adequate compensation. Thy have failed to discover that in the settlement of the so called Alabama claims, which was the most iiriportant question in dispute betv>een the two nations, England gained such advantages as to b« required to make further concessions at the expense of Canada, nor is there anything in the liarl of Kimberley's dispatch to support such a view of the question. The other parts of the treaty are equally, It not more, advantageous to the United States than to Canada, and the fishery question Bitut, consequently, be considered on its own merits ; and if so considered, no reason has yet been advanced to Induce Canada to cede her inshore fisheries for what Her Majesty's uOTernment have admitted to be an inadequate consideration. Having thus stated their 1784 AWABD OF THE FI8HEBT C0HMIH8I0N. -views on the two chief objections to the latb Treaty of Washington, the committee of th» Privy Council will pnxjeod to the consideration of the correspondence between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Fish, transmitted in the Earl of Kimberley's dispatch of the Htliof Jane and of his lordship's remarks thereon. This subject has already been under the considera- tion of the committee of the Privy Council, and a report, dated the 7th Jane, embodying their views on the subject, was transmitted to the Earl of Kimberley by your excellency.' lu his dispatch of 26th June, acknowledgring the receipt of that report, the Earl of Kimberley refers to his dispatch of the 17th of that month, and " trusts that the Canadian Govemment will, on mature consideration, accede to the proposal of the United States Govemment on this subject." The committee of the Privy Council in expressing their adherence to their repc ' of the 7th June, must add, that the inapplicability of the precedent of 1854, under which the action of th^ Canadian Parliament was anticipated by the govemment, to the cir- canistauces now existing appears to them manifest. The Treaty of 1854 was negotiated with the concurrence of the provincial governments represented at Washington, and met with the general approbation of the people ; whereas the fishery clausea of the late treaty were adopted against the advice of the Canadian Govemment, and have been generally disap- proved of in all parts of the Dominion. There can hardly be a doubt that any action on the part of the Canadian Govemment in anticipation '>f the decision of Parliament would increase the discontent which now exists. The committee of the Privy Council request that your excellency will communicate to the Earl of Kimberley the views which they entertain on the subject of the Treaty of Washington the intevfcsts of the Dominioc. WM. H. LEE, Clerk rrivji Council, Canada. in so far as it affects Now, here is a statement made by the Privy Councilors, on oath as Privy Councilors to give the best advice to tbe governor-general; and they state that tbe opinion they are abut to give is in accordauce with public opinion in all parts of tbe Dominion. There v>'as no new election after that opinion was given, and before tbe debate in which the speeches were made that have been quoted. There was no change in public opinion, as evidenced by a new election, and the return of other persons to the House of Commons to represent that change. It was the same House. The same members were present, and tbe same Privy Conn- oilors heard and participated in that debate ; that is, those of them that were members of the House of Commons. Now, here \s the authori- tative declaration of the opinion of tbe members of the Privy Gonncil, and that opinion is expressed, not simply as the private individaal opinion of these councilors, but as a reflection of the public opinion v,! the whole Dominion, that this treaty did gross injustice to British North American interests. And in that opinion Sir John A. McDon- ald, whose speeches are quoted here against us, agreed. Mr. TreKcot,in citing that minute of council, to my mind cited the best evidence that could be adduced in favor of tbe British claim. I admit you have nothing to do with the question whether or not this treaty satisfies the countries interested in it, whether it satisfies the Do minion or whether it is unsatisfactory to the United States. That is not the question. That is all over and past, and yon are here for the purpose of determining the diflFerence in value between the advantages conceded to tbe United States and those conceded to the Dominion of Canada by the fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington. I only make these observations for the purpose of saying that it is wholly im- possible for tbe United States to show, as they have attempted to do in their Answer, by the speeches of Canadian statesmen, that all tbe advan- tages of the treaty are in favor of tbe Dominion. I will, therefore, pass to another branch of the subject, but before doing so I wish to revert for a moment to the question as to the Bay of Fundy, to which 1 referred a lew moments ago. I desire to cite a letter addressed on the 6th of July^ 1853, by the then St-cretary of State of the Unlti'd Sraf»'.s Mr. Marcy, AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1785 to the Hod. Richard Rasb, one of the negotiators of the Goovention ot 1818. It is as follows : Dbpartmknt of State, Wathington, July 6, 1833. (IR : You are probably aware that wilhin a few years past a question has arisen between Ibe United States and Great Britain as to the construction to be given to the Ist Article of the ConTention of 1818, relative to the fisheries on the coas; of the British North American Prorinces. For more than twenty years after the conclusion of that convention there was no nerioos attempt to exclude our fishermen from the large bays on that coast ; but about leuyetrs ago, at the instance of the provincial authorities, the home government gave a constmction to tie 1st Article which closes all bays, whatever be their extent, against our citizens for fishing purposes. It is true they have been permitted to fish in the Bay of Fundy. Ihi< permissiun is conceded to them by the British Government, as a matter of favor, but deoied as a right. That government excludes them from all the other large bays. Oar construction of the convention is that American fishermen have a right to resort to sorbay and take fish in it, provided they are not within a marine league of the shore. As 70a negotiated the convention referred to, I should be much pleased to be favored with jour views on the subject. I have the honor to be, &.C., W. L. MARCY. The Hon Richard Rush, Sydenham, near Philadelphia. This clearly proves that the iaiericau Government understood the matter thoroughly. Official correspondence is the best authority on the snbject. Mr. Foster. That correspoodeuce was before the decision in the case of the Washington. Mr. Thomson. Lord Aberdeen wrote the dispatch containing the re- laxation on March 10, 1845. The schooner had been seized in 1843, and the decision of Mr. Bates, as nmpire, was given in 1854, in December. The reason why I cited the letter to Rush was to show that in 1853, in July, the United States had full knowledge of the construction which - had been placed upon that relaxation. It is true, says Mr. Rush, they have been permitted to fish in the Bay of Fundy, but that is conceded as a matter of favor and not of right, and that was in 1845. Mr. Dana. But you recollect that after we had that decision, we did not accept the concession as a favor. Mr. Thomson. Great Britain has expressly adhered to her opinion from the beginning to the end, as I said before. It is no use to quarrel aboat the terms of relaxation. Whether the terms mean a relaxation or not is behind the question. It is a practical abandonment, since Great Britain has said that as regards the Bay of Fundy she has relaxed her claim and does not purpose to enforce it again. No such claim has been made since that time, and we have given no evidence of any Hsbing in the Bay of Fundy, except the fishing within territorial limits around Grand Manan, Campobello, Deer Island, and the coasts of the county of Charlotte and the Province of Nova Scotia. Mr. Trescot. No one objects to the view that Great Britain adheres to the construction you insist upon, so long as you admit that the United States adheres to its construction under which the waters of the Bay of Fondy are not British territorial waters. Mr. Thomson. I only wish to 8ay that the United States themselves understood the position of the British Government, and that they must take the concessions in the terms and with the meaning that the Brit- ish Government attached to it. A man who accepts a gift cannot quar- rel with the terms of it. Mr. Dana. Mr. Everett declined to accept it as a courtesy. Mr. Thomson. As a matter of fact the United States have not de- clined to accept it. Tlioy have n'lted upon It ever since. If they had 1786 AWARD OF THE FISUEBY COMMISSION. kept all tbeir vessels oat of the Bay of Fundy for fear of that construc- tion being placed upon their use of these waters, we would have under- stood it. But they have entered and used it ever since. Mr. Dana. The United States had fished there under a claim of right, England agreed not to disturb them, but still contended that w.^, had not a right. Therefore our going in was not an acceptance of any 'avor from Great Britain. This subject was referred to a Commission, and the Commission decided, not on general grounds, but on the ground that one headland was on the American territory. Therefore it was a special decision, and that decision settled the question as to the Bay of Fundy, so that we have not accepted anything from Great Britain which pre- cludes us from taking the position always that we had claimed from the first, namely, that we had a right to fish in the Bay of Fundy. Mr. Thomson. The two Commissioners, Mr. Hornby and Mr. Upham, were authorized to decide whether the owners of the Washington shoald or should not be paid for the seizure of their vessel. That was the ouir authority they had. They had no more authority to determine the head- land question than you have, and it is conceded that you have no such power. Neither had thej'. A fortiori, neither had Mr. Bates, the Umpire. Mr. Dana. That was the very thing they had to determine. Mr. Thomson. They had to determine the legality of a seizure. L^ci- dentally the question of the headlands might come up, just as it would have here, had evidence been given. Mr. Foster. Will you not read the paragraphs from the Umpire's de- cision f Mr. Thomson. I haven't it here. Mr. Foster. He puts it on two grounds. It was impossible to decide the question whether the United States could be paid without deciding whether the Washington was rightly or wrongly seized. That depended upon whether she was seized in British territorial ^vaters. Mr. Bates, the Umpire, decided she was not, and put it on two grounds, one of which Mr. Dana has stated, viz, that one of the headlands of the Bay of Fundy was on American waters, and the other that the headland doc- trine was new and had received its proper limitation in the Convention of 1839 between France and Great Britain, that it was limited to bays not exceeding ten miles in width. Mr. Thomson. While I do not dispute what Mr. Foster says, I go back to what I was saying when I was interrupted, that these two geu- tlemen, Mr. Hornby and Mr. Upham, had no authority to decide the headlaud question. They had undoubted power to decide whether the vessel was improperly seized, and, if so, to assess the damages ; and be cause Mr. Bates, in giving his decision against the British Government, was pleased to base it upon the ground that one headland was in tbe United States and the other in British territory, according to his views of the contour of the bay, is behind the question. He had no more power to determine that important international qnestion than, as it is conceded, have your excellency and honors in this Commission. Mr. Trescot. Does not the question of damages tor trespass settle tbe right of possession ? Mr. Thomson. I am quite willing that when the learned counsel for the United States think I am making misstatements of law or facts I should be interrupted, but I cannot expect them to concur in my argu- ments, and it is difficult to get on in the midst of interruptions. If I understand the arguments against the British case, able arguments 1 ad- mit they are, and if I understand the argument which I shall have tbe honor to submit, I sliall show that they have not one single legtostaud AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1787 npon; that tbey bave no fouudation for the extraordinary defense that has been set up to the righteous claim of the British Government for comj)ensation. If I fail to show this, it will not be because it cannot be sbo^fD by counsel of the requisite ability, but simply because I have not the ability to present the subject as it should be presented to your ex- eelleucy and honors. My learned friend, Mr. Trescot, after taking the ground that the treaty was not made between the United iStales and Canada, but was made between the United States and Great Britain, went on to use an armament which certainly caused me a great deal of astonishment at the time, but wbich I think, upon reflection, will not inure to the benefit of the United States. " Why," said he, referring to a minute of council vbich he read, '* the Canadian Government said in that minute that if Great Britain would guarantee a loan of (I think it was £4,000,000), they would be willing that this treaty should be passed." Now, that had reference, we well know, to the Fenian claims particularly. Whether it was creditable to Canada or not to give up the right to compensation for the outrageous violation of neutral territory' by marauders from the United States, it is not my province to argue. She had a right to give itup if she thought tit to do so in consideration of a guarantee by Great Britain of the proposed loan. Mr. Trescot says : " Because you were dissatisfied with this treaty — because you were dissatisfied with losing your territorial rights — you obliged Great Britain to guarantee a loan of •£1,000,000 in reference to an intercolonial railway." Great Britain did guarantee a loan, and Canada got the money. " With what face," he says, " does Canada come here now and claim compensation, since she has been paid for that ?" Well, it struck me that if his argument was correct it proved a little too inatli. What does it show ? This question, by his own contention, is cue between Great Britain and the United States. Great Britain claims a compensation here, which, under the terms of the treaty, she is entitled to get. If, therefore, as Mr. Trescot argues, the claim has been paid, I would ask who has paid it? If Canada has been paid for yielding certain important territorial rights to the United States for the term ot twelve years from 1873, if Canada has ceded those rights to the Uuited States, as undoubtedly she has by the Treaty of Washington, and if Canada has been paid for that cession by Great Britain, then I apprehend that Great Britain has paid the debt which the United States ought to have paid, and she can properly and justly look to the United States to be refunded. Now, that guarantee was exactly £4,000,000 sterling. We are modest in our claim, and ask for only $15,000,000 al- together. That being so, I think Mr. Trescot has pretty well settled this case. I think it was he, but I am not quite sure, who said in the course of his speech, although I did not find it reported afterwards — perhaps it was Mr. Dana — that when he came tlown here first he thought the case of the British government was a great deal better than it turned out in evidence. Mr. Trescot. I didn't say that. Mr. Thomson. It was said by one of the counsel for the United States. It may be repudiated now. Mr. Dana. I haven't committed my speech to memory. Mr. Thomson. Unfortunately I do not find it committed to paper. At all events, that is the fact. If you take Mr. Trescot's argument, the result is that we must get four million pounds sterling. Great Britain paid that ; and it is just the case of a man who, with the consent of an- 1788 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Other, pays that other's debt. It is money paid to his use, as all law- yers know, and is a valid claim against the party for whom it was paid Now, I will follow him a little further, and will examine some other propositions that he laid down. He says this, on page 58 of his speecli ■ It is precisely, as far as you are concerned, as if, instead of the exchanp^e of fishing priv. ileges, that treaty had proposed an exchange of territory. For instance, if ttiHt treaty had proposed the exchange of &Iaine and Manitoba, and the United States had maintained that the value of Maine was much larger tliaa Manitoba, and referred it to you to equalize the exchange. It is very manifest that to New England, for instance, it might uot only be iWn. advantageons, but very dangerous ; but the only question for you to consider would be tlie relative value of the two pieces of tenitory. Well, I will take his view of that matter, and let us see what follows. He in effect says, just put one territory against anotlier and take their value — how many acres are there in the State of Maine and how many in the Province of Nova Scotia ? Now, we have evidence of what the concession is under this treaty to the tishcrinen of the Doininioii. Thfv get the right to fish as far north as they please over a line drawn from the thirty-ninth parallel of north latitude upon the Ainericaii coast, a distance, I think, of somewhere about 1,050 miles. As against that, the United States fishermen get upon the British-American coast the right to fish over an extent of some 3,700 odd miles. There is a clear balance entirely against them. Or, if you choose to take the area in square miles, you have nearly 3,500 square miles of fishing territory given to us by the United States, while 11,900 square miles of British territorial waters are given to them. I am quite willing to meet them upon their own ground, to oppose them with their own weapons. In that view there is just the difference in our favor between 3,500 square miles and 11,900. Now, I will pass on to another branch of our claim, for compensation. Great Britain says, and w« have proved, that along tlSe line of Cauadiau coast upon which the American fishermen ply their calling by virtue of this treaty, there have been very costly harbors made, and there have been numerous large and expensive light-houses erected. Great Britain says that by means of these harbors and light-houses the fishermen of the United States have been enabled more successfully to prosecute their calling in territorial waters. That would strike you, I think, as being obviously the case. These improvements render the privilege conceded by us much more valuable than it otherwise would have been. Suppose the coast to have been entirely nnlighted, and the harbors to have been unsafe and difiBcult of access, it might then well have been said that the privilege was merely a nominal one ; that no fisherman could ply his vocation in Canadian territorial waters without danger to life and prop- erty. The evidence as to the cost of these works is before you, aud I do not intend to go into it. I am only alluding to it because I am fol- lowing the course of Mr. Trescot's address. Does it not strike you as reasonable that the effect of these expenditures upon the American fishing-business should be taken into consideration ? Not only is there greater safety and more certainty of successful catches, but money isthere- by actually put into the pockets of their merchants in the shape of pre- miums of insurance saved. If it be true that they pay one per ceuta month for a fishing-vessel in the bay — and some of the witnesses say that is the rate — what would they pay if there were no such light-boases to guide their vessels to a place of safety — no such harbors to shelter tbem from storms t When Mr. Trescot made his flourish on the subject be asked if we had no trade that required these lighthouses. I am AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1789 jfraid to trust my memory, to quote the very worils he used, for his langaage startled me a little. I read bis remarks as fol'-^ws : And now, with regard to this question of conHequences, there is bi*' one other illustration towbicb I will refer, and I will be done. I find at the close of the British testimony an elaborate exhibit uf 166 lights, fog-whistles, and humane establishments used by United State!) fishermen on the coast of the Dominion, estimated to have cost in erection, from the Sambro li|;bt-lioaae, built in 1758, to the present day, ^i:i'2,l38, and for annual mainte- guice, 1*26;), 197. I scarcely know whether to consider this serious; bat there it is, and (here it has been placed, either as the foundation for a claim, or to produce an effect. Now, if tbis Dominion has no commerce ; if no ships bear precious freight upon the dangerous waters of the gulf, or hazard valuable cargoes in the straits which connect it with the oteui: if no traffic traverses the imperial river which connects the Atlantic with the great lakes; if this fabulous fishery, of which we have heard so much, is carried on only in boats w imsU that they dare not venture out of sight of land, and the fishermen need no other giiida and protecting light than the light streaming from their own cabin-windows on shore ; if, in abort, this Dominion, as it is proudly called, owes nothing to the protection of its com- merce and the safety of its seamen ; if these humane establishments are not the free institU' tions of a wise and provident government, but charitable institutions to be supported by the aabscriptions of those who use them, then the Government of the Dominion can collect its 1200,000 by levying light-dues upon every vessel which seeks shelter in its harbors, or brings wealth into its ports. But if, in the present age of civilisation, when a common humanity is blDdinc; the nations of the world together every day by mutual interests, mutual cares, aod privileges equally shared, the Dominion repeals her light-dues in obedience to the com- mon feeling of the whole world, with what justice can that government ask you, by a forced coDiitruction of this treaty, to reimpose this duty, in its most exorbitant proportions and its moat odious form, up jn us, b« 1 upon us alone ? Now, a more extraordinary argument than that I have never heard nsed. Your excellency and your honors are here to value the difference between the concessions made by the United States to Great Britain on theoue hand, and those made by Great Britain to the United States on the other. We contend that the fisheries of the United States are use- less, not because there are no light-houses on their shore, and no harbors ill which our fishing-vessels could find shelter in time of need ; but we say their fishing-grounds are of no service to us, because the fish are not there, because our fishermen have never used them, preferring to fish npoii our own coasts ; there being, in fact, no occasion for them to leave their own shores and go hundreds of miles away from home to fish on tiie American coast; but if the fish had been abundant in American coastal waters, and light-houses had been there to guide our fishermen, and harbors to j)reseiv© them from shipwreck, or reduce their perils, do you thiuli these things should not be taken into consideration in fix- ing the compensation for the use of those fisheries I Do you think thej' would not have been the basis of a claim against us ? Certainly they would. I shall show from the written statements of United States officials what estimate was placed upon light-houses immediately after the great storm, which ia called the " American storm," by reason of the vast number of American vessels that were destroyed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the vast number of American seamen that found » watery grave beneath its waves. 1 will show you what was thought about this subject of light-houses at that time. And if you can then agree with the view presented by Mr. Trescot, I have nothing more to ^ay; but I do not think it is possible that you can. In the official cor- respondence, which is in evidence, we have this letter addressed by the then United States consul, I think, at I'ictou, to Sir Alexander Banner- pan, at that time the governor of Prince Edward Island. It is No. 28, intheoflicial correspondence (Appendix H), put in as part of the evi- dence iu sui)portof Her Majesty's case, at the outset of these proceed- ings. I may mention here that a number of the witnesses spoke of the storm as having taken place in 1851. This letter bears date in 1852, bat as it refers to a great storm, and I have heard of only one such Y"a 1790 AWABD OF THB FISHEBY COMMISSION. Storm happeuing between 1850 and 1860, 1 shoald jadge either that this is a misprint for October, 1851, or that the storm actaally took place in 1853, for no two storms succeeded one another in 1851 and 1852. The letter is as follows : Consulate of the Usited States, Vrorinee of Nora Scotia, OctoUr'ir \ 1352. Sir : Since my return from Charlotte Town, where I had the honor of an interview with your excellency, my time has been so constantly employed in the discbarge of official datiej connected with the results of the late disastrous gale, so severely felt on the north side of Prince Edward Island, that I have not found time to make my acknowled^^meDts to your excellency for the kind and courteous reception extended to me at the government boDie nor to furnish you with my views relative to some improvements which might be made by your excellency's government, thereby preventing a similar catasUophe to the one which has so lately befallen many of my countrymen ; and at the same time on behalf of the Gov- ernment of the United States, which I have the honor to represent, to thank you iso«t feelingly for the promptness and energy displayed by your excellency in issuing proclama- tions, whereby the property of the poor ship-wrecked mariner should be protected from pillage. These various duties devolving upon me, I now have the pleasure of discharging, bat onlr .' 'I a brief and hurried manner. The effect of the recent visitation of Providence, although most disastrous in its couse- ■;es, will yet result in much good. ' > first \ ace, it has afforded the means of knowing the extent and valae of fisheries V... ,;.'.. r coast, the number of vessels and men employed, and the immense benefit which would result to the people within your jurisdiction, as well as those of the United States, if the fishermen were allowed unrestrained liberty to fish in any portion of your water;, and , ^naitteci to < :ud for the purpose of curing and packing. A 'va iQt:..' :'^.1 lE'ide by your excellency, I am satisfied it is a subject which has secnred your mofit :ui n flection and consideration, and that it would be a source of pride and pleasure to your eiLcellency to carry into successtul operation a measure firaught with so much interest to both countries. 2. It has been satisfactorily proved, by the testimony of many of those who escaped fr^m a watery grave in the late gales, that had there been beacon-lights upon the two extreme points of the coast, extending a distance of 150 miles, scarcely any lives would have been lost, and but a small amount of property been sacrificed. And I am satisfied, from the opinion ex- pressed by your excellency, that the attention of your government will be early called to the subject, and that but a brief period will elapse before the blessing of the hardy fishermen of New England and yonr own industrious sons will be gratefully returned for thiii most philanthropic effort to preserve life and property, and for which benefit every vessel should contribute its share of light-duty. 3. It has been the means of developing the capacity of many of your harbors, and expos ing the dangers attending their entrance and the necessity of iminediate steps being taken to place buoys in such prominent positions that the mariner would in perfect safety flee to them in case of necessity, with a knowledge that these guides would enable him to be sure of shelter and protection. From the desire manifested by your excellency previous to my leaving Charlottetown. that I would freely express my views relative to the recent most melancholy disaster, and make such suggestions as might in my opinion have a tendency to prevent similar results. there is no occasion for my offering an apology for addressing you at this time. I have, &.C, B. H. XORTitN, I'niteil States Consmlfor Pictou Deptndenq. Ilis Excellency Sir A. B.vnnerman, &c. Bear in mind that an official letter, written in the year 1861 by Mr. Sherman, the then American consul at Charlottetown, was put iu evi dence by the United States Agent ; and Mr. Foster contended with mnth force that the statements in that letter shoald be treated as tborougblv trustworthy, because the writer could havehad uoobjectinmisleadinghis own government. I accede to that view. Ko doubt Mr. Sherman be lieved in the trnth of all ho wrote. It is for yon to say on the evidence whether or not he was correct in point of fact. Apply Mr. Foster's reasoning to Consul Norton's letter, and are not the value of the Priuce Edward Island inshore fisheries, and the value to American fishermen of thu ligh^houses and harbors since built and constructed around ber shores, proved by the best of all evidence f As regards the inshore AWARD OF THE FISHKBT COMMISSION. 1791 fisheries, tbe consul had no object in overestimating their value in any vaj to the governor of the island that owned them, or to the govern- oent tbat alone, of all the governments of the world, sought entrance into tbem as against the rightful owners. Now, what does he say : It hu been satisfactorily proved, bj the testimony of many of those who escaped from t watery grave in the late gales, that had there been beacon-lights upon the two extreme points of the coast, extending a distance of 150 miles, scarcely any lives would have been lost, and but a small amount of property been sacrificed. And I am satisfied, from the opin- ion expressed by your excellency, that the attention of your government will be early called to tbe subject, and that but a brief period will elapse before the blessing of the hardy (shermeD of New England and your own industrioiu sons will be gratefully returned for this most philanthropic effort to preserve life and property, and for which benefit every ves- sel should contribute its share of light-duty. Ibis is a very different opinion from that of Mr. Trescot — very differ- ent, indeed. All these light-houses, and many more than ever Mr. >'orton dreamed of, have since been built. Before they were built, Mr. Norton says tbat such erection would prove of the greatest value to future American fishermen, and that not only their blessings would be poured ou tbe heads of those who should erect them, but he even pledged tbem to go a step further and part with that which they are less disposed to bestow than blessings — a little money. The light-dues have long since been abandoned. Mr. Foster. When ! Mr. Thomson. They were abandoned in 1807. It has been so stated in evidence, and it is in the minutes. From that time to the present there bave been no light-dues collected at all. He goes on to say : It has been the means of developing the capacity of many of your harbors, and expos- log the dangers attending their entrance and the necessity of immediate steps being taken to place buoys in such prominent positions that the mariner would in perfect safety flee to tbem in case of necessity, with a knowledge that these guides would enable him to be sure of shelter and protection. There is the opinion of a disinterested man at that time, or rather of a man wbo was directly interested in getting these lighthouses erected, for which we now ask them to pay us a fair share during the twelve years tbey are to be kept up for their fishermen. We could not ask it before, although the fishermen were in the body of the gulf, and had the advantage of them. But when they come on equal terms with our own subjects into our territorial waters, why should they not bear a portion ot the territorial burdens ? Is it not monstrous to argue against it 1 Mr. Foster. Does it not appear in your evidence that you charged the American fishing vessels light-dues from the time they came into your harbors, or passed through the Strait of Causo, until such time as yon saw fit to abolish them, having collected enough to pay for them ? Mr. Thomson. They have been abolished since 1807, as regards the Gatof Canso, if my memory does not deceive me very much. We have in the evidence of that very amusing gentlemen, Mr. Patillo, a descrip- tion of tbe way they were evaded. To this evidence I shall refer hero- after. I think tbat I have now shown conclusively that this part of the British case is entitled to serious and favorable consideration at the hands of your honors — I mean this question of the lights. 1 come to another part of Mr. Trescot's argument, which I think will he found on page 59 : 1 have but oue other consideration to suggest before I come to the history of this (jues- I'on. and It Is this: If you will examine the treaties, you will find that everywhere it is the 1792 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. " United States fishenneii," the " inhabitants of the United States," the citizens of tlie United States who are prohibited from takinif part in the fishery within the three-mile limit. Now I say, remember I am not talking about local lef^slation on the other side at all ; I am ttlki ing about treaties. I say there is nothing in any treaty which would forbid a Nova Scotian or a Prince Edward Island citizen from going to Gloucester, hiring an Americen Teml with an American register, and coming within the three-mile limit and tishing— Dotbioff at all. If such a vessel be manned by a crew half citizens of the United States and half Nora Scotians, who are fishing on shares, recollect, and who take the profits of their own catches where is the difference f The United States citizens may violate the law, but are the citizens of Nova Pi'otiadoingsor They are not the "inhabitants" or fishermen of the Ui ted States" e]>.« laded from fishing within the three-mile limit. I do not like to say I was startled at that, because Mr. Trescot says I am startled contiunally. Nevertheless I was. I defy the parallel of that proposition to be foand, uttered by any statesman or lawyer that ever «xisted. Mr. Trescot stands alone in that view, both as having the ex- traordinary facalty to conceive snch an idea, and the yet more extraor- dinary boldness to ntter it in a civilized coramnnity, and before a tribunal such as this. Whati Because the American ship-owners of Gioncester, Welfleet, or anywhere along the coast of New England, choose to take into their service Prince Edward Islanders, who are starved out ia cod sequence of their fish being stolen under their noses, he has the aadac ity (I do not use the word offensively, but in a Pickwickian sense) to say that a vessel so manned is not an American vessel within this treaty; but that a British crew makes an American vessel a British vessel. Mr. Trescot. That is not the statement of the extract you read. Mr. Dana. There is nothing about vessels in the treaty. Mr. Thomson. I will read it again : " Now, I say," &c. Now, if he means that there is nothing in the Treaty of Washington to prevent American vessels entering our waters to fish, I airree with liira, but if he means that there is nothing nuder the Treaty of 1818, 1 take issue. It is the boUltst proposition I ever heard, that an American vessel, an American bottom, manned by British inhabitants from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or any other part of the Dominion, owned by American owners, but simply manned by British subjects, could come into our waters in the face of the Convention of 1818; I say I never beard such a proposition before, and do not ever expect to hear it again. ISuch a proposition never emanated from any northern brain. It requires the heat of the south to generate such an idea. At page 60 Mr. Trescot says : That in valuing the exchange of privilege, the eUent to which the privilef^c is offered is a fair subject of calculation, and that a privilege opened to "all British subjects'' is alargei and more valuable privilege than one restricted to only the British subjects resident in Ibe Dominion. I have already dealt with that proposition. I have shown that if that is the case, the United States have given us the right to fish where there are no fish at all, over an area of 3,500 square miles, and that they get under the treaty the right to fish over 11,900 square miles on our coast', where there are fish in abundance. So his first proposition is necessarily against him. Then take the second : That in valuing the exchange of privilege, only the direct value can be estimated, ana the consequences to either party cannot be taken into account. It is difficult to see what is meant by that. Does he mean to say if this privilege, which is given to the Americans to enter our territorial waters and fish there, should have the effect of preventing the wliwe Gloucester and American fishing fleet from being absolutely destroyed n"'Ling to us for r AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1793 for want of bnsiuess to make it pay, and if we should show conclu- sively on behalf of the British Government that such is really the case, that nevertheless the United States Government should not pay one dol- lar because it is a consequence of the privilege, and not the direct value ? Does he seriously contend for such an extraordinary doctrine ? I think I shall be able to show you by the evidence on record in this inquiry, that unless the Americans had the right to come on the shores of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, to enter our territorial waters along the shores of Prince Edward Island, along the Ga8p6 shore, the southern shore of Labrador, and along the estuary of the St. Lawrence, that miless tbey bad those rights, the United States fishing-fleet could not snbsist; and 1 do not intend to rely upon British proofs on that point ; but I intend to turn up the American evidence, and 1 shall make that as clear as daylight. 1 will prove it by evidence from the lips of their own witnesses, man after man, witness after witness, not by evidence given by us. And is it to be said that the United States ought to pay n"'!iing to us for rights obtained under the treaty, if I can show that without those rights the Gloucester fishing-fleet, and all the American fishiug-fleet, the whole North American fishery, as prosecuted by Amer- icans, would be a failure ? Are they not to pay for that privilege ? If we hold tishing grounds over which alone fishing can be successfully prosecuted, is that fact not to be taken into account ? Underlying the whole arguments of Mr. Foster, Mr. Dana, and Mr. Trescot, is the ex- traordinary fallacy that this is a simple question for you to determine as between (ireat Britain and the fishermen of Gloucester. They ap- parently think that if they can show that under the status quo before the treaty, their fishermen could make more money than since the treaty went into operation, that is an end of the British case. That is not so. I The treaty was not made between Great Britain and the fishermen of Gloucester ; it was not made in respect to the Gloucester fishermen, but in respect to the whole body of the people of the United States. It is not a qaestion whether the fishermen get more or less money. In fact, how- j ever, how is the whole trade of Gloucester and other American fishing ports kept up ? Is it not by the fishing business f The people of Glou- 1 cester do not, however, live merely on fish. They have to buy meat, pork, flour, &c., which are raised elsewhere than in Gloucester, I ap- prehend. They come from the far West ; the Gloucester people are I cnnsuraers of tlie produce of the far West. How are they able to pay I for that produce ? From the fisheries ; and so the far West is interested as much as the seaboard itself. So, again, take the consumers of the United States. If a much larger quantity of fish goes into the country under the treaty tlian otherwise would, the price falls and the consumers get the iish for far less money. Is that not a benefit? I care not whether it is an injury to Gloucester fishermen or not; I care nothing about them, as a class, although it can and will be shown that the fisher- jmeu of Gloucester, as such, have not lost one dollar by this treaty, but jtiayemade money. Now, let us pass on and see what is the next propo- Isitiou. Mr. Trescot says : Thai so far as British subjects participate in the inshore fishery in United States vessels |i'Pii tlmt i|iieHtioii out of this discussion. I do not understand that there is any claim made licrt' tlmt sny pui- tiou of this award is to he assessed for the privilofj^e of cominif within the licmllniuU, As id the exceedingly interesting and very able nriof submitted for the other h1iU>, I lun not jj,. posed to quarrel with it. At any rate, I shall not undertake to go int' - 'irfruinent uik u il^ It refers entirely to tho question of territorial right, and the quest 'xtent orjurU- diction — questions with which the United States has nothing to do. nave never becii raised by our government, and probably never will be, because our claiiii to ti.ih within the three-mile limit is no more an interference with territorial and jurisdictional rip^hts of (iroat Ikitaiu, than a right of way through a park would be an interference with thi> ownership nt the property, or n right to cut timber in u forest would be an intorferenco with the fev simnlc iu the soil. Well, I should like to ask your excellency and your honors whether a gentleman who owned a farm would not tind that its value uiatcriallv diminished by some one else having a right of way over it. Could lie sell it for the same price? He obviously could not. And why ? Be- cause the enjoyment of the privilege is destroyed to the extent that tbe easement gives the enjoyment of it to the person holding tho right ot way. The assertion that it makes no difference to a person possessing land that somebody else has the right to cut trees on it I submit; is per- fectly absurd. It is just what the Americans have a right to do under the treaty. They have not tho right to come to our lands and cut trees; but they have the right to come into our territorial tersand take from them tish, which are just as valuable to the wat s trees are to the land. They have the right to take the fish, and lat, I appre- hend, they must pay. If a man has the right to enter un my land to cut trees I presume he must pay compensation for it; I presume he can- not get the right unless compensation is agreed upon. That is what we say. Taking tish from our waters is precisely the same as taking trees off' our land. Further on in his argument, Mr. Trescot puts forward tho extraordi nary doctrine that the Treaty of 1818 was rescinded by the Treaty ol 1851. At page 60 he uses these words : Then with regard to the character of the Convention of 1818. I wish lo put on record here my profound conviction that by every rule of diplomatic interpretation, and by every established precedent, the Convention of 1818 was abrogated by the Treaty of \^i>i, aiiii that when the treaty was ended in 1866, the United States and Great Britain were relegated to the Treaty of 1783, as the regulator of their rights. Well, the proposition that the Convention of 1818 was abrogated hv the Treaty of 1851 is sufficiently novel. I will, however, show yonr hon orsthat by the Keciprocity Treaty, so far from there being any inteutiou shown to abrogate the Treaty of 1818, the exact opposite was the case; and that the Convention of 1818 is cited in the Eeciprocity Treaty as a treaty then subsisting, and which should continue to subsist. Before I read from the Reciprocity Treaty I desire your excellency and your honors to understand that in refuting these arguments I do not do so because they can have had any substantial effect upon this Commission. They cannot possibly have any. Your excellency and your honors know too much of international law to believe any such proposition, But I am afraid that, if such propositions are allowed to run broadcast through their speeches, without being controverted, it may be imagined that we are unable to meet them, and therefore allow them to pass suh AWARD OF TIIK FISHERY COMMISSION. 179' tilentio. If the matter was beiiipf ar^^ned before a tribunal which had then and tiicre to decide on it, and tlio court were composed of lawyers, I would not ask to be hoard, and would not insult the court by argu- luont against so untenable A proposition. Tlie observations I am now iiialiiiiK are for the purpose of refuting opinions, not in tlie minds of your excellency or your honors, but in the minds of the public who have not the same intclligencu or means of information us your honors. The Keciprocity act recites : Her Mnjestjr the Queen of Oreat Britain, Mng specially tJosirous, witti tlio Oovornniont nf thp UiiittHl Stated, lo avoid further inlHunilerstanJinB between their respective 8ul))ecfs Mill cilizeiia, in regard to the extent of the right of fishing on the coasts nf Britisli Ii^ortli America, secured to each by Article I of a convention between the United States and Groat IliilaiD, i«if;nt)d at London on the *20th day of October, IHIH, and being also desirous to refalate tlie commerce and navip^ation between their respective territories and people, and iiiureMpcciiilly between Her Majesty's possessions in North America and the United States, in such miiuuer us to render the same reciprocally beneficial and satisfactory, have respect- ively, &c. Your honors will see that the act commences by stating that both jrovemmciits are desirous of avoiding further misunderstandings be- tween their respective subjects and citizens, with respect to the extent of the right of fishing given by that article; and after reciting the Con- vention of 1818 and the particular article in question, goes on to say that it was important that the right under the convention should be settled. So far from showing any intenti«)ti to repeal the Convention of 1818, the exact opposite was the fact. Tlmt is the preamble. Here is tbe enacting part : It k agreed by the High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty, &c. Does it say in this treaty that it swept away the Treaty of 1818 and enacted a new treaty in lieu thereof ? So far from that being the case, it says : * * * In addition to the liberty secured to tlie United States fishermen by the above- mentioned Convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, curing, and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North Ainericau Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the United Slates shall have, &c. And yet it is seriously urged by one of the learned counsel on behalf of tbe IJuited States that the Treaty of 1851 abrogated the Convention of 1818. I think I have satisfactorily refuted Mr. Trescot's argument ou this point, although that argument was not material to any question arising under the Washington Treaty. I now turn your attention to Twiss on " The Law of Nations." I am reading from the edition of 1859. At page 376 Sir Travers Twiss says : Treaties properly so called, tbe engagements of which imply a state of amity between the contracting parties, cease to operate if war supervenes, unless there are express stipulations to the contrary. It is usual, on the signature of a treaty of peace, for nations to renew ex- pressly their previous treaties if they intend that any of them should become once more operative. Great Britain, in practice, admits of no exception to the rule that all treaties, as such, are put an end to by a subsequent war between the contracting parties. It was ac- cordingly the practice of the European powers, before the French revolution of 1789, on the conclusion of every war which supervened upon the Treaty of Utrecht, to renew and confirm tliat treaty under which the distribution of territory among the principal European states bad been settled with a view of securing an European eciuilibrium. This has a double bearing. Part of the argument which has been used by Mr. Trescot is that we are remitted to the rights acquired by the Treaty of 1783. He conveniently passes over, for the purpose of his argument, the fact that a war occurred between the United States and Great Britain in 1812, which was followed by a treaty of peace signed in December 24, 1814, the Treaty of Ghent. There is no doubt, says Mr. Trescot, that in consequence of the repeal of the Convention ii i 1798 AWARD OF TH£ FISHERY COMMISSION. of 1818 by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, tbe two nations are remitted back to tbe rigbt eacb possessed uuder tbe Treaty of Paris of 1783; and tbat tbe Treaty of Gbent has notbing to do witb tbis matter. I answer to tbat argument, tbat sucb is not tbe law of nations. By the law of nations, wben war was declared in 1812 by tbe United States against Great Britain, every rigbt she possessed under tbe Treaty of 1783 was abrogated, and, except so far as it was agreed by tbe parties tbat the status quo ante helium should exist, it ceased to exist. The status, which is commonly called hy writers nti possidetis, tbe position ia which the treaty found them, alone existed after tbe Treaty of 1814 was concluded, I have cited tbe express authority of Sir Travers Twiss upon the subject, But we do not stop witb British law. I will take American lawou the subject, and we will see where my learned friends find themselves placed by American writers. 1 now cite from *' Introduction to the Study of International Law, designed as an aid in teaching, and in bis torical studies, by Theodore D. Woolsey, president of Yale College." At page 83, President Woolsey uses tbis language : At and after the Treaty of Ghent, which contained no provisions respecting tlie fislieries, it was contended by American negotiators, but without good reason, tliat the article uf p^nce of 1783, relating to the fisheries, was in its nature perpetual, and thus not annulled by the war of 1812. By a convention of 1818 the privilege was again, and in perpetuity, opened to citizens of the United States. They might now fish as well as cure and dry tish, on the greater part of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and on the Magdalen Islands, so long as the same should continue unsettled ; while the United States on their part reuouuced forever any liberty "to take or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, not in- eluded within the above-mentioned limits. It is there positively declared by one of their own writers on inter national law in so many words; and he not only lays down tbe law generally, but takes up the specific case with which we are now dealing, tbat tbe American contention is entirely incorrect. He says : At and after the Treaty of Ghent, which contained no provisions respecting the fisheries, it was contended by American negotiators, but tcUhout good reason, that tlie article of the peace of 1783, relating to the fisheries, was in its nature perpetual, and thus not aiinulleJ by the war of 181'2. I think tbat statement is pretty conclusive. Now, here is the general law which President Woolsey lays down. At page 259 he says: The effect of a treaty on all grounds of complaint for which a war was undertaken is M abandon them. Or, in other words, all peace implies amnesty or oblivion of past suljjccts of dispute, whether the same is expressly mentioned in the terms of the treaty ornot. They cannot, in good faith, be revived again, although repetition of the same acts may be h righteous ground of a new war. An abstract or general right, however, if passed over ia a treaty, is not thereby waived. If nothing is said in the treaty to alter the state in which the war actually leaves the par- ties, the rule of uti possidetis is tacitly accepted. Thus, if a part of the national territory has passed into the hands of an enemy during the war, and lies nndcr his coutrol at the peace or cessation of hostilities, it remains his, unless expressly ceded. That is quite clear. If, at tbe end of tbis war, Washington had been in tbe possession of the British, and if nothing bad been said about it in the treaty, it would have become British territory ; but with tbe ex ception of some unimportant islands in the Bay of Fundy, no territory fell into tbe hands of the British; and those islands, I believe, were subsequently given up. If, however, the cxt-las of Boston or New York bad at tbat time been actually in possession of the British, unless there bad been a clause introduced into the treaty by which the territory was to return to the status quo ante helium, it would have been governed by the t/ftj)6.!ist(feft« rule, and would have remained British territory. I also refer your honors to 3 Pbillimore, pp. 457, 458, and 459, to the same AWAUD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1799 effect. Now, I am not aware there is anything else in Mr. Trescot's gneecb which I need specially take up, because some of the other points occar in the arguments of Mr. Dana and Mr. Foster. Mr. Teescot. Perhaps you will allow me to say that you are reply- ig(7 to an opinion and not to an argument. jlr. Thomson. Where an opinion is put forward by counsel, he must eitber be counsel of such eminence that bis opinion did not require to be supported by authorities, or else authorities should be advanced at the time. I admit that Mr. Trescot possesses great ability, but I have un- dertaken to meet him by British and American authorities, and, as I have shown, be is completely refuted by both. I think it was Mr. Tres- cofs duty, when he put forward such an extraordinary doctrine, to have stated his authorities. If he did not choose to do so, I cannot help it ; but if he now wishes to retract it as not being anything else than an opinion, well, of course, it makes the matter different. )Ir. Trescot. Ifo ; but I did not argue it. Mr. Thomson. It is put forward not as an opinion, but as a proposi- tion ou behalf of the CTuited States; there is no opinion about it; and when the United States speaks through the mouth of counsel, I am bound to treat the matter seriously. If this were a common case be- tween man and man, I would not treat it seriously ; but when such a pioi)osition is put forward on the part of a great nation through counsel, it cannot be treated lightly, but is eutitle>^^ 80 long as the bow which American orators, statesmeu, and lawyers sometimes nowadays draw in defense of real or imaginary American rights, then I must confess that they must have been most formidable weapons. It is a very extraordinary view, certainly, to present, that because those people fought in some former time with some persons ou the coast — Mr. Dana does not say whether they were Frencb, or barba rians, or Indians — they at that time being British subjects, they have the right to our fisheries. But Mr. Foster went a step further. He stated — I suppose it was tbis which set off his colleagues — that we are indebted to the people of Mas sachusetts for now being in possession of Nova Scotia, and tliat it was entirely owing to their efforts that the British flag waves today on the Citadel, instead of that of France. Well, it was rather a bold assertion to make, certainly. I believe some of these Massachusetts men were fighting characters in those days. They fought with the people of Enj; land, and came out because they could not live in peace and (|uietiide under British rule ; they came out and found liberty of conscience for themselves, and terrified other people by burning witches, and strippino Quakers, showing that after all the old British intolerance was pretty well uppermost. But they were fighting people always, and they came over, and no doubt f jught with the French to some extent ; and for the first time I knew they went down to Le Pre, and committed theabomi uable outrage of turning out all the Acadiaus ; I suppose they were com manded by General Winslow. Mr. Dana should have told Mr. Long fellow the story before he wrote Evangeline, because probably the Bri^ ish might not have suffered so much in public opinion if it had been gen erally known that they were Massachusetts people who committed the outrage. I am glad to this extent that the people of Nova Scotia are relieved from the odium. A friend placed in my hands, after the state ment had been made, a well-known history of England containing a statement which shows the spirit in which the desceat was made by the Massachusetts people upon the coast and upon the I'rench. I find that about that time, after they had come here and fought,and — if I may aocept Mr. Foster's view of history as true — delivered us out of the hands ot the French, they sent a claim to England for their services. That claim was laid before the British Parliament, which, at the instance of (ieorge II, voted them the large sum in those days of £115,000 for their services, So besides being fighting men they were cute enough to get paid for their trouble. Now by the rule qid facitper aliumfacitper se'\i\<^i Great Britain herself that was fighting, and these were her hired troops, If the people of Massachusetts are going to set up a claim to the Prov- ince of Nova Scotia and all the fisheries on the score of their lighting. the money so paid to them should be given back, and £115,000 with 1:;) years' interest will be a sum which we will condescend to receive foronr fisheries and go and live somewhere else, as we must do when our fish- eri.^"* are gone. That 18 really the history of that transaction in which the couu,sel of the United States so vaunt themselves. I do not say that the Massachusetts men did not fight well ; no doubt they did. Mr. Fos- ter says they were people who knew their rights, and knowing, dared maintain them. The people of this Dominion also knew their rights, and will maintain them, too. When I know that the present learned and able chief justice of Nova Scotia is sitting in this chamber, within sound of my voice, as I now speak ; when 1 see the portraits of his emi nent predecessors, and of Sir Fenwick Williams of Kars, and Sir John Inglis of Lncknow (both sons of Nova Scotia), looking down upon me AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1801 from the walls, I know that our rights have been and are thoroaghly anderstooil, and can, if necessary, be bravely upheld and defended in the future as they have been in the past. But I presume the day will never agaia come when Great Britain will be forced to measure strength with the United States. It is perfectly idle to make use of such language in au inquiry such as this ; and in making these remarks I do not wish to be nnderstood as saying anything that can be considered at all offensive to uiy friends of the United States; I make them simply in answer to ob- servations made, as I submit, most unnecessarily by them. Mr. Dana's other propositions I will pass over as rapidly as I can, consistently. He said we had no territorial waters — that no nation has. He stakes bis reputation on that point. Mr. Dana. No ; you misunderstood me. Mr. Thomson. On page 67, Mr. Dana says : Now, these fishermen sliould not be excluded except from necessity, some kind of neces- sity, and I am willing to put at stake whatever little reputation I may have as a person ac- iiuiiiiited with the jurisprudence of nations (and the less reputation, the more important to me), to maintain this proposition, that the deep-sea fisherman, pursuing the free-swimming lish of the ocean witii his net, or his leaded line, not touching shores or troubling tlio bottom of tlie sea, is no trespasser, though he approach within three miles of a coast, by any established, recognized law of all nations. Now, I say that the meaning of that proposition is this, that there are uo such things as territorial waters. I say it means that and nothing else. That is a distinct aflflrmation, that by international law any fisher- man can approach within not merely three miles of the coast, but with- in any distance from the coast, if he keeps his leaded lice from touching tbe bottom, and the keel of his vessel from touching the land, and that no international law excludes him. Upon that extraordinary proposi- tion I take direct and unqualified issue. Mr. Dana. What was the proposition to which you refer ? Mr. Thomson. The proposition was, that there are no such things as territorial waters. Mr. Dana. I made no such proposition. The question was this : Was tbere among territorial rights the right to exclude fishermen from fish- ing? Mr. Thomson. I did say this, that Mr. Dana had put forward the proposition that no nation possessed territorial waters. But no doubt that was too broad, because there may be territorial waters so inclosed by land that I presume no question could arise in regard to them ; there- fore, I stated his proposition too broadly. But Mr. Dana does not con- tlDB bis statement to the one that no nation has absolute territorial rights over waters. He says that any foreign fisherman can come within any distance of the shores, and if he does not allow his leaded line or the keel of his vessel to touch the bottom, he has an undoubted right to fisb. Mr. Dana. There is no established recognized law of all nations against it. Mr. Thomson. Mr. Dana says, " by any established, recognized law of all nations." I do not wish to have any fencing about words ; I use TOrds in their ordinary meaning. 1 presume Mr. Dana means civilized nations. I do not suppose he will contend that, if the civilized nations of Europe and America had recognized a doctrine totally different from that enunciated by him, but the King of Ashantee, or Siam, or some otber potentate away off in the interior of the vast continents of Asia and Africa had not acceded to that doctrine, it was not, therefore, the law of nations. I presume he refers to the civilized nations. I will now tbe Commission that the proposition submitted by Mr. Dana has il 1802 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. no foundation in international law. I say again, that I understand the expression to mean all civilized nations. I undertake to prove the contrary of that proposition to be trae not only by international law writers in England, but also by the writers iu the United States. Taking up the English writers, I call your attention to 1 Phillimore, page 180, edition of 1854, at which he says : Besides the rights of property and jurisdiction within the limit of cannon-shot from the shore, there are certain portions of the sea which, though they exceed this verge, may, under special circumstances, be prescribel for. The writer there assumed that in regard to the three-mile line there was no doubt about it. Sir Bobert Phillimore further wrote : Maritime territorial rights extend, as a general rule, over arms of the sea, bays, gulfs, es- tuaries, which are inclosed, but not entirely surrounded by land, belonging to one and the same state. l^ot only does Sir Robert Phillimore lay down the law that i mnd the coast of any maritime nation, to the extent of three miles, its territorial waters flow, but he goes further, and says that in the case of estuaries and bays, inclosed within headlands, such estuaries and bays belong to the state. That would have been an authority, had the headland question, per se, come up for argument. I state it, however, for another purpose. That is an authority which at all events shows the views of one of the greatest English writers on international law upon the subject under discussion. Mr. Dana. Is there anything said about fisheries ? Mr. Thomson. I have read the passage, aud will baud you tlie booii, if you desire it. Mr. Dana. The question is, whether among the rights is there one to exclude fishermen. Mr. Thomson. With great respect for Mr. Dana, I am meeting: the proposition as I find it iu his argument not, as he chooses to cut it down, It is thus stated : That the deep-sea fisherman, pursuing the free-swimming fish of the ocean with his net or his leaded line, not touching shores or trawling the bottom of the sea, is no trepasser, though he approach within three miles of a coast, by any established, recognized law of all natious, I think the onus prohandi lies on Mr. Dana aud those who support such a proposition of showing that there is a special exception to be made iu favor of fishermen of all nations by which they can enter, withont permission, the territorial waters of another nation — a foreigu nation— and be no trepassers. I have shown that the waters are territorial ; that is all I have to do. The moment 1 show that the waters are territorial, then for all purposes they are as much part of the State as are the lands owned by the State, with the exception that vessels prosecuting innocent voyages may sail over them without committing any trespass ; tliey may pass to and fro to their respective ports, but foreigners can pursue no business within those waters any more tlian they can i>ursue business on laud. Mr. Dana. Can nations inclose them ! Mr. Thomson. In answer to that question, I say that nations cannot enclose them. Other nations have the right of way over them, and the right in case of tempest to enter the ports. Humanity dictates that. But no business can be pursued by the citizens of one nation within the territorial waters of another, whether that business be carried on by fish- ermen or by any other class of persons. That proposition is sustained by the authority I have read from Phillimore. I will show, however, that Sir Robert Phillimore does not stand alone, and that it is not the law of England only, but the law of the United States as well. 1 call AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1803 Ian- vour attention to Wbeaton on iDteruational Law, page 320. Tbis guage is used : The maritime territory of every State extends to the ports, harbors, bays, mouths of rivera and adjacent parts of the sea inclosed by headlands, belon^inp^ to the same State. Theeen^ral usnge of nations superadds to this extent of territorial jurisdiction a distance of a marine league, or as far as a cannon shot will reach from the shore along all the coasts ofibe State. Within these limits its rights of property and territorial jurisdiction are slisolute, aud exclude those of every other nation. Mark tlie emphatic luuguage of tliis great writer ou iuteruatioual law: '' iruhitt these limits its rights of properly and territorial jurisdiction are absolute.^' lie declares tbat no right to interfere with these limits in any way is possessed by other peoj)le or by other clanses of people. If fishermen had the right to approach within these limits of territorial jurisdiction which extend to the distance of three marine miles from the coast, no English speaking writer on international law would use the term here employed, and say that every nation whose coasts are surrounded by these territorial waters has such an absolute right. Under such cir- cnmstances, the author would have used the term " qualified right"; aud supposing that fishermen were the only class to be allowed within these waters, he would say at once that " these nations have this right against all tbe world, except fishermen, who undoubtedly have the right tifish within those waters if they do not touch the land with the lead of their flshing-lines or with the keels of their vessels "; but no one has so written, and this very accurate author, who is quoted with approba- tion by English and continental writers ou international law, states that- \Vi(iiin tiiose limits its rights of property and territorial jurisdiction are absolute, and ex- clude those of every other nation. Ibis language, I repeat, is emphatic, aud I am glad that it is the laugnage of an American writer, because I presume that it will in con- seqiieuce have greater weight with Mr. Dana. Mr. Dana. 1 would like to ask my le.irned friend whether he would himself be willing to adopt that language aud say that these rigltts of property are absolute. Jlr. Thomson. Yes ; I have sren no decision which in any way quali- fies tbat, unless it can be said that the case of the Queen v. Keyu (which isqnoted against us in the American brief, and reviewed at some length in the British brief in reply) qualifies it. To that case, it will become my duty to refer by and by. Mr. V?^heatou further states that " the general usage of nations super- adds to this extent of territorial jurisdiction a distance of a marine league, or as far as a cannon shot will reach from the shore along all the coasts of tbe state."' Xo\v, I say that the propositions of international law thus laid down by this very eminent American writer are entirely at variance with the doctrine laid down by Mr. Dana. Mr. Dana has put to me a question which I am quite willing to answer. It is this : Whether or no I would myself, if writing on the Mibjcct, use such language as that and say that a nation has exclusive right of property within its territorial waters? Mr. Dana. Absolute right. Mr. Thomson, Yes ; absolute right of property ; with the single ex- ception—which is, of course, understood by all writers on the subject — that the ships of other nations have the right to pass through and by those waters for innocent purposes, aud in cases of storm to enter bar- 1804 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION' bors or to anchor in tbem for tbe purpose of shelter. I say that nations have such absolate right, and that there is no law of nations, no iuter- national law, or any other law anywhere, by which fishermen or auv other class have the privilege of coming within those waters and lisbiii' without the permission of the nation to whom those territorial waters belong and whose coasts they wash. Let me now turn the attention of your excellency and honors to the case of the Queen v. Keyn, upon the authority of which ^Ir. Dana ven much relies. In that case the prisoner was indicted for tbe crime (it manslaughter alleged to have been committed by him on board a for eign ship, of which he was the captain, in the English Channel, ami within three miles of the British shore. He was trieou the seas, and not witliin bodies of counties, the jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral attached, and he or his deputies, sitting in admiralty court, tried and puuisbed the offenders. By a statute passed in the reign of William IV, the criminal jnrisdic tion of the admiral was transferred to judges of assize, and to the cen- tral criminal court. The substance of the objection raised by Captain Keyn's counsel was this : The realm of England over which tiie common lawjurisdiction extends does not reach beyond the line of low-water, and therefore the court has no common law right to try the prisoner, In regard to the admiralty jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute of William, that cannot affect the question, because the admiral never had jurisdiction over foreign vessels or over crimes committed on board of them. The court of appeal quashed the conviction, holding, by seven judges against six, that the realm of England did not at common law ex tend on her external coasts bej'ond the line of low-water. But thejudgri who quashed the conviction all held that the Parliament of Great Brit'm had the undoubted right to confer upon the courts of the kingdom full au- thority to deal tcith all questions arising tcithin her territorial tcatm around the external coasts. Owing to the absence of such legislation, Captain Keyn escaped punishment. The court of appeal in this case was composed of thirteen jndjres, and it is well to bear in mind that the authority of the judgment is greatly weakened by the fact that six were one way and seven the other. Mr. Dana. One of them died. Mr. Thomson. Judge Archibald died, I think ; and after his death the decision of the court letting the man go free, and holding that the central criminal court had no jurisdiction in the matter, was given by the casting vote of the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Alexander Cock burn. I was surprised at Mr. Dana, who, whilst commenting on this case-I fli'-"?.}: AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSIOX. 1805 nresame that be had not reail it very recently — stated that the common Iff lawyers were greatly puzzled and that the civil law lawyers alone Mr. Dana. I said other lawyers, other than those who were strictly trained iu the common law. Mr. Thomson. I think that I can give your exact language. Mr. Dana. You will find it on page 71 of our argument. Mr. Thomson. Mr. Dana said: Tlie Fraiicoiiin cnse, wliich attracted so much attention a short time ago, did not raise tbii (luestion, but it is of some importance for ns to remember. There there was no ques- liou of headlands. It was a straight -line coast, and the vessel was within three miles oiilie shore. But what was the ship doing? She wa« bearing her way down the English Cliannel against the sea and wind, and she made her stretches toward the English shore, coiiiltigas ucar as safety permitted, and then to the French shore. She was iu innocent use ciboth shores. 8lie was not a trespasser becanse she tacked within three miles of the Briiish shore. All this I conceded. It was a necessity, so loug as that channel was open to (ommerce. The question which arose was this : A crime having been committed on board cftbat ship while she was within three miles of the British coast, was it committed within the body of the county ? Was it committe<] within the realm, so that an English sheritf could arrest the man, an English grand jury indict him, an English jury convicthim, under English law, he being a foreigner on board a foreign vessel, bound from one foreign port K another, while perhaps the law of his own country was entirely ditt'erent * Well, it was tjiiaordinary to see how the common-law lawyers were pnt to their wits' end to make any- ihioj: out of that statement. The thorough-bred common-law lawyers were the men who ili'l ujt uuderstaud it; it was others who sat upon the bench who understood it better. Now, I mean to say, that when my learned friend delivered himself after this maimer, I think that he forgot who composed the bench on this occasion. Thtit bench was wholly composed of common law law- yers, with the solitary exception of Sir Robert Phillimore. The only civil law judge who then sat on the bench, out of the whole thirteen, or whatever was the number, was Sir Robert Phillimore: and the judg- ment of the majority of the court was determined by a casting judg- ment, which was delivered by the Lord Chief Ju.stice, against the juris- diction of the Crown ; and of course this is a decision of which I under- stand that Mr. Dana approves. So far, however, from the common-law lawyers having had nothing to do with this finding, the fact is, that if it M not been for the common-law lawyers, no such decision would have been given at all. Mr. Dana. I do not include the equity and chancery lawyers among the others. Mr. Thojison. No equity or chancery lawyers sat on the bench — not one; all the judges who sat on that bench were common-law judges, except Sir llobert Phillimore, who was a judge of the high court of ad- miralty ; and, as 1 have stated, the casting decision was given by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, himself a great common-law lawyer. How was the Parliament of England to exercise or give jurisdiction over these waters, unless they were within the territorial jurisdiction of the nation, for neither the Parliament of England nor the parliament of any other country can possibly make laws for the government of the liigli seas ? The moment you get within the three-mile line of coastal sea you are within the jurisdiction of the country whose coast is washed by those waters. The Lord Chief Justice decided on a technical ground against the authority of the Crown, but further stated his conviction — and so also expressly held all the other judges who agreed with him — that it was within the province and the power of the British Parliament to pass an act by which its own jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the I courts (over these territorial waters which washed the coast) could be i established and maintained ; therefore, so fiir from this judgment being j against the doctrine that there are such territorial waters, it is the very I oest authority which could possibly be given for saying that such jurisdic- I •If 4 1806 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. tioQ does exist. If it were not for the law of nations, the very uoaieDt that you got beyond the realm, that is to say, on the coast Just below low-water mark, the nation would have no jurisdiction over you, and parliament could not touch you at all, as you would then be on the'high seas; but by the law of nations, all civilized countries have this juris diction within the three-mile line, and hence, the parliameut or other legislative body existing within the country can pass laws goveniiu ' this territory ; and it was only the absence of these laws that inducetl the Lord Chief Justice and the other judges to arrive at the decision to which they came. 1 therefore think, may it please your excellency and your honors, that I have refuted this proposition of Mr. Dana's, and re fnted it by the authorities of his own country, as well as by British au- thorities. Mr. Dana. Which proposition do you mean, the one that I put or tbe one which you put 1 Mr. Thomson. I refer to the one which you put, viz, that there is no exclusive jurisdiction enjoyed by any nation over its territorial waters. There is now another thing to be mentioned. What is the practice of the United States herself! Why, the United States has never per- mitted any vessel of any foreign country to approach her coasts within the three-mile limit to fish there. They have uniformly excluded such vessels; and not only have they uniformly excluded them from withiu the three-mile limit, but further, they have also rigidly excluded tbeiu from the large bays, such as the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, and bays of a similar description — not bays which are merely six miles in width at the mouth, but many miles beyond. The whole practice of the United States is entirely against Mr. Dana's theory ; and what is tlie practice as recognized by this very treaty, under which your excellency and your honors are now sitting, — this Treaty of 1871 ? What do you find is here given by Great Britain to and accepted by the Uuited States 1 It is the right to enter our territorial waters ; and the United States gives to Great Britain, and Great Britain accepts from the Uuited States the right to enter her territorial waters; and she absolutely not only gives that right, which England accepts — and England admits her right, or otherwise she would not accept the grant — but the United States also go a step further, and say that " although we give you the right to come on our coasts and fish in our waters within this privileged and territorial distance ; yet we warn you that we only give you that right for the portion of our coasts lying to the northward of the 3!)th parallel of north latitude." Can anything be clearer than that I It is in the face of that declaration of the Uuited States herself, that one of her counsel, in arguing this case, advances this most extraordinary doctrine. If Mr. Uana be right about that matter, then the 39th parallel of north latitude is no barrier at all to our fishermen ; and we have the right to go down and fish where we please along the whole length of the coast of the United States. But do you think that this would be tolerated for a moment ? What would be said of us if we attempted it I Would it not be this : " You have admitted our rights, and we have admitted your rights; then how dare you come to the southward of that line? What could be said to that!" Why, clearly nothing, save that we were infringing our agreement. And then, although I do not know that this, in itself, would hiive very much strength as an argument, it might be mentioned that in l''!* the Americans agreed, not, on any account whatever, to come within three miles of our coasts; but we never made any agreement not to come witnin three miles of their coasts. At all events, we arc not ham- AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1807 nered by any snch agreement; and if this novel law be correct, as Mr. Una lays it down, then beyond a doubt we have a right to fish on their coast anywhere we please. There can be no doubt about that at all. It belongs to the law of nations, says Mr. Dana, that, as lou^ as our leaded Ijoe does not touch bottom, and our vessel's keel touches ii > sand beneath the water, we have the undoubted right to go there and Ush ; but I am very mnch afraid that the Americans would treat us to some of their torpedoes if we were so to go down there, and explo<1e us out of those waters in a very short time ; and I think that wo would, under such cir- coostance-s, have very scant sympathy from the civilized world. What does Mr. Dana, or the other counsel in this case, mean by raising this qoestion ? A number of the observations made by Mr. Dana, in the course of bis speech, I could understand would well become the hustings. I conld well understand, that in a speech before a legislative assembly, having a Jurisdiction over the matter, for the purpose of getting such as- sembly to alter the law, he might advance such reasons and argument to show why the law should be altered ; but are we not now met — the very point which has been forgotten by some of the counsel — to deter- mine the relative values of reciprocal privileges bestowed on each nation by the Treaty of 1871 f Is not that treaty the charter under which you sit ; and does not that expressly admit that we have this three-mile limit f And have not the Americans accepted all our terms ? They got permission, by that treaty, to enter these limits ; and you are here to as- sess the damages which they ought to pay to Great Britain for having that right extended to them. Why are these questions raised at all ^ imust now refer to some language employed by Mr. Dana, which, I hope, be used unadvisedly. I am not going to say a harsh word at all ; but, I confess, it struck me that a great deal of what he said was out of place; and I only refer to it for the reason which I stated at the outset, that I cannot pass by these observations without notice, lest it should be said hereafter that they were put forth by a man of high reputation at the United States bar, and therefore advanced seriously on behalf of the United States, and that Great Britain stood here, represented by her couDsel, and never dissented from these views. Let me now say what they are. I will first take one expression which he uses on page 90. He says : But there were great difficulties attending the exercise of this right of exclusion — very ^eat difficulties. There always have been, there always will be, and I pray there always sball be sach, until there be free fishing as well as free trade in fish. Now, I hope that my learned friend Mr. Dana used that language un- advisedly. If Mr. Dana had been a member of a high commission ap- pointed to settle upon new treaties between two countries — two great and Christian countries, as Mr. Foster characterized Great Britain and the United States — this language might then be used, aud he might then pray that the time would come when there should be no such exclusion ; bnt I think it is a very different thing when the law stands as it does, fixed, and as yet unaltered and unalterable for the next seven or eight years, to employ this dangerour and incendiary language. I use the term incendiary in this way : I fear that this language will come to the ears and be read by the eyes of a class of men whom the evidence laid before your excellency and your honors, if it be not entirely untrue, shows are not always the most peaceable and law-abiding citizens to be found In this world. Those fishermen are sometimes rather lawless men ; and if they find language such as this used by the lips of a learned and emi- nent counsel of the United States, they may say at once: "This is United States doctrine, and they will back us up, and if we break through m. 1808 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. theso laws, which we kuow perfectly well were passed for tlio purpose of preventiug as having these rights, and passed for the purpose of pre. venting us entering these waters, the United States will back m up, foi she has said so through her counsel." I deprecate that language verv much. In this connection I will point out some other sentences from wbieli I entirely dissent for the same reason. I will take the following state nient, which will be found on page 71 of the argument : Thero was, at the same time, a desire growing on both sides for reciprocity of trade, ami it became apparent that there could be no peace between these countries until this iittemnt at exclusion by imaginary lines, always to be mRtters of dispute, was given up— uDtll we came back to our ancient rights and position. It was more expensive to Great Britaia timu to us. It made more disturbance in the relations between Qreat Britain and liur provincen than it did between Great Britain and ourselves ; but it put every man's life in peril; it put the results of every man's labor in peril ; and for whatf For the imaginary rigiit to ex- clude a deep-sea fisherman from dropping his hook or his net into the water for the tree swim- ming fish that have no habitat, that are the property of nobody, but which arc created to be caught by fishermen. I again say that these views might possibly be properly advanced by high commissioners appointed to settle upon new treaties between na tions; but in respect to a definite treaty, which cannot be altered, and over which this Commission has no power whatever, this language ought never to have been uttered. Again, on page 72, we find the following: That, may it please the tribunal, is the nature of this three-mile exclusion, for tlie relin- quishment of which Great Britain asks us to make pecuniary compensation. It is one of immense importance to her, a cause of constant trouble, and, as I shall show you— a9ha.s been shown you already by my predecessors— of very little pecuniary value to England, in sharing it with us or to us in obtaining it, but a very dangerous instrument lor two nations to play with. Now, I cannot conceive why any danger should exist in connection with any solemn agreement made by two great nations which clearly understood their respective rights under that agreement. I am not now talking of the headland question at all. I am not discussing that; but there is an explicit agreement that these people shall not enter within three miles of the land, and how that became a " dangerous instrument," unless one or other of the parties to it intend to commit a breach of it, I cannot understand. Of course Great Britain does not intend to com- mit any breach of it, because she gained no iirivilege under it ; and un- less the United States fishermen intend to violate it, and tlie United States intend to uphold them in committing this breach of international law and this breach of faith, I cannot see where this '' dangerous instru- ment" is. Mr. Dana. Does the learned counsel refer to the present treaty. * Mr. Thomson. O, ceratinly not. As I stated at the outset, I cannot perceive why this language was used at all, because, under the treaty by virtue of which you are now sitting, there is no question about this at all. The Treaty of 1818 has nothing to do with this inquiry, e.vcept, indeed, showing how Americans were formerly excluded from the limits. and, therefore, what privileges they had under it. So, on the same page (72) he says, after alluding to the abrogation of the Keciprocity Treaty : We wore remitted to the antiquated and most undesirable position of e.xclusion ; but we remained in that position only five years — from 1866 until 1871— until a new treaty could be made, and a little while longer, until it could be put into operation. What was the result of returning to the old system of exclusion ? Why at once the cutters and the ships of war that were watching these coasts spread their sails; they stole out of the harbors where they bad been hidden ; they banked their fires ; they lay in wait for the American vessels, and they pursued them from headland to headland and from bay to bay ; sometimes a British officer AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1809 abrogatiou of on the qnarter-deck, and then we were comparatively safe, bnt sometimes a new-fledgfed provincial, a temporary officer, and tlien we were anythinfj^ but safe. And they seized us liti tooic ns, not into court, but they toolc us into harbor, and they stripped us, and the crew \tii the ressel, and the cargo was landed, and at their will and pleasure the case at last might come into court. Then, if we were dismissed, we had no costs, if there was probable cause ; we could not see if we had not ifiven a month's notice, and we were helpless. I repeat that I deprecate these terms. Who brought the cutters down upon them after 18GG ? Did Great Britain do so ? Did the Duiiiiuion nfCiiiia«la do so! Mo.st certainly not. The United States did so. Their eyes were open to tlie consequences of their act, and the United States, under these circumstances, of their own mere motion, abro<;ated the Treaty of 1854, by which common privileges were given to American m\ British fishermen. It was their own act by which that treaty was abrogated ; and, as a consequence, they were remitted to the oltl system of exclusion. We did not do this. According to Mr. Dana, during all this time, during the twelve years that this treaty was in force, our cut- ters were i.>ing in all our harbors with their tires banked, and new- tiedged otticials, clothed in a Uttle brief authority, strutting the quarter- lieck, waiting to come out and make piratical excursions against Atuer- ieau tishiiig-vessels. Is that description borne out by the evidence 1 I appeal to your ex- celleucy and your honors whether that is language which ought to have been used on this occasion. I empliatically say that it is not. I say that it is calculated to excite a bad feeling amongst these fishermen, wiioare not too much disposed to be quieted by the law any way, and to maice them more lawless in the future than they have been in the past. I will DOW read another statement to which I take exception. It is to be found on page 73. While speaking of the imposition of the licenses and of their prices being raised, &c., he said this : Why, this was the result — I do not say it was the motive — that it left our fishermen unpro- tected'and brought out their cutters and cruisers, and that whole tribe of harpies that line tiie coast, like so many wreckmen, ready to seize upon any vessel and take it into port and divide the plunder. It left us a prey to them and unprotected. Now, may it please your excellency and your honors, I would be less than a man, and be doing less than my duty, if I did not repudiate that language, and if I did not say there is not a tittle of evidence to war- rant that language being used in this court. This is not a matter to laugli at and Joke about at all. These are serious statements, which go forth to tlie public, and statements which, if they are uncontradicted, are calculated to prejudice not only the good relationships which sub- sist between the United States and Great Britain, but also those that exist between Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada herself. If it were true that her otticers were a set of harpies, preying on the United States fishermen, and seizing their vessels, taking them into their har- bors, and dividing the plunder, it would be time that Euglanf1 «ysteiiiatically| trespasses on our fisheries. It is not attempt d to ,,. that whenitl suited his convenience he did not go in ' espass on our M\m rights. He had no scruples, when it si im to do so. ibout tisbiDgl inside the limits, and so far did he carr .s matter tha le absolatelyl sailed up into the territorial waters of j. vfoundl lud, and got iutothel ice close up to the shore ; and when some ulticei came there be arniedl bis crew and set them all at defiance. He said i i at he drove away tb«| " whole calabash " of the officers. At all events be kept them off, anit staid there the whole winter, cutting holes in the ice, fishing, taking herring up, and walking off with them. This man did not appear tol understand that there are national rights which he could at all infringe.! Was a man like that a man to go to war about f I Take his own account of the circumstances and of the shots fired at| his vessel, and what was it ? He was passing through the Gut of Cans and having the advantage of those very lights which one of the codsuIiI AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1811 of bis adopted country, Mr. Norton, ba8 stated in big dispatches to be absolutely necessary to tbeir fishermen, and for which they ought to pay. Vovrfortbe use of these lights, which save vessels from being destroyed, which vvarn them of their danger, when danger is near, he refused to pavtbe dues; he does not protend to say that he did not know that the o^cer iu question had a perfect right to collect these duties, but never- instead of paying, he asks, "Where are your papers?" The officer replies, " I have left ray papers on shore." Then, exclaims Vattilo, "Be off out of here;" and he gives a most graphic descrijition of I how be turned the otiicer into his boat. I should think that be was a I nice subject to go to war about. Mr. Foster. This ail'air arose, not because be would not pay the ligbt- I does, but because he had the charity to bring home a woman. Ur. TUOMSON. No ; it occurred on account of the refusal to pay light- Idaes. Mr. Foster. There is no evidence to that effect. Mr. Thomson. I will turn to the evidence ajid we will see. I think I that your excellency and your honors will recollect that it was the light- dues which the otiicer wanted to collect. If Pattilo stated that it was [for bringing home and landing a lady who wanted to be landed there, I I should say at once that you would not believe it. To suppose that [aDy otiicer of any English or Dominion cutter would undertake to Are hhots after him, because ho landed a lady to whom be had charitably Igiven passage to some place in the Gut of Canso, is simplj^ too ridicu- ilons a supposition to be tolerated for a moment. Well, I will not take [up your time now with this subject, but if my learned friend will turn to [theevidence, and point out that I am mistaken in saying that the trouble [iroge with reference to the light-dues, I will admit my error. Mr. Foster. Will you read these two paragraphs? Mr. Thomson. In the course of my cross examiuatiou of this witness, [the following evidence was given : Q, Were you lying close inshore T— A. I was at anchor and not fishing. Q. Lyine close inshore Y— A. Yes, right close iu, under Margaree for shelter. He did not litiempt to take me; if he had I would have given him a clout, but he took another vessel, Itlie Harp, Captain Andrews. I kept a watch all night, but they did not come alongside ; if Ithej baa, we would have given them grape-shot, I bet. I thought that I could not be mistaken at all about it. Q. Had you grape-shot on board f— A. We had a gun, loaded with slugs or something of kt sort. Q. In fact, then, you were never boarded by a customs or seizing officer ? — A. I was x»rded by an officer who came for light-money, at Little Causo, that same year. Q. Did you pay the light-money f — 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, ad the rigbt man come for it. Q. Did ae 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 f — A. I told him he had to leave, and seeing h* pouid not go, I seized him by the nape of the neck and his breeches and put him into hia There is an express distinction made in his statements. Mr. Foster. You want to read only what you please of the whole tory. Read on. Mr. Thomson. If Mr. Foster seriously thinks that! am wrong in saying oat this man refused to pay the light-money, I will do so. The officer fiBtinctly came to collect the light-money ; and this man put the officer I 11 I 1812 AWARD OF THE FISHERT COMMISSION. overboard, and into hin bo it. I will continue the qaotatioa: ^'He m\ boand to take me because I had landed a poor girl." Q. Was this drl contraband? — A. Yes, I suppose they called her so at any rate. 14 ] not know that she is now iu town, but she became lawyer Blanchard's wife afterwards ll merely took her on board as a passenger, and landed her. Afterwards I was fired at anil chased by three cutters. ' Q. For putting this officer overboard ? — A. No, I did not put him overboard, but I put | him into his boat. ^ ' Q. In lawyer's phrase, did you gently lay hands on him? — A. I put him in his boat ml the shortest wa^ He stripf^ed off and said it would take a man to handle him, but I made up my mind that be should not stop, though I did not want to fight ; ptill I waa quite able to take my owu part. I talked with him and told him that I had merely landed a poorviil j with her effects, a trunk and a band-box, &c. ; but this would not do him. When he camel on board he asked, " Who is master of this vessel f " 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 Ron the 1 mainmast. He wanted the jib hauled down in order to have the boat taken on boar''. W> had not come to an anchor ; but I told him that he would have to wait a while, rinalljj he came down below and I took the papers out of a canister, and being a little excited, of] course, in hauling off the cover a receipt for light-dues, which I had paid that year, dropped 1 on the ."brecastle floor. He picked it up and said he would give me a receipt on the bacEcfj it. Says I, "Who are yout" He answered, "I am Mr. Bigelow, the light collector,"! ^ell, says I, ** Whereare your do - iments ? " Says he, * ' I have left them ashore." Thoi I «ay8 I, "Go ashore, you vagabond, you have no business here." Says he, "Won't too I pay me 7" "Not a red cent," says I; "out with you." He cried out, "Piuuie helm! down." Says I, "Put the helm up i " but he came pretty near shoving ns ashore, asKe] •were within 10 fathoms of the rocks. Says he, " Who are you ? " I said, " I am Mr. Pjif tullos." Says he, " You vagabond, I know the PattuUos." "Well," says I, "ibenjoej must know me, for there are only two of us." Says he, "I will take you, anyhow, ll "will have a cutter from Big Causo. There will be a man-of-war there ; and if there isnolil man of-war, there will be a cutter; and if there is not a cntter I will raise thea;iliiii,| for I am bound to take you." I asked him if he meant to do all that, and he said he m\ jnst the man to do it. I seized him to put him back into his boat, and he stripped oi a told me that it took a man to handle him. With that I made a lunge at him, aadjampedl ten feet. If he had not avoided i e, I would have taken his head otf his body. Iihenl seized him and chucked him into his boat. Then three cutters came dowu and chased me.l Now, there is the whole stciy. It is perfectly ridiculous to sapiwsej that the officer, when he went down to collect the mouey, went (iup| to seize the vessel. Mr. Foster. The whole of that recital is something which you intro j duced in your cross-examination. Mr. Thomson. I certainly introduced it in my cross-examination,] There can be no doubt about that at all. There were a good inanyt agreeable things which I introduced into my cross-examination of Amer I lean witnesses. I was probably here for that purpose. It was bard tsj get at all that this gentleman had donej but I wanted to discover it,! and there is the story as told by himself. Taking his story accordingly his own account, it is this : He and the officer went down iuro tbecabiBj and the officer supposed that he was going to pay the lijjhtdues. Tiiii man opened a canister, and a former receipt for light-dues fell out. Tm officer was going to give him a receipt ou tltis paper, when Pattilo asliedj "Where is your authority i" followed with "Get out, you vagaboiidJ when he found that the ofHcer had not hi.s papers with him. In veferj ence to Mr. Dana's uncalled for remarks rellecting upon the officers ol cruisers which from time to time have been en gagtd in protecting oaj fisheries against the trespasses of American lishermeu, I deem it w duty to make a few observations. To the instructions issued, in ApriU 1866, by Mr. Cardwell, secretary of state for the Colonies, to tbe lordi of the admiralty, I have already had the honor to call the attention oj this Commission. The spirit of forbearance and courtesy in which they were wi'itM speaks for itself. No unprejudiced mind can fail to api»reciate it. TN instructions issued by the Dominion Government for the guidanceoiia AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. i8ia LvD cruisers are nearly similar in form, and wholly similar in spirit, Un those issued by tbe mother country. And here I Avonld remark that the Imperial Government does not appear to have entertained for Dorainioa commissions the same contemptuous opinion which, unfortunately for 09, has taken possession of Mr. Dana's mind. Yoa will see that each of the Imperial officers is advised to obtain, if possible, commissions from the Dominion Government. Mr. Caldwell says, "Any officer who is permanently charged with the Iprotectiou of the fisheries in the waters of any of these colonies may ind it useful to obtain such a commission." Now, yon will see that, under these instructions, no power of imrae- idiate seizure was given, although such power to seize existed under the [coDventioD of 1818, and under a statute of George III., passed to en- iforce tbat Convention ; yet so liberal was the British Government that jtbey absolutely required cruisers, before seizing any one of these vessels Iwhich might be found trespassing over the lines, to give a warning of Itvo or three days, and sometimes of twenty-four hours, as the case [inight be. You can see at once what was the effect of giving these in- [stractions— every American vessel, unless she persistently remained in [these waters, and fished contrary to law, must of necessity escape. If [they were found fishing in prohibited waters, they were warned off, and [told not to oS'end again, but they could not be seized, of course, unless [they committed an offense contrary to that warning; and yet these [officers are represented as If they were a body of naval freebooters. If [you judge of their character from the language of Mr. Dana, you would [imagine that they were a lot of pirates who remained in their harbors, [with fires banked and steam up, ready to rush out on unoffending [fishing ves!«els, to catch and bring them into port, and then to divide Itiie plunder. This is the most extraordinary language thai, I think, Jffiis ever used to characterize a respectable body of men, or that will ■ever again be used in any court, and especially in a high court of jus- Itice, such as this. The instructions state that : Afflorican vessels found witbin these Hmits should be warned that by en^a^j^ing or pre- Irsring to engaj^e in iishing, they will be liablo to forfeiture, and should receive the notice t» mparl. whkli is rontemplaied bn the laws of Xovo. Scctia, A'eic Brunswick, and Prince Ed- lifjrd MrtHf/, if within the waters of one of those colonies under circumstances of suspicion. Mltheysboulcl not be carried into port ex-cnpt ifter willful and persevering neglect of Iha vmin^s tchich they may hate received, and in case it should become necessary to proceed to Ifoili'iinrc, caMs should, if po8si))le, be selected for tbat extreme step in wiiich the offense of Trilling Aas been committed uithin three miles of land. Mr. Foster. What year is that? Mr. Thomson. 1800. April 12th. This was jusi after the expiration pf the Reciprocity Treaty. Mr. Foster. Vessels were seized without warning. Mr. Thomson. Eventually, this was the case, simply because it waa lound to be of no use to treat these fishermen in this lenient manner. |t had no ettect on them, if they could in any way possibly avoid the jtutters. They took these concessions rather as a right than as a favor, M in every instance in which they were tried, took the advantage they conferred without showing any gratitude at all. They endeavored at all k'-ards, to force themselves into these bays ; and then eventually to force themselves into the prescribed limits ; and so it was at last found messary by the Dominion Government to give up the warning system. Bt was found, that to warn these vessels was simply to give them the \K the moment that they received warning, to sail out, and then the noQieat that the cutter tt rned her back to sail in again ; that is to say, pey saved themselves from being caught by a cutter at all. They re- 1814 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. oeived several warnings, I think, and even if they had only one thev had the chance to escape, and the result, of course, was that nothiDg at all was done towards repressing the evil. These instructionB, therefore had to be altered, and made more stringent ; but nevertheless, it was still required that vessels should not be seized, except when caught JIaffrante delicto, and actually fishing, or preparing to fish, within the prescribed limit. In truth, to preserve these waters, as they ought to be preserved, the moment that a vessel has once entered the limit and incurred forfeiture, no matter where she sails to afterwards, she should be liable to be seized, and ought to be seized in my humble judgment and condemned, unless it could be clearly shown that the captain, when he entered such limit, supposed that he was not committing auy breach of the law, and believed that he was four or five miles offshore, when in fact he Avas within the three-mile limit. In such case, of course, no j harshness should be extended towards him. I will show you, however before I getthrough, that the American Government itself, havingheard of these complaints- -I dare say, very much in the language which Mr, Dana has thought proper to use on this occasion — sent down Comnio- dore Shubrick to n^ai^o inquiries into this matter ; and you will M that Commodore Shubrick found that these stories were utterly ud fonded. A dispatch dated September 9, 1853, was as follows : No. 23.1 Princeton, at Portsmouth. N. H., September 19, 18o3. Sir : My dispafchps from the 1st to the I4th, inclusive, have informed the department of j the movements of this ship up to the 16th of August. I After leaving: Halifax, I ran along the coast of Nova Scctia to the Strait of Canso, wLich I entered on the evening of the 17th, and anchored at Sand Point. On the next day 1 ' anchored successively at Pilot Cove and Ship Harbor. At each of these places diligent in- quiry was made of the masters of American vessels, and, at the last, of our consular agent, in relation tu the treatment of our fishing vessels by the armed vessels of other nations, aud I no instance was learned of any impn-per interference. Some cases were reported of vessels faaviiig been warned ofif who were found fishing or loitering within three miles cf the shores. It was thought advisable to make particular inquiry in this strait, as it is the passage through which great numbers of vessels pass, and where wood, water, and other supplies are obtained ; and although there were not many Americans in it at the time of our visit, 1 1 was informed by the consular agent that in the course of the last year eleven thousand ves- sels, of all kinds, were counted passing through both ways, and .some must Lave passed is the night who were not counted. j From the Strait of Canso I went to Pictou. This port is the residence of the consul of tbej United States for the north coast of Nova Scotia, to whom complaints of interference would j naturally be made, if any should be experienced within the limits of his consulate ; but he I had heard of none. j i'rom Pictou I crossed over to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and inquired into the case of the schooner Starlight seized by Her Majesty's steamer Devastation ; the official j papers in relation to which were forwarded with my dispatch No. 15. I The Fulton having joined me at Pictou, accompanied me to Charlottetown, that some j slight repairs might be made to her machinery, under the direction of Chief-Engiueer Shock, j She was dispatched on the evening of the 39th August, under instri.ctions ; copies of which | accompany this. Leaving Charlottetown, it was found necessary to anchor in the outer harbor of George- J town in order to make some repairs to the engine of the Princeton — the necessity of j which was not discovered until after we had left Charlottetown, but which, fortunat?lr,j coald be done bj our own engineers. I On the 2d September, at meridian, we anchored in Gasp6 Bay, L"- 'er Canada, having, in I the course of the night and morning, passed through many hundreds of fishing-vessels, shoiv-l ing generally American colors. Tliese were all fishing outside the bays. The ship passed j ■lowly through them, with her colors set, but it was deemed best not to interrupt them in j their fishing by boarding or running so near as to hail. If any one of them had complaint I to make, communication could be easily had with the ship, and the slightest intima ')u of| anch a wish would have been immediately attended to, but none was made. The Fulton was at anchor in the inner harbor. A copy of Lieutenant Comraatiaingj Watson's report of his proceedings, under my orders of the iuth ultimo, is with this. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1815 goon after I anchored at Qaspd, I was informed that the anchoraj^e, which I had takea br advice of my pilot, was unsafe if it should blow a ^ale from the east — of frequent occur* lence at this season. No pilot could be found to take so large a ship into the inner harbor, ud at oi?^' ^^^^ approaching, I got under way and put to sea with both vessels. It had oov become necessary to replenish our coal, and I determined to go to Sydney, in Cape Bre ■ tonlsland, for that purpose. I uriTed at Sydney on the 4th, the Fulton in company, and, after taking on board a sup- jlyof coal tor each vessel, put to sea agrain on the morning of the 9th. ifter a passage protracted by strong head winds, and a part of the time by thick weather, n anchored at St. John, New Brunswick, on the at'ternoon of the 13th. A larfre uumber of persons, estimated at fifty thousand, were congregated at this place to witness the ceremony of breaking ground for the European and North American Rail- irar. The occasion had brought the lieutenant-governor of the province. Sir Edmund Head, to si. John. We received from the lieutenant-governor and the authorities of the city the most cordial welcome, and every hospitality was extended to us, nationally and individ- nh- The absence from St. Jo^n of the consul for the United States prevented my getting asT official information on the subject of the fisheries ; but from no source could I learn that there had been any occurrence of an unpleasant nature ; and by all persons, official and prirate, here, as in the other provinces, a most anxious desire was expressed that the rights and privileges of the citizens of the United States, and of the iniiabitants of the provinces, in relation to the fisheries, might be so distinctly detined, and so authoritatively announced, that there should be no room for misunderstanding, and no possible cause for irritation on either side. Heft St. John on the morning of the 17th infitant, the Fulton in company, and anchored ont-ideof this harbor on the evening of the 18th, in a dense fog. This morning we have ii.iCjded in getting to a good anchorage, off Fort Constitution. It is with diflSdence that, from the experience of so short a cruise, prosecuted, as is known to the department, under circumstances of unusual embarrassment, I offer a few suggestions a^ to the description of force most suitable for the proti ction of the fisheries, and as to the lime most proper for its operations. Some of the most valuable fisheries, such as those in Miramichi Bay, Chaleur Bay, and north as far as Gasp6, are carried on in small vessels and open boats, and close inshore. If, therefore, the privilege to fish in those bays is to be maintainsd by us, the vessels for that service slioukl be small steamers of light draught of water. The shores of Prince Edward Island abound with fish of all kinds. The mackerel strike in early iu the season, and can only be taken close inshore. The fishing season around Magualen Islands, through the Strait of Belleisle, down on the coast of Labrador, commences early iu June. The herring fishing commences in George's Baj, Newfoundland, as early as April, and continues about a month. After that, the fish- ing on that coast is only for mackerel and cod ; aud it is to be remarked, that where mack- erel is tbui^d, cod is also abundant. These fisheries are carried on in vessels of larger size, but still of easy draught of water ; and the vessels intended for their protection should also be of easy draught. The coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the south side of Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and Labrador, abound in good harbors, some of them capable of re- ceiving and accommodating large navies ; but there are numerous harbors to which the fishing- vessels principally resort, which will not admit vessels of heavy draught ; and where the pro- tected go, the protector should be able to follow. Tlie narrow passages, the strong and ir- regular currents, and the frequent fogs and thick weather, with which tho navigator has here to contend, point emphatically to steamers as the best force for this service. One steamer of suitable size for the commanding officer, and two or three of smaller size and easy draught, having speed and power, with light armaments, would be sufficient for ill the purposes of this station. Coal at a low price and of suitable quality coulc' be con- tracted for at Sydney or at Pictou, both within the limits of their station ; and the command- ing officer, having bis headquarters at Portland or at Eastport, might control their move- ments and make occasional visits to the different fishing-grouuds himself. The establishment of such a squadron would, I know, give great satisfaction to the citizens of the United States all along the coast from Boston to Eastport; of this we had unequivo- cal evidence in our reception at every port where we touched. It would afford also an op- portunity for the introduction into the Navy of numbers of the hardy sons of New England, "lie, from rarely seeing a vessel of war, have imbibed unfavorable impressions of the public lervice, An infusion into the lower ratings of persons drawn from such a population would elevate the character of the service and enable it to maintain a discipline founded on good MDse, moral rectitude, and patriotism. The smaller vessels should be — one on the coast of Labrador, about Newfoundland ; one about the Magdalen Islands, Cape Breton, and the Strait of Causo; and the other from Pic- tou, Prince Edward Island, and up as far as Qasp6, Lower Canada— all to leave the United stales by the Ist of June, and return by the last of September. n 1816 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. It would not be advisable for any of the vessels to remain in the Gulf of St, Lawrence after the 15th of September : the i^ales by that time become frequent and severe ; sham frosts commence, and the tops of the Ga^pd Mountains are ceneraliy covered with siiow u the Ist of October. The north side of the Bay Chaleur has oeen known, I am iuformed to be frozen to some extent by the middle of September. ' I should do injustice to the excellent officer in command of the Princeton, Commander Henry Eagle, if I failed to n:ake known to the department the able and ch*-eilul assistauct in the execution of my duties that I have received at all times from him, and from the accum- plished officers under his command. The Fulton, Lieutenant Commanding Watson, has been most actively employed, a pm part of the time under my own eye. She has been managed with great judgment; and I am under obligations to her commander and officers for the alacrity with wLieli uiy orders have always been carried out. The Cyaue and the Decatur, though cruising under my instructions, have not been with me. The reports of Commanders Hollins and Whittle are doubtless before the department: and, from my knowledge of those officers, I feel that they will be perfectly satisfactory. Since writing the above, the report of Commander Hollins has been received, and is here- with inclosed. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, W. B. SHUBRICK. Commanding Eastern Squudron. Hon. J. C. DoBiux, Stcretary of the Xavg. There is not oue word in the whole of this report which shows tliat anythinp^ hod taken place ibr which there was cause for any coinpliiiut whatever; and Lieutenant Commanding Watson, of the Uiiitt^d States Ifavj, wrote the following disjiatch, addressed to Commodore Sbubdvk: United States Steamer Fulton, Gasp6, Lower Canada, SiptcmLer 2, 1853. Sir : In accordance with your instructions of the 29th ultimo, I have the honor to report that 1 received on board at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Major-General Gore, com- mander-in-chief of Her Britannic Majesty's forces in Nova Scotia, and stat)', hoisted iLe English Hag at the fure, and proceeded to Pictou, where 1 lauded them. General Gore expressed himself much grat)6ed at your having placed the Fulton at his disposal. After parting from you off the island of Pictou, I proceeded, according to your directions. along the north side of the island, in Miramichi Bay, Chaleur Bay, and to Guspe, >YliereI was in hopes of meet ing you. It was my intention to have gone farther up tiie Bay of Chaleur]; but a h>'avy sea induced me to run for Gaspd. VVliile then-, ller Britauuic Majesty's steam sloop of war Argus, Captain Purvis, came in. Captain Purvis immediately came on board, and an interchange cf civilities took place on the most frienilly and courte- ous terms. Captain Purvis states that he has not had the least difKculty with our tisher- men, with one exception, and that so slight as not to be taken notice of. On my way to this place, I passed between five and six hundred fishermen ; and, in luv conversation with those I spoke to, there appears to be the greatest harmony existiLg be- tween them an * the inhabitants. On coming to anchor here, I waited on the collector and authorities of the port: and their statements tend to confirm my previous reports, that, so far from any dissatislaciioii being felt at our fishermen, they are welcome on the coast, and nothing has yet transpired to alter my previously expressed opinion. Very respectfully, I remain, your obedient srrvant, J. M. WATSON, Lieutenant Cummandinv, United States A'arj. Com. WlM.IAM B IIUBRICK, Commanding Eastern Squadron. Now, these are American official documents, which certify as to the treatment that the American fishermen had received at the liandsot the cruisers up to that time. In order to show further what this treat nient was I will mention the case of the Charles, which was seized by Captain Arabin, of the Argus, at Shelburne, on the 9th of May, 1823. Although this happened a long time ago, I cite it to show bov the British Government treated these matters then and ever afterward. The Charles was actually seized in the very act of fishing ; and there could be no doubt about the right to condemn her. But the midsbip- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1817 man who was put io charge of her, while in the course of his passage from Sbelbunie to St. John, according to the iostructions of Captaia Arabia, stopped some other vessels which were fishing, and, I think, brought one or two of theui into St. John. The Charles was then put iothe admiralty court and condemned ; but when the British Govern- ment learned what had been done, inasmuch as Captain Arabin had ex- eeeded his instructions by using the vessel as a cruiser while en route from Sbelburue to St. John, before her condemnation, not only gave her up, but also paid the costs of the prosecution, and the other two vessels which had been so taken — whether they were liable to condemnation or not I do not know — were also given up. This was the treatment which American fishermen received at the hands of the British Government. Again, at Grand Manan, two vessels were taken by cruisers in 1851 QP 1852—1 think they were called the Reindeer and Euby — or before tbat, because the account of this affair is found in the Sessional Papers of 1851 and 1852. They were actually taken in one of the inner harbors of Grand Manan ; a prize crew was put on board, and they were sent to St. Andrews ; but on their way up, as these two schooners passed East- ]K)rt, as tbey necessarily had to do, an armed force came out from East- port, headed by a captain of militia, overpowered the crew, and took [wssession of them. Correspondence ensued on this subject — to which I call your attention — between the British Ambassador and the Ameri- can Secretary of State, in which it was pointed out by the former that this outrage had been committed on the British flag ; but through the whole of this correspondence I cannot find any apology was ever made, or tbat the British Ambassador's remonstrances on that subject were even answered. I only see, in looking over the '•orrespondence — also as given in the American Sessional Papers — that a demand by the British Government for reparation was made; they did not demand the punishment of these men or even the restoration of the vessel; but simply demiiuded some acknowledgment for the outrage which had been committed on the British flag; and yet that was never made. This conduct, I thirk, may be contrasted pretty fairly with the treat- ment which the Americans received at the hands of Great Britain, when Great Britain could have enforced the laws against them. The official list of the vessels that were seized was put in evidence, I think. I now call your attention to it; you will find in looking over it that in every instauce where condemnation took place there was no doubt that a breach of the law by American tishermcu had been committed. There is one matter in this connection to which I desire to call your attention ; it is to be found in the official correspondence. No. 17, and it throws some little light, I think, upon the extraordinary charges which Mr. Dana, I consider, has somewhat too hastily made, it is No. 17 of the official correspondence put in; it is a return of American vessels detained and prosecuted in the registered court of vice-admiralty at Charlottetowu 1818 AWABD OF THE FISHEBT COMMISSION. Registry of the Court op Vice-Admiralty, CkmrloUttowm, Ottohtr 6, ie,")?. A return of American vessels detained and prosecuted in this court for a riolction of tht con- tention made between the Government of Great Britain and the L'nUed States of America j. the near A. D. 1818, and prosecuted in this court. Name of Tesiel. Schooner Florida, of Oloaces- ter, United States of Amer- ica. Schooner Union, of Brooklyn, United Statesof America. Schooner Caroline Knigrht, of Kewburyport, United StateH u( America. Date of seizure. 3d Anguit, 1853. 20th July, 1852. 11th September, 1853. Date of condemnation. Tth September, 1852: 24tb September, 1853: "Not yet adjudicated. Remarki. f Detained by Her M.jwv, I H. Weyland Chetwviil J commander, on ihe north- em coast of Prince Ed- ( ward I»liind. Detained by Her M»je«.v'i (team «loop Devanlation. Co- lin Vorlte Caniphell, com- mander, on the nonh<>m com of Prince Eaward liland. 'Sabneqnentiy condemned. WILLIAM SWABPY, lie^iimr. In addition to this return, the schooner Golden Rnle, of Gloucester, U. S., was detained by the Tele^aph, Lieutenant Chetwynd, and brought into Charlottetown. Before she wa delivered over to the proper authorities, in terms of the imperial statute, Yice-Admiral Sir George Seymour arrived in Her Majesty's steam-sloop Basilisk, to whom the aiaster of the Golden Rnle appealed, stating he was part owner of the schooner, and would be ruine-i it she was condemned. The admiral, on the 23d August, left authority with the lieutenant- governor to direct Lieutenant Chetwynd to liberate the schooner, provided the raptaiu ac- knowledged the violation of the convention, and that his liberation was an act of ciemencj on the part of the commander-in-chief. Bartlett, the captain of the Golden Rule, left sud an acknowledgment in writing, which was forwarded to Sir George Seymour, along with an addition on a (luestion from the lieutenant-governor, that he had stood inshore to&h. mistaking the Telegraph tender for one of his countrymen's schooners. A. BANXERMAN, LitutcHaal-Gucernor. Prixce Edward Island, October 11, 1852. Here is the case of a mau caught in the very act, bat who made his appeal ad misericordiam, and was permitted to have his schooner back again simply because he said he would otherwise have beeu ruined. This is the treatment which American vessels have received at the hands of British officers. The treatment which British officers received in return is to be found recorded in the speech of Mr. Daua. I will now pass to the next point. Mr. Dana, on page 74, says : We were told that we were poisoning their fish by throwing gurry overboard, and for all that there were to be damages. Now, these inflammatory harangues, made by politicians, or published in the Dominion newspapers, or circulated by those persons who went abnnt through the Dominion obtaining affidavits of witnesses, produced their effect, and the effect was a multitude of witnesses who swore to those things, who evidently came here to swear to them, and took more interest in them, and were better informed upon them, than upon any of the important questions which were to be determined. When we came to evidence to he relied upon, the evidence of men who keep books, whose interest it was to keep books, and who keep the best possible books, men who have statistics to make up upon authority and responsibility, men whose capital and interest and everything were invested iu the trade. then we brought forward witnesses to whom all persons looking for light upou tbi.'i question would be likely to resort. A marked distinction is drawn, you will perceive, by Mr. Dana there, with regard to the witnesses called on behalf of Her Majesty's Govern ment, as to credibility, and those heard on behalf of the United States. He refers to our witnesses in slighting terms, and says that they were brought here under the influence of inflammatory harangues, and articles published in Dominion newspapers, which Mr. Dana may have read, bat which I never had the good or bad fortune to see. He states that they were brought here under that influence, and thus did swear to things which AWABD OF THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. 1819 tbey appeared to know a great deal about. Now, I think that I can con- trast the testimony given on the part of Her Majesty's Oovernment with tbatgiven on the part of the United States, without fear of any damag- ing conclusion being drawn against our witnesses. And I put it to your excellency and your honors whether daring the long period that we have sat here, and witnesses on both sides have been called, a period extending orer twelve weeks, at least, one single witness called on the part of the British Government broke down nuder cross-examination? And I ask whether it can be with truth said that this was the result of the cross- examination of the American witnesses T I consider that in many respects a number of the American witnesses appeared to great disadvantage; and I am surprised not only at Mr. D; aa's remarks in this respect, but I am also surprised at his following up his remarks on this point by saying: When we came to evideuce to be relied upon, the evidence of men who kept boohs, <&c. Why, if ever there was a breakdown that happened in this world, it was the breakdown which Mr. Low made under the cross-examination of my learned and clever friend and colleague from Prince Edward Isl- and, Mr. Davies. That man came forward to represent the tisbing-vessel owners of Gloucester and the fish -dealers of Gloucester; and he brought forward their books, or at least such books as they were pleased to show, and not the books we required to have, but their trip books; and he put in statistics, to which I will have the honor hereafter to call the attention of your excellency and your honors, for the purpose of showing very small catches made in the bay, and very large catches off on the American shore; and also for the purpose of showing that the catches in the bay resulted almost in the ruin of those who sent vessels there, while they made large sums of money out of their catches taken on the American shore; but when under cross-examination by Mr. Davies, what was the result! It was this, that those figures which were intended to establish, and which were brought forward here for the purpose of show- ing that state of facts, sbowed conclusively and proved directly the opposite. Mr. Low, under Mr. Davies cross examination, entirely broke down, and was compelled to admit that his figures proved the exact reverse of that which he had previously said and undertaken to prove ; and the exact reverse of the pretended state of facts which his clients or his principals sent him here to prove. I am not misstating this matter at all. 1 will show you, when these statistics come to be considered, and from the figures themselves, and from the very admission of Mr. Low himself, that this was the result. If there ever was a man who was utterly destroyed on cross-examination it was Mr. David Low, the great statistician from Gloucester, who came up here intending to defeat us bj cooked statistics and manipulated figures. My learned friend Mr. Trescot, in the course of his observations, made a very humorous allusion to a time during the Revolution when a schooner came down to Prince Edward Island, captured the governor and council, and took them off and presented them to General Washington, who looked at them as curiosities, and then, as Mr. Trescot says, " Treated them as young codfish are treated, threw them back into the water, and told them to swim home again." Well, time brings its revenges, and the premier of Prince Edward Island, I think, revenged that insult to his island and his government, for the great Low from Gloucester came down here, prepared to destroy and l^nt upon destroying Her Majesty's case; but when he fell into the hands of my learned friend Mr. Davies, 1 think that he revenged that insult to his island. Hecaptured Mr. Low,, It 4 1820 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. turned him inside oat, and utterly destroj^ed his testimony ; and taking him to the water, if I may use Mr. Trescot's figure of speech, Haid, «« Xow Mr. Low, I drop you down, and you had better swim back to (Jloucester' and he swam back to Gloucester as fast as he possibly could. But I will show that after he got there he endeavored to retrieve his fallen reputation by sending down here affidavits which were probably thought to be beneficial to the American case, but which I will have the honor to show, if they do benefit the American case, benefit it in this waj- • and that is that every important statement made under oath in thes^ affidavits will conclusively prove a precisely opposite state of facts to that set forth in the affidavits which were filed by the Americjau Gov- ernment in the earlier part of the case. If that be supporting the Ameri- •can case in any respect, I am quite ready to give them all the advautage that can accrue to them from it. The Conference met. Tuesday, November L*(), 1877. The closing argument delivered on behalf of Her Majesty's Govern- ment was resumed by Mr. Thomson, as follows : When I left off last evening, may your excellency and your honors please, I had not the book in which the decision of tlie (Jueen vs. Keyn is reported. I have that book now, and, as I supposed, 1 find that luy learued friend Mr. Dana was in error in intimating that the common- law lawyers in that case were entirely afloat. I thought, from iny recol- lection of the case, that the judges who decided it were all coiiimon-law lawyers, as I said yesterday, except Sir Robert Philliraore, a Judge of the high court of admiralty. I hold in my hand a report of the case, and I find that my recollection of it was accurate. Mr. Dana, also, in his remarks, referred to the decision of the judicial committee of the privy council, given in the case of the Direct United States Cable Company va. The Anglo-American Telegraph Couipaiiy. It is reported in Law Reports, Second Appeal Cases, 394. It was an appeal from the supreme court of Newfoundland to the highest appel- late court in the realm on matters either connected with the admiralty jurisdiction of England or with colonial matters. This court is composed of the lord chancellor for the time being, and of all ex-chancellors— and there may be a number of them — and of several paid judges, aud quite a number of other eminent men besides, all or nearly all of them great lawyers. The judgment in this case was delivered by one of the ablest men on the English bench ; I mean Lord Blackburn, who was trans- ferred from the common-law bench to the House of Lords under a new act which authorized peers to be created for life. Mr. Dana appeared to think that Lord Blackburn, in delivering this judgment, merely spoke for himself; but this was not simply his own judgment ; it was also the judgment of the other judges who were asso- ciated with him. He simply pronounced it, that is all j aud he un- doubtedly wrote it, but all the judges agreed with him. He said — I cite from page 421 : There was a convention made in 1818 between the United States and Great Britain relat- ing to the fisheries of Labrador, Newfoundland, and His M^esty's possessions in North America, by which it was agreed that the fishermen of the United States should have the right to fish on part of the coasts (not including the part of the island of Newfoundlaud on which Conception Bay lies) — 'p¥l'i:- AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1821 1 may mention bere that the simple question at issue was whether Conception Bay was a British bay, and I think that it is 20 or 30 mile» ffide at the mouth— and should not enter any "bays " in any part of the coaflt except for the purpose of shelter mJ repAlrinff. and puruhasiuf; wood and obtaiuinf^ water, and uo other purposoH whatever. It ie«m» iuipossible to doubt that this convention applied to all bays, whether lar^e or small, on that coast, and consequently to Conception Hay. It is true that the convention would only bind the two nations who were parties to it, and conse({uently that, though a stronff uMrtioD of ownership on the part of Great Kritain, aci|uiesced in by so powerful a state as the Uulted .States, the convention, though weighty, is not decisive. But the act already referred to (.VJ Geo., Ill, chap. 38). though passed chiefly for the purpose of giving effect to the Convenliou of JHIH, goes further. It enacts not merely that subjects of the United iitatcs shall observe the restrictions agreed on by the convention, but that persons not being natural-boru subjects of the King of Great Britain shall observe theoi under penalties. Now I think, in regard to this case, that if my learned friend had really taken time to rea, contained in the statute- book of Nova Scotia, which law shifts the burden of proof from the Crown to the claimant of any vessel seized. At tirst sight it appeared to be unfair, but I believe that the revenue laws of every country — cer- tainly tlie revenue law of England, from time immemorial — have con- tained tbat clau.se, and I think that the same is true of the revenue laws of the United States, as I will have the honor of pointing out hereafter. These laws in effect enact simply this: that with regard to any seizure made by a public officer in his public capacity, the burden of proof must lie ou the claimant, and you must recollect that this provisioti applies not only tx) the seizure of a vessel, but also to the seizure of any goods liable to seizure and condemnation. The law enacts that when the claim- ant comes into court he shall be compelled to prove that all that may have been done has been done legally. Well, that is fair enough, is it not! for within his cognizance lie all the facts of the case. He knows wbetber everything has been fairly done, and whether he has honestly paid the duties; and he knows — if we take, for instance, the case of a vessel which has entered the limits here — very well for what purpose she entered, and he can prove it. He knows that under this conven- tion fishing-vessels can enter for certain purposes British waters ; that is to say, for the purpose of getting wood and water, for the purpose of repairs, for shelter in case of stress of weather, and for no other purpose whatever. He knows that, and he can show, therefore, that although bis vessel was seized within the limits, he was really iu there for no other purposes than tho.se i)rescribed by the Convention of 1818. Thus there was no great injustice put upon hira. Besides this, all public offi- cers, while acting in the discharge of their duties, are supposed to have no private interest involved, and it would be very hard to subject them to the annoyance of actions if even primaj'acie grounds are shown for acting as they did ; the law, therefore, declares that no action shall lie under such circumstances, and even if it turns out that the seizure was, strictly speaking, illegal, nevertheless if the judge certifies that there was reasonable and probable cause for the seizure being made, the plaintiff shall not recover costs. There is nothing unfair in that iv there ! t.Ss: 1822 AWARD OF THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. Mr. Dana. It is also prohibited to sae. Mr. Thomson. Well, they may be virtually prohibited from suing at all, bat I do uot think that the act says so. I am, however, quite will. ing to admit that this clause is just as bad as a clause prohibiting from 6uing at all, because, as the party caunot recover damages or costa on such certificate being given, it practically prevents biDi from suing at all. I am quite satisfl^, however, that he could not get the question before a court, unless he had the right to sue. Mr. Dana. I believe that you are right about that. This is decided by the court of first instance. The court tries the question of seizure and gives the certificate. ' Mr. Thomson. That is it, and it certainly practically prevents suing at all ; otherwise a person acting in the discbarge of his duty would uot be for a moment safe from annoyance. The moment the judge grants a certificate stating that there was reasonable and probable cause for the seizure, no suit can be further maintained. Mr. Foster. Where there is probable cause for seizure, he cannot bring any action to recover any costs, nor any damages. What I would like to call your attention to is this : I think that you will be unable to find any statute of Great Britain or of the United States where this seizure by an executive oflicer is made prima-facie evidence of the lia- bility to forfeiture. Mr. Thomson. Well, we will see about that before I get through. Mr. Dana. The owner is not a party to that suit in which such cer- tificate is given. Mr. Thomson. It is a proceeding in rem, and the owner is clearly a party to it. I may explain to your excellency and honors who are not lawyers, that the proceeding in rem is one directly against the propef-tji, and not against the person of the owner. He gets formal notice of the libel filed by the serving-officer, and has the right to appear and defend. If he does not, his property will probably be condemned. I say, there- fore, that it is idle to assert that he is no party to the suit. Should he elect to bring a suit against the seizing officer, he is of course the party plaintiffi Mr. Dana and Mr. Foster have both pointed to the bond for costs re- <]uired to be given by a claimant of property seized, and characterize the law requiring it to be given as oppressive and unjust. Let us see why this bond is required. The proceeding in rem, as I have already stated, is not against the owner of the goods personally, but against his property. If be chooses to contest the legality of the seizure by^ resisting a condemnation, he ought to be made liable for costs in case'of failure. But he cannot be made so liable unless he gives his bond to that effect. Where is the oppression or the injustice of this rule? Without it, the governmeat would be forced to contest at its own expense every seizure made by its officers. I am surprised at this objection to our law being raised by legal men, and your excellency and your honors will no doubt be surprised when I assure you that the law of the United States on this subject is similar to our own, as I shall proceed to show, to the entire satisfaction, or dis- satisfaction, of my learned friends on the other side. I will now read from the Revised Statutes of the United States, at page 171, section 909 : In suits on informHtion brought where any seizure is made pursuant to any act providing for or regulating the collection of duties on imports or tonnage, if the property is claimed 07 any person^ the burden of proof shall lie upon such claimant. AWARD OF THE FI8HERY COMMISSION. 1823 Here is tbe TToited States statute, and I am surprised, I must confess, at United States lawyers making any charge against British legislation vben their legislation on the same subject is in nowise different. The clause thus concludes : ProTided that probable cau80 is shown fur sucb prosecutiou, to be judfi^od of by the court. There is no difference whatever between our law and theirs ou this subject. Tbeu again, on page 182 of the same volume, section 970, it says this: When, iu nny prosecution commenced on account of the seizure of any vossol, goods, wares, or iiiercbHudise, made by any collector or otiior otlicer under any act of Conf^ress authorizing such seizure, judgment is rendered for the claimant, but appears to tlie court that there was reasonable cause of seizure, tbe court shall cause a proper certificate thereof to be entered, and the claimant shall not iu such case be entitled to costs, nor shall thepernon who made the seizure, nor the prosecutor, be liable to suit or judgment ou account of such suit or prosecution ; provided, that the vessel, goods, wares, or uiorchandise bu, after judgment, forthwith returned to such claimant op bis ageut. This clearly proves what is done in case the seizing-officer is in the wrong, and when consequently the property seized has to be restored, aud it that enactment is not on all fours with ours I do not know what is. Mr. Foster. There is no such provision for the return of the property jQ yonr act. Mr. Thomson. I am really surjirised at Judge Foster saying so. What is the result of a proceeding in rem f Can there be any doubt about it at all! It must result in a Judgment one way or the other. There are oDly two judgments possible in a proceeding in rem — judgment of con- demuatiou or judgment of acquittal, which restores the property at «nce, while it is transferred to the government iu case of condemnation. I have not time to look for the matter in this immense volume, but I have here another book which shows that a bond must be given in these cases in the United States as well as here. I think that the United States look after their interests about as well as any other nation ; and I believe that in the volume which I now hold in my hand it will be foaud that a bond has to be given. This volume contains the customs regulations of 1874, and epitomes of the different acts, as I presume, for the guidance of the customs officers. In article 842, page 397, it says that " seizures may be made by any private person, but at the peril of responsibility in damages in case the seizure is not adopted by the government." Well, this is a most extraordinary law, and it altogether eclipses tbe English or our law on the subject. la case the act is adopted by the government such person is secure from action, or, in other words, any American citizen who chooses to make a raid against any person who has committed any infraction of the customs, or other laws of the country, can do so, and the latter can- not bring an action against him if the government chooses to adopt his case, it is further stated on page 398 : From that danger ofiBcers of customs are protected by law in all cases where reasonable cause of seizure shall appear. It is immaterial who makes tbe seizure, or whether it was irregularly made or not, if the adjudication is for a sufficient cause. On page 402, article 859, it is stated, and there is cited in the mar- gin an act of July 18, 1866 ; so you see that this '* inhospitable legis- lation" is of very recent date : Any person claiming tbe property so seized, or any part thereof, may, within the time specified, tile with the collector a claim, stating his or her interest in the articles seized, and deposit with such collector, or other officer, a bond to the United States in the penal sum of 1824 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. two hundred and fifty (8!2'>0) dollarii with two HnretiM, to be approved by Hiich collrttor conditioned that in cane of the condemiirtion of the articles ho claimed, tiie ubiiguri ihnil pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings to obtain such condumuatiou. And article 800 says : But if nu such claim slmll be filed nor bond given within the time sperifled, hiuIi colWtor shall g've not less than fifteen days' notice of sale of the property so sel/cd l>y piibliiAtion in ti'd manner before mentioned, and at the time and place Npe(!ified in niicIi rioticv ht: *hn\ sell at public auction the property so sei^fd, but may adjourn such sale Ironi tinio to lime lor a period not exceeding thirty days in all. Now, I tbiiik tlmt I have conclusively sliown for the benefit of my learned friends opposite that had they looited at the 'Mnliospitablelaws' of their own country, they wouhl have hesitated before malting llie attack which has been directed against ours. I said last niglit tliat it would be my duty to point out to you some extraordinary discrepani^ies which are to be found between the two sets of affidavits wliich have been tiled by the United States ; and the pledge which I then gave I shall now i)ro- ceed to redeem. I shall be glad indeed — I say it in all sinceiity— if my learned friends o])posite qan, as 1 am pointing out these discrepancies, get up and say that I am mistalten, and show me how they can berecun- ciled,for I am desirous of not making one single statement which i.snnt borne out by the facts. Jf, therefore, the learned Agent of the United States, or either of the learned counsel who are associated with liiui, can say that I am wrong before I get through, I shall be quite willing to permit them to interrupt me and point out my error. I will then at once withdraw my statements, and apologize, if necessary, for having made them ; but at iuesent I cannot see how thej' can be explained at all. In order that 1 may be understood on this point, I think that it woald be advisable that your excellency and your honors should have before you the two statements. Appendix M and appendix O. A|)pendix M contains the set of affidavits which was first filed by the United States, and Appendix O contains the later body of afHdavits which they fileil in this case. Now, In Appendix O, you will find — toward the middle of the book- a set of statements which purport to have been taken from the books of Gloucester firms; they were produced by Mr. Babson, and tiled bjiMr. Foster, on October ^4, 1877. Now, I take the finished statement made by David Lo.- arU jom- pany, and this David Low is the Major Low who made such a pleasant figure before the Commission. Mr. Foster. He is an entirely different person, Mr. Thomson. Mr. Thomson. Are you snre about that? 1 think not. Now, if you look at page 110, Appendix M, you will find affidavit. No. 70, made by the firm of David Low & Company. They state that the number of trips made to the Bay of St. Lawrence in 1872 was five, and that the number of barrels of mackerel taken was 1,230. In 18T3 they say that there were five trips made, and that the number of bar rels of mackerel caught was 750. In 187-1 they swear that two trips were made, and that 440 barrels were taken. In 1875 they say only one trip was made, and 200 barrels caught, while in 1870 no trip was mad.> at all. Now, let me turn your attention to the statements filed concerning the years 1872, 1873, and 1874 for this firm in tiie second set of affidavits contained in Appendix O. What do they here say for 1872? David Low and Company have been pleased to declare here that in 1872 they had 3 vessels in the bay, and took 460 barrels of mackerel. In 1873 thej had 8 vessels, which took 1,944 barrels. In 1874, 4 vessels, which took AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1825 1328 barrels. In 1875, 1 vessel, which took 205 barrels, showing n (lis- erepanoy between the two afSdavits of 1,207 barrels. I regret to say that this is no solitary instance, as you will see if you will kindly follow me while I state the result of thoHe conflicting; depositiouH. I objected, as your excellency and your honorH recollect, at the very oatset, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, against the system of putting ill these aflidavits at all. I have no faith in them — no, not the slightest. 1 wanted the matter to be tried by living witnesses who should go on the stand there, tell their story, and be cross-examined, and then if they came out of the ordeal of cross-examination untouched and unscathed, their evidence would be entitled to weight; but these mencau sit down and make up what statements they like ; they have not to submit to any cross-examination. No eye can see what they are about except the eye of the Almighty. Now, I bave shown by the figures which appear in the aftldavit, No. iO,aud the statement in Appendix O. that a discrepancy of 1,21)7 barrels exists between these statements, the latter of which was (lied by Mr. Foster in October last, oidy last month ; and I say that these figures cannot bo reconciled in any way — or, at least, if this can be done, I will be very glad to hear it. Mr. Foster. You ktiow all that is to be said about that is this, the last statement is more favorable to you than the first one; and it was prepared with great care. Mr. Thomson. It is an extraordinary fact that both of these state- ments were produced from the books of David Low & Co., and I can only say that when persons tile two statements, otu) of which is diamet- rically opposed to the other, that it is very little to the credit of tlie per- son who filed them to say that the last statement is more favorable to the persons they were intended to injure than the first. Mr.TRRSCOT. There was no intention to injure. Mr. Thomson. If a statement was put forward with a view of making a correction it would be another matter, but this is not the case, and the next one to which I will call your attention is to be found in letter L, Appen- dix 0, affidavit No. 75, both made by same parties, which says that the number of trips which were made by the vessels of John P. Wonsou & [ Co. in the Bay of St. Lawrence, in 1872, was three, in which trips they got 500 barrels, while in this statement in Ap|)endix O they say that in 1872 they took in the Bay of St. Lawreuce 475 barrels, showing a dis- i crepancy of 25 barrels. You may say this Is a small number, but recol- I lect it Is said that these two statements were taken from the books of the firm ; and these are the books which we were asked to go to Glou- cester and examine, and this matter I beg to call to the attention of your excellency and your honors. Id 1873, they say, in thiR affidavit, that two trips were made and 450 barrels of mackerel taken, while in this statement. Appendix O, they hay that in 1873 four trips were made and 980 barrels taken. In 1874, according to aflBdavit No. 75, they say that 510 barrels of mackerel were taken in two trips; and in the statement, Appendix O, they say that three trips were made and 620 barrels taken. In 1875, they say, in the affidavit No. 75, tnat one trip was made, and jf20 barrels taken ; and in 1875, according to the statement contained Im Appendix O, two trips were made, with a catch of 203 barrels ; or, in jother words, there exists a discrepancy of 098 barrels between these jtwo statements. One or the other of them must be untrue. Mr. Poster. That gives the same result ; the latter statement was jBore carefully prepared and is more favorable to you than the former. 115 P 1826 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. m Mr. Thomson. You will find that some of these statements are just the other way, ao that argument will not help you. My object is not to show which set of affidavits is more adverse or more favorable to the United States, or which is more favorable to Canada or England; but it is to show that these statements cannot be relied upon. They have been put in here for a purpose, but what that purpose is, of course I do not know. I will now pass on and examine the next statement to which I pro- pose to call your attention. If you look at the statement which appears on the next page of Appendix O, and the corresponding aflidavit, which is No. 54, you will see that it is stated in the latter, over the. .signa- ture of Samuel Haskell, that in 1872 four trips were made into the Bay of St. Lawrence, and 1,100 barrels of mackerel taken ; while ia the statement contained in Appendix O it is represented that they got none at all in the Bay of St. Lawrence. This is an instance where the idea which Mr. Foster has mentioned is reversed. In :!.873, it is stated in the affidavit No. 54 that two trips were made and 420 barrels of mackerel taken ; and in 1873, they are pleased tosav in the statement, Appendix O, that lour trips were made in thebavaiid 672 barrels taken. Here the catch of 672 barrels is admitted, while in the other affidavit that catch is represented as having been 420 biureis, In 187 1, they say in affidavit No. 54 that they took 3.S3 barrels in flie T?ay of St. Lawrence, while they admit \ii the last statement, Aiipemli^ O, that the catch in the bay that year was 720 barrels, taken iu two trips. In 1875, they say, none were taken, and iu i876, also noui'. Xow there is a discrepancy of 911 barrels between these two statements, which are utterly irreconcilable. If you will now pass over to Appendix O, letter It, to the statement of Dennis and Ayer — the corresponding affidavit is No. 59 — you ffill find that Dennis and Ayer say that " since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been employed as folloffs: Since 1871, they state that they made six trips in the Bay of St. Law rence and caught 1,800 barrels of mackerel, while in 1871, according to this statement. Appendix O, they took 2,585 barrels of mackerel in the Bay of St. Lawrence. In 1872, they say in this statement, Appendix O, that the catch in the Bay of St. Lawrence was 2,287 barrels ; in 1873, ; 2,504 barrels; in 1874, 2,455 barrels ; in 1875, 116 barrels; and iu 1816, 136 >i -els; contrasted with the catch of 1,800 barrels according to affii N^o. 50. If the figures are rightly given, your honors will see that iu» ^.jat period their catch was 10,083 barrels ; that is to say, tliey caught in the Bay of St. Lawrence 10,083 barrels of mackerel accordiuj, to this statement which was filed last October, while th oy swear iu tlicir afSdavit No. 59 that this catch amounted to 1,800 barrels. Mr. Trescot. This number was put in for six trips. Mr. Thomson. O, no. If you look at the head of the affidavit; you will observe it ia stated that — S'nce tie Washington Treaty, ho called, has been ia effect, our vesseli have been oni- j ployed lis .''olluvvs. And again they swear to having made six trips during that time. Mr. Trescot. During which they got 1,8(>0 barrels. Mr. Thomson. But it turns out that they made a great ujauymorej tripH duiing this period, and caught 10,083 barrels of mackerel. ]\ir. Trescot. They are only credited with having made six trips. Mr. Thomson. Then Mr. Trescot wishes your excellency aud yoiu has mentioned ;be affidavit you : 3sseli biive been «ii' AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1827 houors to understand that althoujjh tbe heading of this affidavit is that it purports to be a statement of all the trips made since ttie Washing- ton Treaty np to the time when the affidavit was made, it is in fact a ji(/)]))'mJo ?' of St. Lawrence in 1872 was four, with a catch of S12 barrels of mackerel, while in this stateiaont they declare thiitiu 187:? they made nine trips to the bay and got 2.189 barrels— 2,189 Vii'otwhat they are pleased topict doicH in afidavit N'o. 74 as 812. Tliey si^ear, in fact, in the affidavit — which was sworn to on the Gth of July last— that they only caught 812 barrels of mackerel in the Bay of S*". Lawrouce iu 1872, while in this other affidavit they swear that their catch during that season in the bay amounted to 2,189 barrels. Thedis - crepancy is tremendous. Tlien in 1873 they say that they made four trips to the bay and took wO barrels, while in 1873 they admit in this other statement that they l|?j|%!^-J^.^ :i^ .m^i A -.'^.^ fifca*"^: >* » o them than to us. Your excellency and your honors adopted the v.' w of the American Government on this point, and ruled that those |>i ivileges did not fall within the province of this treaty. As a matter of interest, now. perhaps, onlv historic, because I do not ask you to reverse your decision on that subject, I wish to call yonr attention to the fact that the United States at one tir-^ held a very different opinion from that which was here put forward b- .i learned friend, Judge Foster, and Lis able coadjutors. If you look at question No. 29 in aH these affidavits you will observe a peculiar fact — a great number of these affidavits are prepared by question and answer, and they were taken a number of years ago, for some oi them are dated as far back as 1873 and 1872, and possibly previously. Mr. Foster. Those were taken in reply to a series of questions pro- pounded by the Treasury Department. Mr. Thomson. Now, the Treasur.\ Department is a governmental de- partment of the United States, and this question No. 29 is repeated in «ach affidavit. Wherever in these afliJavitsyou find that number, you m t, ■' , -n V", m-l* f. y'Ji>^ . m ■jr:l.i T^.,^ 1830 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION, n:-^ find the same qaestion, although you will find divers answers given to it. The question is as follows : Do American fishermen gain, under the Treaty of Washington, any valuable riijhts of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack them, or to transship cargoes, which were not theirs l)efore T If so, what are those rights, aud what do you estimate them to be worth annually in the aggregate ? And the answer of this particular witness in the first affidavit is: I do not know how valuable the privilege granted by the Treaty of Washington may prove. That is the question which is put throughout, and I say that this is the best evidence you can have in support of the view that the United States entertained at a time when these questions were framed— a very different opinion from that which they entertain now with reference to the privileges wiiich they obtained under this treaty. I made, in an earlier portion of my address, some remarks with respect to the little value that is to be attached to affidavits as a rule ; and I think that I have exemplified the validity of my contention tolerably well. Let me now turn your attention to two American affidavits, num- bered 18 and 19. (Appendix M.) Look at question 11 in No. 18. It is as follows : Q. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our inshore fisheries cause any detriment or hiEderance to the profitable pursuit of these fisheries by our own fishermen; and, if so, in V.'dt manner, aud to what extent annually ? — A. It will probably be a detriment to our mvrkets to the amount of two hundred millions. On i»age 45, No. 19, the same question is put, and it, with the answer, is as follows : Q. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our inshore fisheries cause any detriment or binderance to the profitable pursuit of these fisheries by our own fishermen ; and, if so, in what manner, and to what extent annually ? — A. It will ; probably a detriment to our mar- kets to the amount of two hundred millions. We assumed at first that this answer was probably a misprint, but on referring to the originals, which I hold in my hand, 1 find that this esti- mate, tico hundred millions, is not only here in black and white, but also that it is not put down in figures ; it is set down in plain legible baud- writing; that such admission will be " probably a detriment to our mar- kets to the amount of two hundred millions." Now, if we only value our fisheries at the same rate, I presume that they muso be worth, for the twelve years in question twenty-four hua- dred millions. So much at present for these affidavits. I will next turn my attention to Judge Foster's argument. The ar gnraent of the counsel opposite upon all the salient points of the cm of necessity had to be the same; though they were clothed in different language and viewed from different stand-points, they were substau tially the same; and I select Judge Foster's argument, not because these arguments were not put forward with great force by Mr. Dana and Mr, Trescot, but 1 select Judge Foster simply because he is the lucredited Agent of the United States ; and therefore, in that respect, and in that sense, his arguments are entitled, I suppose, to greater weight. I think the first point I will have to call attention to is on i)age37nf Mr. Foster's affidavit, in which he says : Mr. Foster. You speak of my affidavit: 1 did not make any affidavit. Mr. Thomson. I intended to say Mr. Foster's speech. I sbould be very sorry to suppose Mr. Foster would make an affidavit siicli as tbs It is an admirable argument on behalf of a very bid cause, but I dou: think he would like to swear to it. Mr. Fostet stated, in speaking o! AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 183. wers given to ks with respect a rule : and I itb tlie answer, the affidavit of the British witnesses from Priuce Edward Island, that ^kgy iiad been made on the assumption that the three-mile line was a line outside a line drawn from East Point to North Cape. Now, there is no evidence of that. There is no evidence that the Bend of Prince Edward Island was ever claimed to be a bay from East Point to North Cape. 3Ir. Foster. Yes, there was. llr. Thomson. At all events you can find in no official correspond- ence any sucl view, and I do not, as counsel for Her Majesty's Govern- ment, present any such view now. I refer to this matter because, based on that theory, Mr. Foster made what I think was an unfair charge against the Prince Edward Island affidavits. He says in his speech, page 37: "The affidavits from Prince Edward Island were drawn upon the theory that that is the rule, and in two or three of these ] found it expressly stated, ' that all the mackerel were caught within the three- mile line, that is to say, within a line 3 miles from a straight line drawn from East Point to North Cape.' " But there were only two affidavits that could by any possible construe- tiou be made to bear such a meaning. Mr. Foster. Look at McLean's affidavit, page 42. Mr. Thomson. Yes, you referred to him by name. Now let me see wuat he says, although even if one of them did make his affidavit npoii that assumption it would not be a very important matter. Mr. Foster. My argument was that they were all made in answer to the same series of questions, and the only possible interpretation of those questions is that such was the view entertained. Mr. iHOMSON. Those affidavits were drawn up in answer to no ques- tions whatever. There were no questions put to these pe^jple. They were substantive affidavits, drawn up, not by one man or by one hand. Mr. Foster. Compare them, and you will see that every man answers in the same paragraph of the affidavit to the same question. Mr. Davies. No, that is not the case. Mr. Foster. Try them. Mr. Thomson. I will try McNeil. He says, in section four of his affi- davit : That the Hsh are Dearly all caught clof^e to the shore, the best fishing-ground being about one aud one-half miles from the shore. In October the boats sometimes go off more llian three miles from land. Fully two-thirds of the mackerel are caught within three miles from the shore, and all are caught within what is known as the three-mile limit ; that is, witliin a line drawn between two points taken three miles oflf the North Cape and East Point of this island. He draws the distinction at once. He says two-thirds were caught within three miles of the coast, that is, following the contour of the sliore; but if you are going to draw a line from point to point, and take the three mile line as a line outside of that, then they were all caught within that line. But you see that, for the purpose of our case, the fact that two-thirds were caught within three miles of the contour of the coast, is all that is necessary. There were only two affidavits, I think, tliat had any allusion of this Idnd. Mr. Foster. See McLeod's aiiidavits, page 218. Mr. Thomson. In the sixth section of McLeod's affidavit he says: 6. Tha' nine-tenths of our mackerel are caught within one and one-half miles from the shore, anl I may say the whole of them are caught within three miles of the shore. There niav be i' i odd catch of mackerel got more than three miles from «hore, but that does not oftOD happen. The greater part of the codfish caught by hand-line are caught at from two tohve miles f'ron. the sliore^ and all the codfish caught by the trawl or set-lines are caught Jfithin three milew troin the shore. There are no mackerel or codfish at all caught by the TOia outside of the threo-mile limit— that is, outside of a line drawn from points tnree miles Jm .,j*^;i?^'i -V','"' 1832 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. off the headlands ; while the herring are all caught close inshore, within two miles of tbe shore. There is nothing in that. It has been very honestly put by the wit ness. He says nine-tenths of the fish were canght within three miles of the shore. It is a pure assumption on the part of Judge Foster that this line be refers to is a line drawn from the headland formed by East Point to the headland formed by North (lape. Mr. Foster. What other headlands are there f Mr. Thomson. There are headlands formed by the indentations along the coast ; and he refers to them. It will be found, as I have stated that the witnesses re^'rred to draw a clear distinction. They say that two-thirds or nine-teuilis of the fish, as the case may be, are caught within three miles of the shore, but that if you draw a Hue three miles outside of the line from North Cape to East Point, they are all caught within such a line. At page 39 Judge Foster introduces the inshore fishery question in this way : We come then to the inshore fishing. What is that ? In the first place there has been some attempt to show inshore halibut-fishing in the neighborhood of Cape Sable. It is very slight. It is contradicted by all our witnesses. I take leave to joiu issue with him on that statemeut, and I call attpn- tion to page 429 of the British testimony, where he will see what the evidence is. lam obliged to call the attention of the Commission to this, because Mr. Foster treated it as a matter of course, as he did the case of Newfoundland. On page 439 William B. Smith, of Cape Sable Island, is asked, and answers as follows : Q. With regard to halibut-fishing, is there any halibut-fi.shing carried on near Cape Sable Island ? — A. Not by British people. The Americans fish there. Q, Every year ? — A. Every year regularly. Q. What is the number of the fleet which come there to fish for halibut f — A. Ihavesetn as high as nine sail at one time. I should suppose there was from 40 to 60 sail. Q. Are the vessels cod-fishers at other times of the year 1 — 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. Q In the spring and fall they fish for halibut, and in the summer for cod ? — A. Yes. Q. Where do you live ? — A. On Cape Sable Island. Q. Can you see the fleet fishing for halibut 1 — A. Yes. Q. Are they right within sight from your door? — A. Yes; lean count the men on deck with an ordinary glass. I counted at one time nine sail at anchor fishing there. At page 440 he is asked, just at the top of the page : Q. How far from the shore are th yde halibut caught f — A. From one mile to t' o and a half or three miles perhaps o£f. Q. They are caught inshore 7 — A. Near my place they fish within one mile and a half of the shore in 18 fathoms water. Now here is the evidence of a credible witness, a very respectable man, whose testimony was not shaken in the least by cross-examination. Cuniiingham gave evidence, which will be found on page 407, to the same effect. Mr. Foster. Have you got through with these gentlemen? Mr. Thomson. Yes, because I am going to show how you attempted to answer tho whnle of that testimony. Mr. Foster. Shall you not want an observation upon the cue you have referred to? It is this : If you follow the testimony through job will see that this witness, William B. Smith, testified that there was oue spot where there was eighteen fathoms of water, and that was the spot where they caught the halibut. It turned out that upon the chart that AWARD OF THE FISHEHT COMMISSION. 1833 two miles of tbe ary question in , of Cape Sable on near Cape Sable cod?— A. Yes. jeptb could not be found. In reply to tbe question wbetber be could name any person wbo bad caugbt balibut there witbin tbe distance be had named in eighteen fathoms of Mater, he gave us tbe name of one vessel, the Sarah C. Pyle, Captain Swett (as it is in the report) of Gloucester; and being asked if he is a halibut-fisher, be says be thinks be is. Jlr. Thomson. When Smith was under cross-examination the ques- tion was put to him whether there was eighteen fathoms of water in the place wbere tbe balibut was caught, and he said there was. A chart was placed in his baud, and wbetber be looked at it or not T. do not know and I do not care. It was said to him by tbe counsel for tbe United States, "Look at that chart and you will find no such depth as eighteen fathoms." He said, "I have known it all ray life-time ; 1 know there are eighteen fathoms there." And while the American case was going on, and while one of the witnesses, wbo had been brought for tbe purpose of contradicting Smith, was on tbe stand, I myself took tbe British Admiralty chart, and on tbe identical spot which Mr. Smith had referred to I found eighteen or twenty fathoms of water. I think Mr. Foster must have i'u "gotten this incident when he interrupted me. I now turn to tbt evidence of Cunningham, page 407. Tbe following passage occurs in bis evidence: Q. How much within three miles do these vessels vvhich fish for balibut within that dia- tsncefrom tiie shore comet — A. I could not say; some, perhaps, tish within 1^ miles of the shore. Where I am engaged in prosecuting the fisheries some of the American vessels £sh within H miles, and others within 2 miles of the shore, and so on. Q. Are any cod and halibut taken outside of the three-mile limit? — A. O, yes ; but this is not so much tbe case with halibut as with cod. Q. Do many American tishermfu fish there outside of three miles from shore ? — A. Un- doubtedly; some 75 American sail do so around \he shores of the county of Shelburne. The word " outside" in the last questicn but one must be a misprint for inside. My question was, •' Do man; American tisbermeu flsb there inside of three miles from the shore ? And tbe answer was, undoubtedly ; "some 75 American sail dc so around the shores of tbe jounty of Shel- burne." Now I will turn the attention of tbe Commission to tbe evidence of Patillo. Mr. FoSTi R. Do you understand Cunningham as having left his tef timony that 75 sail of halibut-lisiiermeu frequented tbe shores of tbe county of Shelburne ? Mr. Thomson. Xo ; American fishermen. Mr. FosTEit. He said be could not tell bow many fished for balibut. Mr. Thomson. I dare say so ; if he had been an untruthful witness he would have fixed tbe number at once. I now turn to tbe evidence of Thomas R. Patillo — not the Patillo of pagnacious reputation — and I want to refer specially to tbe remarks of my learned friend in reference to tbe evidence of Mr. Patillo, because it is a warning to the Commissioners to scrutinize tbe argument; of my learned frie id very closely. It is wonderfully ingenious, and unless you watcl' it very closely it will possibly mislead you. This is what Mr. Foster said, page 39 of his argument : So much for the inshore halibut fishery. T will, however, before leaving it, refer to the state- mntof one British witness, Thomas R. Patillo. who testified that occasionally halibut may be caught inshore, as a boy may catch a codfish off the rocks. Ifow he puts it as if Mr. Patillo bad said that occasionally a halibut Diight he caught, as a boy might catch a codfish off tbe rocks, but that It was not pursued as a business. There is just enough truth in bis ^^i 1834 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 4^ yi: statement to make it a little dangerous, is put : This is the way the question Q. Occasionally a halibut might be caught inshore, as a boy uiicfht catcli a codfish off the rocks, but, pursued as a business, halibut are caught in the aea ?— A. Yes in decn water. ' P Now, surely this answer is not an assent to the proposition that hali- but are merely caught occasionally, as "a boy irould catch a aod off the rocks.^ It is an answer to the last branch of the question, namely that the halibut are caught in the sea. The witness says : "Yes; they are caught in deep water." Now, surely it was not fair, on the streii^ ■'f-N%.S'- 1836 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Rrent Q. Why clo thfl American schooners come over to your uiatrict, and not fish on their own coast T — A. They said the fishery on their own coast has failed, and they i^avu me u > reason that they thought it was a (food deal due to the trawling practices. Q. During how many years have thoy been coming there ? — A. Throe or four years (J. They gave you that ax the reason why they come to your coast f — A. I talk tua ., mauy masters of American vessels. My son keeps an ice liuuse, and timy uume tlieretot ice, and I have tallied with them about the fisheries, and they told nie the trawling had iu a measure, broken up their fishing. Q. How far from the shore do they catch cod, pollock, and haddock? — A. From liali'a mile to a mile. The large vessels fish mostly outside the three miles, hut tho small vi'meU fish on the same ground as our own fisLermen. The small vessels ti.sh within lialf a mile or a mile of the shore. They anchor the vessels in the harbor, and go out iu liuats to fisli ; they fish close inshore. Now, they did not contradict that evidence at all. I do not know what the extent of coast is from Cape Split to L>igby Necli. Mr. Foster. What counties does it include ? Mr. Thomson. Kings, Annapolis, and Digby. There was an attempt to contradict this evidence by the evidence of Sylvanus Smith, page 338 of the American testimony. As the conn sel for the United States have not the privilege of replying, it is only fair that I should cite the pages of the American testimony that wero pre sented in attempted contradiction of the evidence of onr witness. The evidence of Sylvanus Smith is as follows : Q. How near ihore to any place have you known of the halibut being fishod ?— A. One hundred and fifty miles may be the nearest point. Q. These are Banks ; but haven't you known it to be done, or attempted, near shoret- 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 anniiid Cape Sable. I fished there quite a number of years, around Seal Island and Brown's Bank. Q. How near land there did you ever fish T — A. I have fished in sight of land. I could see it. Q. Did you ever fish within three miles? — A. No; I don't think anyone could fish in there, because it is not a fishing ground. Q. You don't know of any one? — A. No. That ip all ho could give in the way of contradictions, if I recollect right. On page 3^0 this question is put to him : Q. You cannot speak of the places where halibut have been caught since that time from practical knowledge 7— A. No. Q. Previous to 1864 you were engaged. How many seasons were you engaged catching halibut 1 — 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 hali- but?—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 trying to catch, would be some evidence that they believed the halibut were there ? — A. Well, they look for them everywhere. Q. Don't you think they must have had reasonable grounds f — A. I don't think it. TLc; are in the habit of looking every where where they ros- be. Q. Do you stand by the full meaning of your answer that you don't think tlioy had rea- sonable grounds for believing the fish to be there ? — A. Well, a man might have reasonable grounds for believing they were in the water anywhere. Mr. FoSTKR. Have you the evidence where he says that one of his vessels strayed into the Gulf of St. Lawrence after halibut ? Look also at Swim's affidavit, page 238. Gloucester, October 10, 1877. I, Benjamin Swim, of Gloucester, Mass., on oath depose and say, that I was bornatBai- riBgton, 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 dur- ing that time; have landed 150,000 pounds of codfish and about 3,000 pounds of halibut; and caught them all, both codfish and halibut, on Western Banks. The nearest to the shore that I have caught fish of any kind this year is at least forty miles. BENJAMIN SWIM, Master of Schooner Sarah C. PyU. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1837 ay one could fish in jn't think it. TLy Mr. Thomson. This is what Swi'in says. Mr. Smith cjave the name of tbe Sarah C. Pyle, of Gloucester, Captain Swett, as one vessel that had tisliod near shore in eighteen fathoms of water. Mr. Foster. It is not Sylvan us Smith who speaks of that. Mr. Thomson. No; it is William B.Smith. The question is as fol- Can you (five us the name of any of these vessels that you say have been fishing within tbatdiswnceof the shore in 18 fathoms of water f — Answer. lean fflvo the name of one, the Surah C. Pyle, Captain Swett, of Qloucester. I supplied him in the summer with 2,800 mackerel. But whose aflSdavit have wo ? Not the affidavit of Captain Swett, but of Benjamin Swim, of Gloucester. Kow, there is no word that during the whole of this season he com- manded the Sarah C. Pyle. This evidence was given a long time ago, labile tlie affidavit, which purports to be a contradiction, is sworn on the 10th of October, months after he had given the evidence. Captain Swim had the printed evidence, I presume ; at all events, some person must have had the printed evidence and communicated to him its pur- port. Uo must have read the statement that it was Captain Swett who commanded her, and that the witness, William B. Smith, sold her 2,800 mackerel. Now, this affidavit is altogether silent as to Captain Swett. If it was intended to be a contradiction of the witness's statement, there should have been a statement that there was no such person as Captain Swett in command of that vessel. Captain Swim does not undertake to say that he commanded the vessel during the whole time since April last. He says : '• I am now master," &c. ; " have been since April." He may have sent another man out as captain and himself remained mas- ter upon the register. It would be quite consistent with anything that he lias stated in his affidavit. Mr. Foster. The affidavit is dated the 10th of October, while the evidence was given on the 28th of September. So there is not such a great while between. Mr. Thomson. But it is undoubtedly made for the purpose of contra- dicting William B. Smith, and I say that it is a most singular circum- stance that they produced uo affidavit from Captain Swett. Mr. Foster. There is no Captain Swett. Probably the short-hand reporter got the name wrong. Mr. Thomson. If this affidavit was intended as a contradiction, it should have contained an allegation that there was no Captain Swett; that there was no other Sarah C. Pyle, and that this deponent had been in command of her during the whole time. Even had all that been done, tliere would have been this important question, whether a man who comes here and subjects himself to cross-examination, and whose evi- dence is substantially unshaken, can be, or ought to be, contradicted by an affidavit made in a chamber by some interested person, behind the back of the person to be alfected by it, and absolutely protected against any hostile cross-examination. I say, that any writing, produced under such circumstances, to contradict such a witness, is not worth the paper it is written on, and ought not to be. What is the reason he did not come here? If he was intended to contradict our witness, why, in com- mon fairness, didn't he either come here, or show some reason that pre- vented him from attending as a witness in person? Shoals upon shoals of witnesses have come here from Gloucester and been examined. What is the reason that Swim did not come, as Smith did, and subject himself to cross-examination ? Smith was not afraid of cross-examina- "^.W. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1^ 128 1 2.5 S* i:£ 110 1.8 1.25 III ,.4 J4 ^ ^ — 6" - » V] / ^. <«"V'^ 7 fliotographic Sdaices Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STRKT WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO (716) 872-4503 1838 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. tion. Why was Swim T I dismiss ' liis affidavit as no contradiction whatever. Mr. FosTBB. Don't dismiss it until I call attention to the fact that fiirtber on in the cross-examination of Smith, be says be does not Icdow where the Sarah G. Pyle caught her halibut at all, and that all he knows is that ho supplied the bait. Mr. Thomson. Where is that ? Mr. Foster. Head right along in Mr. Dana's cross-exnmination. His statement on cross-examination is as fe 'lows: Q. You have with you a memorandum concerniDg this vessel to which you sold theit mackeroi f — A. Yes. Q. Wliat did they do with mackerel T->A. They put the fish in ice on board. I do not know what became of the latter afterward. Q. What did the vessel do then 7 — A. She went out to fish. Q. Did you nee her do so t — A. Yes. Q. Did she continue fishing with 2,800 fresh mackerel on board f — A. The captain took them for part of his bait. We did not supply him altogether with bait. Q. D'.a you go on board of her after she left the harbor? — A. No. Q. Do yon know what she caught ? — A. No. Q. Whether cod or mackerel t— A. No. Q. It might have been cod ? — A. Yes. Q. Why did you say it was halibut t — A. I said that we supplied him with bait, but 1 do not know 'Iiat she caught halibut. Q. As to those vessels, can you tell with your glass at that distance whether wiiat they haul on board is halibut or cod T — A. I do not know what they catch, but they saj tiiat they come there to fish for halibut. I frequently converse with them. Mr. Thomson. He says this Captain Swett is a neighbor of bis; that the Sarah 0. Pyle, of which Captain Swett was muster, tished for halibut; that he supplied him with 2,800 mackerel ; that she wentont to fish, and iu answer to the question why he said it was halibut she caught, he says, we supplied her with bait ; and in answer to the next question he says, he does not know what they catch, but that they say they come there to fish for halibut. Captain Swett told Mr. Smith that he came there to fish for halibut, and Smith believed his word ; and I say that his evidence stands entirely uncontradicted; and, in view of what I have seen of this evidence, I shall dismiss the affidavit of Swim as being entirely irrelevant, and having no bearing whatever upon the matter. But there is another man that was brought forward to contradict Mr. Smith. Confronted with the maps, and shown that the soundings were there that he had undertaken to say were not there, he was ( bliged to admit that he bad not been there for eleven years, while Mr. Smith bad given evidence referring to a period within a couple of years. There is another witness that they put forward to contradict Hopkins' testimony. On page 4IT of the British evidence, Hopkins testifies as follows : Q. Are you aware that halibut is taken inshore by boats as well as cod and pollock f— A. By our boats 7 Yes; it is taken inshore. Q. I think you said you had heard of Americans coming in within three miles, but yon did not knowT — A. I do not know. Mr. Cunningham will know more than I do. It is a little aside froui where my business takes mo. I have understood they have been iu a good deal around St. John Island, just west of where I am. Q. That is within 3 miles ? — A. Close in. In this connection I will turn your attention to the evidence of Joseph Gontoure, page 280. He says : I am 42 years of ago. I live at Capo Despair, in the county of Gasp6. I am a ^*^' man, and at present employ men in the fishing business. This fishery is carried on aion; the coast from one to three miles from shore, and also on Miscou Bank. The Ameiicaiu fish there. I have seen as many as 40 sail fishing there at the same time. ▲WARD OF THE FI8HEBY COMMISSION. 1839 Mr. Foster. That was in 1857 f Mr. Thomson. Yes ; I want to show that the fish were there. The whole evidence shuws that the cotlflsh do not fall off. Now on page 293 we have the evidence of Louis Itoy, of Gape Chatte, Gasp^, tisb merchant, formerly fisherman. His evidence is this : q. Ii the cod as abundant now as it was 30 or 40 years ago t Do you g^t as much T — A* 0, ju ; as mnch as 30 or 40 years ago. I am sure of it. I will not read but simply refer to the evidence of James Horton, James Jessop, and the Hon. Thomas Savage, which is all to the same :« ;;t as to this question of the cod fishery, and therefore I submit that this was not a part of our Case to be summarily dismissed upon the principle that there are no snakes in Ireland. Now I pass from the cod fishery to the question of bait. U[)ou that subject I want to be distinctly understood. I will just refer yon in general terms to the question, tinder the decision of this Couimission the bait which the Americans who come into our harbors purchase cannot be taken into consideration. The point, therefore, that I have to make in view of that decision is this, that so far as the evi- dence shows that the Americans have gone in for the years that are passed, and have themselves fished for bait or employed others to fish for it, tbat must be taken into consideration, upon the principle that the man wbo employs another to fish for him in point of law fishes him- self. I presume that will not be disputed. In reference to the years that are to come, the proposition that I submit is this : That this Com- iDission Laving decided that under the Treaty of Washington the privi- leges of buying bait and ice, and of transshipping cargoes, are not given by tbat treaty, American vessels have no right to exercise them, and if tbey do so, they are liable to forfeiture under the Convention of 1818. Tberefore, as regards these rights, we go back to that conven- tion, and American vessels exercise them at their peril. In reference, therefore, to the future of this treaty, American fishermen must be pre- samed to bow to your decision and obey the law. That being so, what will tbey do t They must get bait. They cannot do without it. And they will, tberefore, have to fish for it themselves. In any case you must assume that they will get \fhatever bait they require from our shores during the next eight years, according to law, either by fishing themselves or going and hiring persons to fish for them, which, under the treaty, tbey undoubte«lly have a right to do. Tberefore, the only remaining question is whether this bait is abso- intely necessary for them or not. Now the whole evidence shows that without tbe bait they cannot prosecute the fisheries at all. Even their own codflsberies it is really imi>ossible for them to carry on, unless they get our bait. That must be thoroughly understood by Auierican fisher- men, as indicated by the extraordinary eilbrts made to get rid of the diffi- culty. Tbat is clear, because Professor Baird was put upon the stand to give evidence that a new i)rocess had been discovered by which clams could be kept fresh for an indefinite length of time, and that these could be used for bait. They were so fresh when so preserved, I don't know for bow many weeks, by this process, that the Centennial Com- missioners made up their minds, an(l bold men indeed they must have been, to eat these clams that had been preserved for six weeks. Bat Professor Baird omitted to tell this Commission a matter which vas very essential to the inquiry, and that was what was the chemical process and what was the cost of that process by which bait which would become putrid and useless under ordinary circumstances within 1840 AWARD OF THE FI8HEST COMMISSION. the usual time, waR prevented firom becoming in that oonditioD • and I think until that fact is made clear your honors must dismiss it from your minds. I only refer to it to show that the American GovernmeDt felt that upon that subject it was in a very difficult position. It if) dear, therefore, to my mind, and I think it must be assumed by tbig Commission, that without fresh bait American fishermen cannot get od. The next question is, can they get a supply of fresh bait on their ovn shore! There is a consensus of evidence given by witness after wit- ness, who went on the stand and stated tliat he camo in once, twic« three times or four times during one season for fresh bait into |)ort8 of Nova Scotia, along the Oafie Breton shore. I did not examine as to the Orand Bank fishing vessels, for that part of the case I left to my learned colleague, Mr. Whiteway ; but as to the George's Banks fishery the supply of bait is obtained from our own shores. It is one of the luikt- ters your honors must take into consideration, that if American fisher- men were kept out of our shores so that they could not get bait, not only their mackerel-fishing in the bay, which was a subject of very con- siderable contest, would go down, but their codfisbery would go dowo also. According to the evidence, if your honors will examine it, we hold the keys in our hands which lock and unlock the whole North American fisheries ; I mean the North American fisheries for cod, ball but, mackerel, and herring; in fact for all those fish which are ordinarily used for food. Mr. Foster. Do you say mackerel f Mr. Thomson. Yes; in regard to mackerel I will show that we bold the keys. It is probably forestalling my argument a little ; bat Mr. Foster, in the course of bis speech, asserts that because the larger pro- portion of mackerel, as he says, comes from the American coast, our mackerel do not have any effect on the market. Mr. Foster. I thought you were speaking about bait and the bait question. Mr. Thomson. So I was. Even for mackerel it is not much of pogie bait they use, and at all events they use other bait as well ; but pogie is not necessarily an American bait ; it is a deep-sea fish, as has been shown by different witnesses. Now, in regard to the quantity of bait, I refer you to the evidence. John F. Gampion, of Souris, Prince Edward Island, pp. 36, 37, and 4o, says: There nre large numberB of American trawlers off Cape North. They catch their bait around the coasts of Newfoundland, sometimes at St. Peter's Island, and at Ti^nish Ray. I have seen them catch herrings for bait this spring. Thru or four teen setting nets right i» our harbor. John James Fox, Magdalen Islands, at p. 114, says : Americans catcb bait largely in our neighborhood ; the chief place for catchinff it is it Orand Entry Harbor. They set their nets on shore ; they want this bait for cod-tisbiiif;. Angus Grant, Port Hawkesbury, Cape Breton, ac pp. 184, 185, says: Americans both purchase and fish for squid ; they catch squid by jigging. Large quia- titles are taken at Hawkesbury. They buy and catch bait at Crow Harbor and those places. James Purcell, Port Mulgrave, at p. 197, says: United States vessels get their bait in our harbor. They sometimes buy it, and sometimci catch it. I have seen them catching it. I have seen 18 vessels taking squid as fast as thej could haul them in, at Hawkesbury. John Nicholson, Louisburg, Gape Breton, at p. 205, says : Americans both fish for their bait and buy it. I have seen them fishing for squid cloie to the shore. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1841 John Maguire, Steep Creek, Nova Scotia, at p. 21?, says : AowrieaD cod-fiHhing; vessels sometimes catch squid for bait. James Bigelow, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, at p. 222, says : AmericsDB frequently catch bait on our shores. John Stapleton, Port Hawkesbary, Cape Breton, at pp. 228, 229, says: I hire Men numbers of Amerifans catching squid in Port Hawkesbury ; this year I snp- nne 15 or W mil ; last year about t25 or 3U. They cannot carry on the Bank fishery witb< out procuring fresh bait. Hon. Thomas Savage, Cape Cove, Oasp<^, at p. 2G4, says : I hsvp itren Americans come in and catch bait themselves, or rather set their nets to do K' tmoog our tiHlicrmen they seine for it; they would do very little at codfisbing without th,' priTilege of Rettlnpf fresh halt. James Baker, Cape Cove, GaspC>, at p. 270, says : AmericanR iishinir at Miscon Bank came in to different places along our coast for fresh hii: ; ther principally catch it themselves, taking squid, mackerel, and cnplin. They took it clow iusoore. James Jessop, Newport, Oasp^, at p. 277, says : American codfishers run up to Shippegan and Caraquette and fish for herring, for bait, Kith nets ; tbey also take mackerel and squid ; tliey could not carry on the fishery profitably fitbout comiug in to get fresh bait. William Flynu, Perc<5, Gasp6, at p. 278, says: There are annually about 400 codfishers in the bay ; tbey get a great deal of their bait iubore along our coast by setting nets for it, and sometimes by buying it. I have seen ibem leinini; herring and capliu. and have heard that they jig squid and Dob mackerel. I jon't believe they cuuld carry on the codfishery profitably without coming inshore for fresh btit, John Short, Gaspe, at p. 284, says : American codfishers get a great quantity of their bait from the inshore fishery. I have fm tiiem set nets anif have no doubt of their catching their bait inshore. They often Jiiw seines to shore for caplin and small fish. Without the right of coming inshore they Could not successfully carry on the deep-sea codfishery. Abraham Lebrun, Perc^, Gasp^, at p. 288, says: I hive hflsrd from United States captains that there are .500 codfishers in the bay. They pt their bait on the coast. They take herring in nets. They also catch sqnid, and seine ciplin. Tliey take mackerel as well. They bring their nets with them. Tbey had either to procure fresh bait or go without fish. John F. Taylor, Isaacs Harbor, Nova Scotia, at p. 296, says : Tnited States codfishers in the Gulf run inshore for bait — tbey go in boats to get them. Without tlie right of getting fresh fish inshore, they could not carry on tlie fishery with George Romeril, Perc^, Gaspi?, at p. 309, says : Most of the United States codfishers come inshore for bait. They get it with nets and k purcliase. They take chiefly herring. They bring their nets with them, and catch the btit themselves close inshore. The codfishery could not be carried on successfully with- out access to the shores for bait. James IlicksoD, Bathurst, New Brunswick, at p. 341, says : l'nileur of Hintll mtA erel for bait. The United States vessels could not carry on their dvep^Hea l\n\my \Mti„,|,, getting fresh bait. That is an epitome of tlie evidence, not the whole of it, and yonrhon OTH will find on examination that the evidence is strong on the \m\[ and that nearly all the witnesses agree that they cannot get uq without the fresh bait. 1 am not going to touch on that point, bvcuiise it was successfully dealt with by my learned friend Mr. Whiteway, vpbo. I thin.{, ell'ectually settled the question of salt bait. It is admitted on all bands that it cannot for a moment compete with the fresh bait. Thj next point to which I turn your honors' attention is a part of our case which has been made the object of attack on the other side, tbe Grand Manan fishery ; I mean the fishery around the island of Grauil Manan, Campobello, and Deer Island, and adjacent islands, and ou the main shore of Charlotte opposite. I do not intend to call youratteiitioD to tbe evidence, for the time which has been given me in Vhich to close my argument will not enable me to do so ; I therefore pass it over by calling your honors' attention simply to the result of that evidence, it is proved by Mr. McLaughlin, who is admitted on all hands to be not only an able man, but an honest, straightforward man, a man who bad a practical knowledge of the fishing business, and a personal frienc of Professor Baird, that the British catch was in value over $500,(J0u on the island of Grand Manan alone. He bad especial reasons for know- ing it, because he was fishery warden, and it was his business to Hud out what the catch was ; and he says the catch put ou paper was l}eloir the actual catch, for this sufficient reason, that the men to wboni be went — and he went to every person engaged in the fishing — were afraid of being taxed to the extent of their full catch, and therefore gave him an underestimate of the quantity. When he explained to them that in point of fact he was only fishery warden, they said they knew he was some thing else, and that he was a county councillor, and they were afraid i he would carry the information he obtained as fishery warden to the | county council. Mr. McLaughlin says that the figures are entered on- der the mark. He then says that the catch of the island of Campobellu I and Deer Island is as large as the catch of Grand Manan. Lie says in regard to those three islands of Grand Manan, Campobello, and Dm Island, and the adjacent islands, that the American catch ronnd tho$e | islands is as great or greater than the British catch ; that is to say, there are two million dollars' worth taken round those islands. L'ponj the main shore, he says, from all he can learn, and ho has talked with different men engaged in the business on the main shore, from Lepreau to Letite, there is as great a catch ou the main shore as is taken round j the islands. That statement of Mr. McLaughlin, which was a matter of opiuiou.isj corroborated as a matter of fact by Mr. James Lord and Mr. James K. Mc Lean, who were not only practical fishermen, but were personally en;,'a?ed in the trade, and own fishing- vessels. Mr. Foster says: '*If yoii admit the j statement to be true, look what follows. A larger quantity of herring j is taken round Grand Manan than the whole foreign importation of tbe j United States." We have nothing to do with that. The American counsel have undertaken to show that away out in the Bay of Fundy, on some ledges far beyond the three-mile* line, at what tbey call the AWARD OF THE FISHEK/ COMMISSION. 1843 'iRlpB,"tbey catoh a great many herring, as also at different places Iggrihe coast ; but it does not appear by the returns. The United states do not import a great many herring. There is no pretense for saviug that we make use of the United States niarliet for our herring. A oaniber of witnesses have proved (I have not time to read their testi- gjoDV but I state it as the fact) that the large market for salt herrings is to be found iu this Dominion, in the different cities and towns from St. John to Toronto, and one witness stated that he had at Toronto met American salt herrings coming over the border, and competing with liim iu tlie market. And our herrings are also shipped to Sweden and elsevbere. Therefore, the remark of Mr. Foster, though true in fact, really bas uo bearing on the case. How was this evidence sought to be met f It was sought to met by Eiiphalet French, who is a merchcnt living at Eastpurt, a man who, if £ recollect aright, hage 41 of bis speech, in which he says, " You must look at this case as loawoild at a mere business matter, pencil in hand, and figure up how 1846 ▲WABD OF THE FISUERY COMMISSION. much to charge against the Glonoeflter flshermen." This Is the error the fallacy that underlies the whole Amerioau defense to our Caf«-.thit the question to be decided is one between Great Britain and Gloucester fishermen. It is no such thing. It is a question between the Uuit«(l States and Great Britain, and not whether these fishermen have been injured or the reverse. The question is, whether the United Statei have got a greater benefit by the advantages which hnvo been giveu them under the treaty than we have by the advantages given to us, What is the effect of free fish going into the United States? is not the eft'ect that the consumer gets it cheaperf and the cuusiinicrs are iu- habitants of the United States. It is alleged tliat the biiRinesH is goinj i to be broken down. When that happens it is time enough to talk I about it. It is said that the fresh-fish business Is going to entirely de- stroy the trade in salt fish, for fresh fish can be packed in ice and sent over the Dominion, aud as far as Chicago and Saint Lonis. I do not doubt but that that may be done to some extent, but it will bo very ex- pensive. I doubt whether fresh fi.sh can be carried h8 cheaply as salt fish ; it must be very expensive to carry it in the refrigerator ears; and l fresh fish of that description can only bo purchased by lar^e hotels aud ))eople who have plenty of money ; but the ordinary con.siuner m\mi \ afford to eat fresh fisli, which is much more costly than Halt M\. The | trade in fresh fish must be coiitint'd to the line of railroatKs; It cannot be taken by carts into the country, while barrels of salt tish could b« j rolled off at any station. Therefore this |K)int is entirely out of the j argument. But the principle laid down is entirely incorrect. The question is, what benefit is the treaty to the whole United Statesf I will show you by figures which cannot {>ossibly be mi ^taken that pre^ vious to the Beciprocity Treaty the priceof mackerel iu he United States was at a pretty large figure. The moment the liecipr jcity Treaty tlirev open the American market and there was a large inJux of ourtisMbe prices fell. That state of things continued from 18r)4 to \iHW. In 1866, when, by the action of the United States Govfernment, the Reciprocity Treaty became a dead letter, the same state of things that existed before the treaty again existed. Fish which during those years, had been cbeap I to the consumer, rose iu price. I will show that the mon\ent the Treatyof I 1871, the Washington Treaty, under which this Commission i.snowsi^i ting, was passed and went into operation the same result again followed.! The prices of mackerel and other fish, which had been high, fell. WbatI is the argument which necessarily fiows from that f It is that tbe con- sumer thereby gets his fish a great deal cheaper; there can be no doubt! about that. But there is another view which must be taken. If it be! true, as has been contended in evidence, that Gloucester uiercliantsj could not carry on their fishing operations without having access tooarj shores, and I think it is clear and conclusive that they cannot carry onl the mackerel fishery in the bay, for instance, without going within the! three-mile limit, there is an end to the question. They cannot carryonj a large business in their own waters without the .assistance of oiirlish- cries ; they cannot carry on the fishery in the bay — the great niass of j the testimony shows that — unless they get access to the shore Hue. Tol concede, for the sake of argument, that large schools of niackerelarej to be found in the body of the Bay of St. Lawrence, and sometimes taken! by seine and sometimes by hook and line ; those schools, in order to bej available to the fishermen, must be followcU by them, and if they uDderl take to follow tbe schools they must make up their minds to go withiQl three miles of the shores or lose the fish. The whole evidence shows thatT and that the fishermen came into the inshore waters even when thecatH AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1847 ten were there and ran the risk of seizure ; and that was to them a jjettdfol oocurrenoe— the forfeiture of the vessel. Tliey Icnevr the dan> Mt, and yet they ran the rislc. Tbese men knew their business, and ^Id not incur the risk to their property without obtaining a return. \nd wliat WH8 the reason t Thuy could not do without the insliore il»berie8, nnd ntther than go home without a catch, they ran the risk of {leiznre- It is said, on buhiilf of tlin United States, that durinj]; the last few y^fii, uotwitlistandiuK the Amuricaa tishermen have been free to go into any portions of the buy, tliuy cuiild not make catches. Let nie dispose of that at once. If it l>e true that the Americans have gone iototbe bay since the treaty went into operation, and failed to get large citcheii, it has resulted from the ruinous system of purse seining, a sys* ten which has destroyed tlio fisheries on their own coast, and will do so ererywhero else. The ett'uct, as has been graphically described by a I oamber of witnosfles, has been such that all the lisli which can be I {atbered in the net, which is swept round for a mile or more, are taken intbat treaiendous seine^ — thousands of barrels at a time; they can onlytalie out so many at a time, in the interval a large portion die and ue aniit for foml. It is a most disastrous mode of carrying on any flsh- nr, and tmist be ruinous ; and I hoite, for the sake of the United States tkema'lves, and the fishermen who curry on the fisheries, that the day I come, »ii(l will soon come, when the destructive purse-seine fishing i liii be prohibited. Tbere is one requisite, without which purse seining in our own waters I mn utter fuilure — there must be deep water, or if there is not very deep water, tliere must be a smooth bottom. In the gulf there is not very deep water, and the bottom is exceedingly rough. Because some among Amorican fishermen got exceptionally large catches with purse- seines oS the United States shores, they persist in using purse-seines in the gulf. What is the result ? The fishermen do not dare to approach the shores for the purpose of using the seines. They would be quite Dseless near the shores, and are nearly so in the body of the bay. VVhat istbe result ? They come back without catches, and then undertake to say there is no fish in the Bay St. Lawrence. The truth is they go with appliances utterly unfit to take the fish there. That is the truth about the matter. I say it is the purse-seining that makes the whole difli- enlty; and if they had stuck to hook and lino they would have had all these years buck as good fishing in the bay as they could get any- I There. But, under all the circumstances, can they get on without the right to ItQter the shore fisheries f The mumeiit tliey get into tlie shore fisheries they get full fares. There is no coufiict of testimony upon that point. jAnd for this reason. We have shown by a mass of testimony that Ithereare no large catches to be made without the right to go inshore. What is the evidence brought to contradict that ? It is evidence given by men who have not caught any fish inshore. Very few have under- taken to say that they have gone inshore and failed. The wliole testi- mony has shown that the American fishermen cannot get along without I the inshore fisheries. In estimating the value, if it be true that their own codfishery cannot becarried on without our bait; if it be true they cannot supply their pvDmarlcet with mackerel from the American shores without getting a wpply from the Gulf of St. Lawrence ; and that they cannot get mack- erel in the gulf without going inshore, we make out our case, do we 1848 AWARD OF THE FISHKRY COMMISSION. not f It is not a question as to wbnt eacb flsherninn sailin;; out of Gloucester is to be charged. The questiou is this, wlictUer the I'uited States must not pay for the privilege tbat enables GloiHteHtor to mam tain its present state of prosperity. Every nation h\M Haiti, ovci-y natiuu has considered, that the fisheries form the nursery of her Moot. It is ,i business which has been nurtured by large bounties by the United Statel and other countries. The class of flshermen is a favored, pi ivilepii class. This is the most ancient calling in the world. And cau iFbt' said it is nothing to the United States to keep up that class * U jr nothing that they have there the nucleus, oat of which their uaval force must l^ kept up f The United States cannot get on without bcr Navy; she must have a great Navy. It is not sufUcient tbat she should be a great power on land ; she intends to be, and I hope always will be, an important and great power on the sea. And how can she be a formida ble naval power in the world, unless she has some means of uurturiuf! her marine ; and how is that to be nurtured, except through the flsfan ies t It is one of the most important schools she can possibly hare. I shall have to call your attention to speeches on this point in which it is shown to be one of the benefits accruing to the United States. I there fore say, that when Mr. Foster laid down the extraordinary rule tbat your honors must approach the consideration of the question of value as a common matter of business, with pencil in hand, be took a mmn and erroneous view of the matter, for there is the fallacy underlvino; their whole case, that it is a question between the fishermen of Glouceiiter and Great Britain, when it is nothing of the kind. Upon the question of the value of the two fisheries, alluded to by Mr, Foster, tables were pat in by Miyor Low to which I wish to call your honor's attention. In Major Low's evidence, page 402, he gives two stateiueutj of Mr. Steele's transactions, showing the average of monthly eamiDgi) of Mr. Steele's fleet each year, from 1858 to 1876, in eacb department Id which they were employed, after paying stock charges and so forth, k 1858, the number of vessels was 8. I am reading now from an analysij of Major Low's tables, made up very carefully by Mr. Miall, of Ottawa, a very able man in statistics, who has given me a great deal of assist ance in this matter, and who is very accurate in his figures. Mr. Foster. Let Mr. Miall be put on the stand as a witness. Mr. Thomson. All you have to do is to refer to Major Low's evidence. I want to call your honors' attention particularly to this, because a large j portion of the evidence submitted by the United States was for the I purpose of showing that the cod fishery was an important business, a the mackerel fishery was not. This is the sum total of Major Low's own I figures, as put in for the years from 1858 and 1876, the average earnings of each vessel in the cod-fishing business per month was $393, while the j average earnings of each vessel per month in the bay mackerel busi ness was $442, and on the American shore only $326. These are Mr. j Low's own figures, and the results which they prove. Here is the state | ment: M$t onlitkalf II nuk ffr/rum i/wl ekargt* m \'t»r. Diiriui KfCiproclljr Irf»7 : KM leSD im I«lil \m ie«3 1864 1««5 PutlDf dutioblt pfhod: ]m IM7 im \m , ltrvnlDgHper| mootliperveiiMl. Mr. FosTBB. have an 0i)pQrt is (lone. Mr. Thomso] quoting from a Mr. Foster. hand, and we a been prepared, from which the Mr. Thomso] them. 3Ir. Foster. entitled to repl thing prepared did not see fit t it and reply to Mr. Thomso? denee you will •Major Low's fig an average of ^ Tbat is what th know nor care. earnings perm »bile in the ba AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1849 i„u,i$of ilatemtnt of Mti$r$, Slult't lrnn$aclioHi, pul in rriilmte hif Major l.oie,a wiU Mionithuljfof the I'niint Slatrt, nhowing thr monOtlfi ntrninu* »/ Slr**r». Slrtle'i 0ttl, „(k tnr Jfruin l>5i 410 4lM S45 4ti4 381 41A 489 4A6 43U 360 48 monthii. Arenge ! 9 1-10 TintnfagedaDuu- illy Time fDgngtd |i«r I reuel I 5inoutbi. YHwInnrningitpcr i Dogthp«rTeiiHl..| I 9393 MoDlht. 33 49 Day*. 99 13 IH 3 lA 7 99 9 9 13 lA 3 •318 9411 973 909 fi59 HIM 736 A17 464 3U1 399 Montbi. Dayi. PoglOK. 99 14 90 97 7 A 9 1 94 14 97 94 ♦497 9:i9 1!K) 9U9 34 43 .14 17 18 130 19 * 7 18 9 13 496 91)0 5 13 S e 95 lA 91 513 483 SM) S4H 931 909 11 9 17 91 moni 9 montl $449... ha, 3 da; M, 10 d«) 1 't 3 monlbi, 3 dayt 10 l-5dayi. $390. , Mr. Foster. I understand tbat this paper will be put in, that we will have an opportunity of examining it, and of replying to it, if justice is done. Mr. Thomson. We will have no mistake about tbat matter. I am quotinj; from a paper wbat tbe result of Major Low^s evidence is. Mr. Foster. Here is a table of statistics pre.sented and held in tbe band, and we are told with what care and by what skillful bands it has been prepared, and yet they do not propose to give even the details from vhich the result is made up. Mr. Thomson. £ will hand over the figures, and you can look at them. Mr. Foster. I say we are entitled to have it to examine, and we are entitled to reply to it. If tbe learned counsel is allowed to read any- tiling prepared by Mr. IMiall, whom be has bad at work all summer and (lid not see fit to call as a witness, we certainly are entitled to examine it and reply to it. Mr. Thomson. If you will look at page 402 A of tbe A merican Evi- denceyou will find tbe table. You will find by tbat, which contains Major Low's figures, tbat, from 1858 to 1876, Mr. Steele's vessels made an average of $393 per month during the time they were cod-fishing. That is wbat the statement shows ; whether it is true or false, I neither liuov nor care. These figures also show that, in American waters, the earnings per month per vessel while mackerel-fishing were only $336, vhile in the bay mackerel-fishery the vessels made per month, during 1860 AWARD or Tn£ FI8IIKRY COMMISSION. tlio sniiimor N^iwon, nti AvornRe of 1442. Tliat table wnn put in for ^),q puriMMO of Mhuwliiir tli« oomimmtive vnliieM of tlio Mwoml llNlu^riflR^tho (HNl>llth«ry by ttn^f, tliM mM«k»rol>t\Nliory on Mio AinurioHii Nlion*, moi l\w iiiMckoix^l ltNh««ry in tlio Imy ; nnil Mim nwult in JnMt wliiu. I Ntiit«. Sir Ai.KXANDKit iikh'V. Tlio NtnltMiuuit, I Ihinit, niUNt lio nmdo iih piirt oi' your lU'KnnK^nt. Mr. TiloMMON. Thoro in no inUuilion to otVor llio Ntiit«iiHvj <1<«nc(«— il In iirKonuMit ; but I tliinit it woultl lio v«u'y uiil'itir if I did |,„t point out \\\wiv (hu roHull NtaUMi >vum ti» l»u found. Hiindy, it Ih «ot to your iiHNortion iin lo tliut itiiiiKtlin IVHUlt. Sir Al.KXANDlCU (lALT. It Im HOW, I Juiljio, tlio biiNiiioNN of tlio Com iniNHion tt) my >vlu«thor tlio ovidoncv Ihmiih liiiH piiMNod tor roooiviiiK ovidonco. Mr. KoHTKii. I asHOiit to tiiut, with a right of ninkiiiK an oxphuiation. it in \\\hI what wo ^avo notioo woiiM happon, if, atlor all our arguniontH woro niado, tho otlior nIiIo wcroiil IowihI to roply, and Homolinion in dorinion, and NoinotiiiioH Hportiv(>ly, tho plira»o that foil from mo, that I buliovvd ma^kod bat toricH would Im oponod, ha8 boon ropoatod during tho invoNtiKation. It Ih jiiHt wimt 1 meant by the phrnNo: it i» bringiiiK out at tho oiid MomotliiiiK tliiiiio- nuiiVH oxphuiation, nn«t thon trying to out otV tho opportunity of g\mg that explanation. 1 novor know that attompt to Hiicoood in a court ot iU8tico, and I do not moan that it Mhall Hiiooood horo til' wo liavodoiio our ntmoHt to prt^vont it. So, thon, tho loarnod ooiiiinoI piitH la t\im 8tAtomoiit.s . on page l^S{\ given on .*>th October, more than a month ago. At tlic l>otton) of that page you will tlnd his oross examination by Afr. i)avic8, as follows : t^. l>iviili»(r tlto niunltpr of tlii* vo!»,s»»U into liu> rosnU*, wtmt will it Iciivo you '—A. JiWX Q, S«» Mill (Af arrrimt ivWc/i ftrr tfiiini^ i>/' ihr I'mxrln rmploynl in the Aiiirrirnii ulion fishirii from lf*r>f*(i» l>'""l>.'» (twoMNlrv/ ih m/iir to ^iVi'A, irhilr thr arrnigr ratch prr miiiilh »/ Ihr rnsih tutoftd in the (luZ/'i/M. Lairrfmr^tishtrti rriiliint fHilH f— A. Yos, (J|. Ami llip ttvornirt' vhIuo of tlii< oiiti'h of llio vosmsls oiijjajiiul in tho (jiilf fisliiiii? for tin san»i> mriod of tinw w»,s $;U>,"« 1 — A. Yos. Now, how oan my learned friend say that wo ar«> spriiiginij any new matter upon thiMu. Hero is their own toHtiiiuiiy, given by tlm mm of 8ti\stistics from llloncester, tho great man who came here litenilly shielded by Steele. It is the most extr.iordinary thing I ever lioiiid iu luy life. Now, I want to follow this matter up a little. Tlioso statistics were put ID for the purpose of proving two results, viz, that the mackerel catch on the Unitetl States shores was a Hrst-rato one, and the oatch ia the bay was a very bail one ; but it happens that, by their own showing, ▲WARD or TUB PISMKRY COMMISSION. 1861 they pn)ve,|iiMt) tlio contrary. I repent what I Mnid yoHterUay, that Mr. Duviea oii|>tiir«d ihnt gontUMiiAii taurMlty by hiNowu mutnumu We will now turn to uiiother portiou of IiIn tentlinoiiy. 1 oiill your honora' Attoiition to ii NtnUMiioiit put in by Miijor how, nt piixo tiW of hia ovidentw. He in ni«k(Ml by Mr. Dniui, nn follows : Q, llftvti .yiiii 'AVitr miwtn up miy NUtUll(t)i rnktlvn tn ihn Hli>irnKnr\nn, iihowlti|r Ihr illtrfrviiio iHwMii till AiMorluAii'iilioni llMlinrjr miil thn (liiir»r Hi, lrdin^ to tlio ovidoncn, whn tho worMt year of till) HNhcry in tliu gult^ »imI 1875 hiippoiiod to l)o tlio buHt your the Aincricun llHhtM-inuti liuvu hnd on thoir own oodHt, nnd put tho Htate- inciit bciforo tliiN ('oniniiHHion iih » fair avornKo of tho roHiilt of tlin two tisbcricH. Now, tills man wuh undi^r oatli, and thin ntnteuMMit waH put in, amlif 1 can hIiow you from IiIh timtimony that ho aft<;rwardii iiad to ad- mit it witH not a fair way of Hubinitting tli« nuittor, and the avera^o wax totally (liifflnint, I Hay I am juNtilhMl in charaeteri/.inK thiH pi«''.«M>f C/Oii- dnctoii tlio part of Alajor Low am a groHit attempt to for the purpoHo of a report, an town rJerk of (HoiiceHter, loii^ l>efore the treaty wm made, and wholly without referenc^t to it. In 1875 he made anotliflr, for the purpoHo of the Centennial, both of them wholly aside from tlio purpoHO of thiH inveHtiKation. Now, in neekiii^ for li^ht, we sought from him only the HtatinticH he had made. Ah to 1875 beitif^ the liestyoaron our coaHt, that in a very ji^reat mi^fake. If you will turn to Tabic H, Appendix O, wliieh hIiowh the number of barrels of mack- erel packed and inHpe the con- tents of Appendix O, I think Mr. Foster is very 'nld t. refer to it Mr Foster. It shows that the catch in 187"^ v;veh that of liay St. Lawrence, was a very small one. Mr. Thomson. Let us see what Major Low says about this table at page 389. Mr. Foster. It is given at page 350. Four questions and answers 1852 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. contain an explanation of how they were made up, only you do not happen to read them. Just read them. Mr. Thomson. This question is put to Major Low by Mr. Dana. Q. In order that the CoinmisBion may understand whether these Gloucester merchants when makinr these statements here, are guessing at what they say, or have iil)solute data tri So upon, and know what they are about, you have, at our request, made an examination oi le books of one of the firms f — A. I have examined the books of the most siicvesslul lirni engaged in the bay mackerel fishery . Q. That is the firm of Mr. Steele ? — A. Yes. I did this of my own accord, because I wanted the Commission to see how these books are kept. Q. Will you produce these books? — A. I have the trip-book, which I have numbered one for the years since 1858 and l&iii; their previous books were burned in the ^reatfireat Oloucester in ld(i4. I have the trip-books for the years extending from 185^ to ISTti inclusive 19 years. Mr. Foster. Go back to what you were upon. Mr. Thomson. It is as follows : Q. Yon do not, I suppose, include in this statement any but vessels ; it has nothing to do with boat-fishing? — A. No. Q. Will you state from what source you have made up these statistics T — A. The informa- tion concerning the vessels which fished in the gulf, and those which fished oft' our shore, I obtained and tabulated for the information of Gloucester, when 1 was town clerk, in 1869, and the report for 1875 was procured for centennial purposes — not by myself, but hj 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 T — A. Yes ; I believe that is the case. Q. From what sources were those for 1875, for instance, taken ? — A. The catch was taken from the reports of the number of firms I mentioned. Q. To how many firms do you refer ? — A. These include the most successful firms, George Steele, &c. Q. Those are firms that had been the most successful, whether on our shore or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which are to be considered the most successful firms in Gloucester f— A. George Steele, Leighton &, Co., Dennis & Ayer, and Smith &, Gott. Q. These are generally considered to be the most successful firms ? — A. Yes. Q. Were they all included in this return f— A. Yes. Q. The tonnage of the vessels was somewhat larger in 1875 than it was in 18G9 ?— A. I think not. I think it was absut the same. What does that amount to ? That he made up the statement for 18G9 for the Gentennial, and the other for some other purpose ; but be brings them both for the purpose, as I charge upon him, of deceiving this Com- mission. Mr. Trescot. He tells you what they are. Mr. Thomson. I say again that when a witness puts in evidence state ments such as these — because there was no object in showing what the catches were 1860 and 1875, unless it was intended as a fair specimen of the average years — and has the information in his own breast by which directly opposite results would be shown — a witness who comes here and makes such a statement does so deliberately to deceive tbe Com- mission. Your honors will recollect that nothing but the trip-books were pro- duced ; though we gave notice to produce the other books they did uot do so. Look at page 385 and see what Major Low says on this subject, and then say whether he is a gentleman whose testimony can be de pended on. At page 385, towards the bottom, there is the following: Q. In the first place, is George Steele a charterer of vessels ?— A. No. Q. Then this statement, which assumes to relate to George Steele's business, as his name is mentioned as the charterer of the vessel, does not represent an existing state of facts, but is merely a theory which you put forth f— A. I supposed I had mentioned on the account that it was an estimate. At pages 368 and 369 of Major Low's evidence, a statement is banded in entitled " Number of vessels engaged during 17 years, from 1853 to 1876 inclusive, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery, excepting AWARD OF THE FI8HEBT COMMISSION. 1853 tbe years 1870 and 1871, when none were sent, by George Steele, ot Gloucester, 107; average time employed yearly 4 months 13 days; average uumber of hands employed yearly for 17 years 15." In regard to that, I desire to call attention to the evidence on page 385, yonr honors bearing in mind the fact that Mr. Dana pnt to Major Low the question that he bad examined the books for the purpose of giving a statement Tbicb could not lie— no guess-work, but absolute verity, so far as the I)ook8 were concerned. 5lr. Davies on cross-examination elicited the^fol- loving : Q, The owner would suiFer no loss thongh the chnrterer would. It seems singular, docit it uott You say this is where a man charters a vessel T — A. Yes. Q. In the first place, is Georj^e Steele a charterer of vessels T — A. No. Q, Then this statement, which assumes to relate to QeoTge Steele's business, as his name is mentioned as the charterer of the vessel, does not represent an existins^ state of facts, but is merely a theory which you put forth f — A. I supposed I had mentioned on the account tbat it was an estimate. Q. That is the real fact, is it notf— A. Yes. The real fact is that I made a mere estimate in this regard. "Sov, that is a most extraordinary statement. Mr. Foster. In what regard f Mr. Thomson. In regard to this, that Mr. Dana put forward Major Low as a man who hatl examined the books of Gloucester merchants for the purpose of getting an absolutely correct statement, and no guess- \rork, yet we find him coming forward with a deliberate piece of guess- work. Mr. Foster. He made a statement from the books, and then made a sopposititious hypothetical case of one voyage to show what the result would have been. Mr. Thomson. At page 386, your honors still bearing in mind that this was to be no imaginary matter, but absolutely made up from the books, a number of questions are put by Mr. Davies : Q. How did you get these 13 or 14 trips 1 — A. I saw the trip-books. I asked Mr. Steel for ptrmission to show them to the Commission. Q. You then had the opportunity of examining his books f — A. Yes, as to his trip-books, bat not as to bis ledger. Q. Did you ask for his ledger f — A. I did not. (]. I suppose if yuu had done so you would have obtained access to it ?— A. Probably I should. Q, Therefore yon do not know what his books show as to actual profit and loss sustained by him during this period Y— A. I do not. Q. And the actual state of facts may be at variance with the theory you advance t — A. I hardly think so. Q. Sapposing that George Steele stands in the position you assume in this statement, he would be bankrupt bevond all redemption f — A. Yes. Q. You have proved him from theory to be bankrupt beyond all redemption when, in fact, he is ft capitalist worth $45,000, which exhibits the difference between the practical state- ment and the theory f — A. Yes, but he had capital when he went into the business. Q. Do you state that he brought it in with him F — A. One-half of it was made in the sail- making business. Q. Where was the other half made f — A. Tn the fishing-business, during 19 years, but that is only $1,000 a year, and he oui;ht to make that. Q. The actual loss on each vessel, for 107 vessels, you place at $l67T-rA. Yes. Q. Will you make that up and tell me for how much he ought to be a defaulter t — A. His loss would be $17,869. Q. And that is not consistent with the facts ; he is not a defaulter to that amount t — A. He hu made it up in other parts of his business, but as far as his vessels are concerned, ho has probably lost that sum. Q. You did not get access to his profit and loss ledger ? — A. No. Q. That would snow exactly how it is, and this is an imaginary conclusion ?— A. Yes ; I could not make it up without the actual bills of expenses for his vessels. I thought it was slteady understood that this waa imaginary. Now, this is the testimony that is given in answer to Mr. Dana^s- request that the statement should be perfectly true. 1854 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Wednesday, November 21, I877. The Conference met. Mr. Thomson continued his closing argument in support of the case of Her Britannic Majesty. Your Excellency and Your Honors : When we adjourned yes- terday I was referring, £ think, to a statement produced by the Ameri- can witness. Low, the figures of which were prepared to show the re- spective values of the fisheries on the American shore and in the Bay St. Lawrence for a period of years, from 1858 down to 1876 inclusive It appeared, however, on cross-examination that the earnings of the vessels engaged in cod-fishing averaged each $393 per month after payin^ ofif the crews and liquidating the " stock charges f the vessels mackerel fishing on the American shore made $326 per month ; while those macic erel-flshing in Bay St. Lawrence averaged each $442 per month. These figures, as determining the relative values of these fishiug-grounds to which I will hereafter call your attention, are, I conceive, conclusive, While Low was on the stand he put in statements from the books oi' George Steele and Sinclair and Low. The statement of Steele, which is to be found on page 402 of American evidence, shows when the tigares are examined that the bay-catch from 1858 to 1876 was 33,045 barrels. of the value of $403,832. It shows that the catch extending over the same period of time on the American shore was but 5,395 barrels, of the value of $43,101. The average price of the bay-catch per barrel was $V^f and of the shore-catch $7.99. Now that, your honors will see, is important, for it comes from Major Low, who came here for the purpose of proving directly the opposite. He came here to sustain the extraor dinary view that was presented in the American Answer and by Amer- ican witnesses, namely, that the fish caught on the American shore were more valuable than the fish caught in Bay St. Lawrence. Uufortuu ately the figures by which it was attempted to prove that, proved di rectly the reverse. Your honors have only to take up the American evidence at page 402, and take the statement A, to find the result. Tbe statement of Sinclair and Low, which is found at pages 380 and 381, shows that in the years 1860, 1861, and 1862 the bay catch was 3,6^5 barrels, bringing $23,059, or an average of $6.32 per barrel, whilst tbe catch on the American shore was 1,024 barrels, bringing $5,532, or an av «rage of $5.42 per barrel. Sylvanus Smith, an American witness, when on the stand, produced a statement, or his evidence will establish, that from 1868 to 1876 his bay-catch was 10,995 barrels, realising $111,703, averaging $10.16 per barrel ; whilst the United States shore catch was 19,387 barrels, bringing $176,998, or $9 per barrel, $1.16 less per barrel than the bay-catch. Procter's statement shows that his bay-catch from 1857 to 1876, for 19 years, was 30,499 barrels, realizing $345,964, or an average of $11.57 per barrel. Procter gives no American shore-catch. I suppose he had good reason for not doing so. I presume that the figures would not have compared favorably. It is remarkable that the statement of Sylvanus Smith (which is to be found at page 330 United States evidence) is taken for tbe period ftom 1868 to 1876, when the American fisheries were said to be at their best, I think. But be that as it may, he shows — although he came here for a different purpose — that his bay-catch was 10,995 barrels, realizing $111,703, or an average of $10.16 per barrel ; whilst his catch on tbe American shore was 19,387 barrels, realizing $176,998, or an average of $9 per barrel. Now these statements are put in by Mr. Low, with the exception of those of Sylvanus Smith and Procter, who, though brought here for another purpose, was obliged in cross-examination by Mr. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1855 Pavies to admit the facts which I* have shown. It is significant also tbat Low was put forward by Mr. Dana as a gentleman who woald put jo statements direct from books in order to insure accuracy, and Mr. Daoa himself takes this view in his speech, for be says, after comment- ine somewhat severely on the British evidence, " Now, let ns turn to eridence tbat can be relied on" — the evidence of books. Yet Low, though he bad full access to the books, did not care to take the whole of the oontents, such as they were, but he chose only to take certain figures and bold back those on the other side of the account in favor of the gulftisheries; and he is obliged to admit that he made the statement np merely as an estimate. This is significant, because at first it was put forward that all these were accurate statements. Why the man vrho came here professedly to give the contents of the books of the Gloacester merchants engaged in the fishing business should give an estimate instead of the actual facts passes my comprehension. Mr. Foster. You are entirely incorrect ; the statement he came here with was an estimate. He made an estimate for one voyage, after patting in the result of tbe analysis of the trip-books, and after the whole trip-books were before you. Mr. TnoMSON. I say that the trip-book only shows certain expenses connected with a particular voyage ; not the whole expenses of the ves- sel. There was no record therein as to what was paid for provisions, for coal, and a number of articles. And while I am on that subject I may mention that hard coal was charged in one of tbe accounts — I for- get which, but your honors will recollect — at tbe rate, I think, of $10 a ton. It struck me as an exceedingly high price, when it can be bought Id St. John for $5.50 and perhaps less. It struck me as very odd. Jlr. Foster. It depends on the year. Mr. Thomson. Well, this year. Cord wood — for what purpose it is re- qaired I do not know — is entered at $8 or $10 a cord, while Mr. Patillo said in cross-examination tbat he had bought it at $2.75 per cord. These are all little straws on the current showing which way it is running. Mr. Foster. He never said that in the United States he could buy it at tbat price. Mr. Thomson. He got it at Canso. He said the American fishermen all got their wood at Canso ; and I then asked him how much they paid for it. It is wholly absurd to suppose that shrewd American fishermen would buy their wood in tbe United States and pay a high price, when tbey could get it at Canso, which was directly on tbeir route, at $2.75 a cord. Mr. Foster. He has been out of the business since tbe end of the Tar, and Steele's books are for later years. Mr. Thomson. I apprehend that Steele's trip books do not show what was paid for wood, and the other books have not been produced. It is true the extraordinary offer was made to us tbat we should go down and examine all tbe books of the Gloucester merchants. I greatly doubt wlietber the learned Agent of tbe United States could have borne me oat if I had gone into one of the Gloucester houses and asked to see their books. 3Ir. Foster. You had better come and see. Mr. Thomson. And besides, judging from the two sets of affidavits which have been filed, both professing to come from one set of books, it appears as if these were difterent sets of entries in the same books relating to tbe same subject, or that they were taken from different Mr. Dana. Do you mean that the offer was not made in good faith f 1856 AWARD OF THE FI8HEBY COMMISSION. Mr. Thomson. I do not meaa to say the offer was not made in good faith. It was also rejected in koo<1 faith. We knew exactly where we were. I apprehend that the agent and connsel of the Uaited States con^d have no possible authority to enable us to go into the stores of Gloucester merchants and search their books. I think that like Pattillo they would have asked for our authority. Mr. Dana. It is very well to make sport out of it, but you are calling in question the honor of persons. Mr. Thomson. If Mr. Dana thinks I am calling in question the honor of counsel, I must say 1 am doing nothing of the kind. I would be very sorry to be misunderstood. We have got along so far very pleas- antly at this Commission, and I hope we will do so to the end. I state most distinctly on my honor that I have not the slightest idea of charg- ing any dishonorable motive on the part of the United States coansei • but I mean to say, that, though the offer was made in good faith, it was rejected in good faith, and for the reason which I have stated. These are the last observations I have to make in regard to Low. Be certainly was a most prei)osterous failure, coming here as he did, paraded as a man of figures and statistics, having the title of major in the army, and having filled the office of postmaster, and I don't know how maoy more offices. He was brought here to destroy our case, and by his an- swers on cross-examination he really benefited it as much as a witness could possibly do. I thf.uk that the only parallel case to that of Low- anditmay be a parallel case — occurred some thousandsof years ago on the hills of Moab. I can imagine Mr. Collector Babson, who appeared to have charge of a great number of witnesses, and marshalled them m and out, saying to Low, after he had given his evidence, in the same language as was used by the King of Moab to the Prophet Balaam, '" agai'M ^^^J could get uo fish beyoud the threoniile Mr. Campbell stated that two thirds of the fiah taken by the fishing- vessels i" the Bay of Chaleur are taken within the three-mile limits. The American fieet, he said, caught mackerel from two to two and a half mites from the coast. There was not much fishing doing outside three Mr. Poirier stated that he could safely say, from an experience of forty rearsi that he had never caught mackerel more than two miles from the Mr. Sinnett, of Gaspt'*, stated that he had seen American skippers fish two miles from the shore, and inside a mile for mackerel. Ue had never seen them further than that ; they generally iished, said he, in by the shore. Codfish^ said he, is caught in his neighborhood at from one and a half to two miles from the shore. Mr. Grenier stated that he had seen some fishing for mackerel beyond three mile9, bnt the majority fished within the limit. More than two- thirds of the whole catuh of Americans is taken inside three miles. Tr—^ Mr. MacLeod stated that American fishing-vessels fished mostly fithin three miles, in the Bay of Chaleur. He himself had taken fish offMiscou and Shippegan within half a mile of the shore. Mr. A. McKenzie stated that the American fleet took two thirds of their catch inshore, but he added that some skippers got all their catch in kep ira/er, iKrhaps one vessel in ticenty. Mr. Angus Grant spoke of the trips he had made, all inshore or close inshore, from one-half mile to one and one-half miles. Mr. Brown made a statement to the same effect. Mr. MacKay spoke of the catches he had made inshore off Cape Breton, so close that he would sometimes be at anchor among the boats. Gaptaiu Hardinge, R. N., stated that the best fishing was without a donbt within three miles ; there could be no two opinions on that point. From his experience and observation on his fishing station, and from information be had obtained, he stated it as his opinion that the outside for mackerel was of no account whatever. He had never re- I ceived any information to the contrary. Mr. Nicholson stated that with regard to the mackerel he had seen I taken, all the catch was witbin three miles of the shore. Mr. McGuire stated that most of the United States captains with I whom he had conversed said that they caught their mackerel inshore. Mr. Stapleton considered, as a result of his conversations with Ameri- Ican fishermen, that three-fourths of the fish are caught inshore. In 1851 he had fished with fifty American vessels close inshore near Mar- Igaree and around Cheticamp, and all got full fares within a quarter of |a mile of shore. Mr. Baker stated that three-fourths of the mackerel taken by the lAmericans on the Gasp6 coast and in the Bay of C'aaleur was taken |iithin the tbree-mile limit. Mr. Jessop, of Qasp6, had seen the Americans fishing in his district jright along the shore, and within one mile or two miles of the shore. Mr. Coiitoure stated that he had taken cod in an American vessel on tie Cape Breton coast, from one mile to one and a half miles from the Jtiore, and had made good catches ot mackerel off P. E. Island within |two miles of the shore. Mr. William MacDonnel stated that all the fish he had taken at IMar- aree and Cheticamp were within three miles of the shore. 117 F 4 1858 AWARD OF TUB FiSHEBY COMMISSION. Mr. Paquet likewise spoke to large catches talcen inshore. Tlie fl^ said be, taken near Margaree, Cheticamp, Broad Cove, and Limbo Cove' on the Cape Breton shore, are all caught within the limits. About P E. Island, he said, the fish were taken within half a mile and two miles of the shore. On the New Brunswick shore within two and a balf miiei* and three miles of the shore. In the Bay of Chalenr witbin a half mile and two and a half miles of the shore ; but a few might becangbt, be said, in the center of the bay. Along the south side of tbo river St! Lawrence fish were caught about one hundred and tifty yards from shore, Mr. Mclsaao stated that about two-thirds of the entire catcb of macii! crcl was taken inshore. Mr. Tierney spoke of large catches of mackerel taken from within a mile to a mile and a half of the shores of P. E. island. He bad fished for eleven years around the island, and bad taken tbree-tburtbs of bis cateii within that distance. Mr. McPbee that during the whole period of his fishing from 1862 to 1874 three fourths of the fish he bad caught bad been taken witbin three miles. Mr. John McDonald also spoke to the largo quantities of fish {nVm during a period of nearly twenty years, the greater proportion of which were taken inside the three-mile limit. Mr. John B. and Mr. John D. McDonald spoke to a similar experience. Mr. Richardson, who had fished in American vessels from 18r>otol8i4, stated that nine-tenths of the fish he had caught while in them had been taken witbin three miles of the shore. Mr. Clement Mclsaac stated that he bad never caught 100 barrels of | mackerel outside of three miles. Mr. Mclnnis, who had fished in American vessels from 18.j8tol8i3. stated that two-thirds of the catches he had made were made within the three-mile limit. Mr. Benjamin Campion, speaking from an experience of scveu years' fishing, said that two-thirds of the catch bad been taken witbiu the three j miles. Many otiier witnesses testify to the extreme value of the inshore fisheries, | but 1 think I have quoted enough for my purpose. Let us now examine the testimony as the number of United States | vessels frequenting Canadian waters : Mr. Chi virie estimates the number of United States mackereliog vessels i in the gulf annually from 1848 to 1873 at about 400; since 1873 not over 200 or 300. Mr. James B. McLean states that in 1858 the American fleet was 600 or i 700 sail. Has counted 400 anchored under the south shore at East) Point. Mr. John Campion places the number from 1862 to 1866 at from 6 to 700. Mr. Joseph Campbell estimates the number at from 450 to 500 in 18 and 1867, and 400 in 1869, 1870, and 1871. Mr. Poirier stated that he had seen 300 sail come into the waters be-j tween Casoumpeque and Mimnigash ; all fishing very close to shore. Hon. Mr. Howlan, of Cascumpeque, says : " I have seen 340 UnitedJ States vessels annually in my harbor; generally when there is a gale ' wind." Gregoire Grenier states that he has seen more than a hundred sailinj a season, and more than twenty came to an anchor in front of bisplacel Mr. FosTEB. Grenier's evidence all refers to what passed more thaD| seven years ago. AWAUD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1859 Mr. Thomson. Well, even so, the mackerel bave not cbanged their babito. Mr. Foster. I thought that they had. Mr! Thomson. Mr. McLeod says: DiirinK the season of 1852 there were from 4G0 to 470 American vessels in the jTulf— nackerelerS' In 1854 from 200 to 300 American voshuIs were Hshinj; in tlie Bay of Chaleura. Id 1855 from 200 to 300 in that quarter ; probably tiOO in the (;ulf. They told me that thero vere sbout 600 inside of Canso. In 1856 about the usual number. In IB.'i? the same, and gp to IH62 about the same thingp: also in 'ti4, '65, and '66 the same. In 1867 there were from 'M to 400 inside the Bay Chnleurs. I have seen in 1867 250 lyings at anchor in Port DioielBsji and as many more at Paspebiac on the same day, three-fourths Americans. Mr. Philip Vibert, of Perce, Gasp<5 : Of late ycnrs few United States vessels have visited our district for mackerel, but I have («n two hundred or three hundred in sight at one time. Not more than four or five years uo I counted 167 from my house. I have seen 300 iu Bay Chaleurs, and steaming up to QiiebfU ; have seen as many more on the way up. Tlie average number from the Gut oi Canso upwards, I should put at not less than from 3.^i0 to 400, averaging 70 or 75 tons. Skippers come ashore, and are communicative ; in fact, in many instances they are interested jQ otiier vessels, and thoy look after the catch, and can tell pretty well what it is. There is DO ditHculty in arriving at a general estimate of the take of boats. A vessel may come into Georgetown with a broken spar, and the captain state that there ire 75 vessels at the Magdalen Islands; another vessel would report lOO vessels in Bay Chaleurs. That is the only way in which you can get at the number of vessels in the bay. Mr. George Harbour, of Sanily Beach, Gasp6 : 300 is about the average ; has seen as many as 50 at one time in the harbor. In 1872 there were at least 300 sail. Mr. William A. Sinnet, of Griffin's Cove, Gaspe : lias been told by American captains that tbere were 300 ; sometimes as high as 500; did not see all that number at one time, but has counted as many as GO-odd sail at one time at Madeleine River. The testimony of Angus Grant, Port Ilawkesbury, will be found on page 180. He says : From 1^54 to 1856 average between 500 and 600 within the bay ; has seen 400 sail in Port Hood at a time. The number increased from 1856 to 1869, and of larger tonnage. Since ]i&) down, 600 to 700 sail. Quite a large fleet in 1873 ; about 500 in 1874 ; not so many in 1^5; and 1876, perhaps not quite half of that. This year there is quite a large fleet I coming; has seen them coming every day ; lives on Strait of Canso, and can see them I tcrosj ; average number of United States cod-fishing fleet, from 200 to 300 sail. I want to see whether he gives the proportion of the catches made I inshore. Mr. Foster. The bulk of your witnesses did so. Mr. Thomson. Yes, they did do so. Now, let me see what the Amer- licans state iu their own affidavits. My learned friend, Mr. Foster, as- sumes the catch taken inshore, for the purpose of argument, to be one- third, bat I am going to show you that a number of his own affidavits — aidavits which were made by a number of his own men — give this catch a« about onehal/j interested as they were; some of our witnesses placed it at nme-tentA«, and consequently I think that this Commission I may fairly assume that at least three fourths of these catches are taken liushore. I will <,ake affidavit No. 201, contained in Appendix M. Mr. Foster. Read the whole of it. Mr. Thomson. It runs as follows : I, Roderick McDonald, of Low Point, Nova Scotia, do declare and say on oath as follows : IJ™ lining a. Low Point, Inverness County, Nova Scotia ; am over thirty years old ; have I beta fishing for about 12 years, nntil three years ago, when I knocked off, because mackerel |*u scarce in the bay, and it did not pay ; the mackerel-fishing has much fallen off during Ithe last six or seven years ; during these six or seven years the average yearly catch has not 1 over cno-half of what it was eight or ten years ago ; during some seasons they will be / 1860 AWAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. mnch more off shore, at other HeoHonii more inshore ; diirini; hot woHthcr tlify will work more off shore ; the best pluco for ntincknrel I have ever seen is on Uradloy Haiiic, ubaut twenty miloB from North Cupo, Prince Kdwnrd Islund. Sometimes the American's whtn mackerel is plenty will catch about two-thirds of their entire catch outside a line tlir(>e niiet from shore, but strikini;^ an average I think that during a season when mackerel Id p|,,nty Americans will catch about one-half outside and the other half inside a line three inileiiirtiiu ■bore. That is the only part of this affidavit which I iioed read at present. Mr. FoBTEK. lieinember that Mr. McDonald in a Nova Scotiati. Mr. Thomson. So is Pattilo a Nova Scotiaii. Mr. FosTEit. McDonald lives there, and his affidavit was taken down there. Mr. Thomson. No matter where the affidavit is taken ; the affidavit k here among those submitted by the American Qoverntuent, and they must adopt it as they have put it in. Having obtained this Htateinent, if they did not like to put it in, they need not have done so ; but having put it in, they are bound by it. Mr. FosTKB. That is a fair argument. Mr. Thomson. George Critchett, being duly sworn, says : I am living at Middle Milford, Ouysboro, County, Nova Scotia; I am 37 yearn old; from my lath year until 4 years ago I have been out mackerel and codtishing mostly in Ameri- can vessels ; I left off iishing because the roackerel-lishing had been poor for several years and is still ; whenever mackerel get to be plenty again I will be out fishing in visseli*. 1 think that in former years, say from 10 years ago and longer, the average number of the American mackerel fleet was upwards of three liundred during the season ; durinj; the game period about 'M 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. Lawrenre: during the years previous to the last 10 years the average catch of mackerel was two trips lor each vessel ; during the lost 6 or 7 years they they have scarcely averaged one full carifo during the season. I think that mackerel go where they find the best and largest (|uantit.r of feed, and that when the wind is off shore it drives the small fish on which mackerel feeii into deeper water, and the mackerel follow them, and whenever there is a big fleet onshore 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 averaire, I am of the opinion about from half to two-thirds of all mackerel caught by vessels in tbe gulf is caught outside of a line 3 miles from shore. This deponent states that from one-half to two- thirds of tbe catches were made outside, and thus virtually admits that one half were taken inside of the three-mile limit; this is about as favorable as our own tes- timony. We all know that the language which appears in most affida- vits is the language of the man who draws them up ; and this is tme ia nine instances out of ten ; and undoubtedly the most that they coald get out of this man was, that from one-half to two-thirds of tbe trips were made outside of the limit. Mr. Foster. He says that during seven years past tbe vessels have averaged a full cargo during the season. Mr. Thomson. That makes no difference. I only want to see what the catch is. I am not at present discussing any other question. Mr. Foster. He also states that until the present season only two or three vessels seined in the gulf. Mr. Thomson. That is another point ; and I am only touching on one point at the present moment. In affidavit No. 177, Appendix M, George Bunker says : I, George Bunker, do solemnly declare that I am 31 years old ; that I am living at Mar- garet Bay, 24 miles from Plalifax. I have been employed as a fisherman ever since I wai a boy. For ten seasons I have been master of a fishing- vessel, fishing in the waters off tbe j American coasts, and those of Nova Scotia, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Magdalen Islud for cod and mackerel and herring. Codfish is not at all caught by the American fishermeD within three miles from the shore. About half of the mackerel caught by the Americans » j ^caught within three miles from shore. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1861 trne coald t trips have what ytwo onoue ce I wM .joffth« shermeii j srieans ii j Mr. Foster. He states that tbe catob of mackerel bas largely fallen off dorinj? the last five or six years. Mr.TnoMSON. I cannot read all through this affidavit. They are very iDteresting retuling, I dare say, hut they take time. la affidavit No. 103, Appendix M, I find that Philip Kyan says: I, Philip Ryan, do solemnly declare that I am livin(f at Middle Milford. I am 42 years of ti;e. I think I was about Iti years of ago when I first went out iiMhingr in the Uulf of 81. Lawrence in iiihine- vessels. I have niostlv been mackerel-flshiuf?, althoui^h some sen- ^iii I have been cod-nHhint; in the buy. I left off eoing in fishinf^-vessels in 1872. Tho American tishermen don't dry their nets nor cure their fish on our coasts as far as I know. During the last eight or ton years mackerel fi.shinsr has much fallen otf, and during the last two rein, as far as I can hear, mackerel-fishing has almost boon a failure. I'orgies and clams, M far as I know, is universally used in the buy as bait, although a few provincial Ttueii* may occasionally use herring. I'orgies and clams get all from tlie States as far as I 101 aware. I should think that about one-half of all the mackerel caught by vessels is cnugbt outside a !iue Smiles from shore. Now, that is what he says. This, you see, is contained in tho Ameri- can testimony, and I say tlint it is conclusive against the case of the American Government. If they did not like tliese affidavits, they need not have put them in ; but l)eing in, I say that they are conclusive against tbe American Case. Besides, there is another matter which sets this question at rest. When Professor Hind was on the stand, be gave evidence wliich was not only very interesting, but, as I submit, conclu- sive, in view of this conflict of testimony. I have no doubt that it was soto tbe Commission, as certainly it was to us. He pointed out the sci- eutitic reasons wliy tlie ffsb, sucii as the cod, maclcerel, halibut, and other fish of that description which are useful for food, inhabit the Bay of St. Lawrence. He says that these fish must necessarily live in water of tbe temperature of 37 or 40 degrees, or even of a temperature colder tliBD that. He states that the great Arctic current which brings down from tbe north those immense icebergs, that make our climate so exces- sively cold and inhospitable — quite as 'inhospitable" as many of the statutes of which' my learned friends opposite have complained, also brings ^ith these icebergs an antidote to the poison, in the shape of these fish of commerce. He says that this cold stream of water enters theGuIf of St. Lawrence, and the lish with it, and he points out that on tbe American coast there can of necessity be but very little fish of this description. He also points out — and I am not going to take up your time by referring to his evidence in extenso at all — that on three or four points on the American coast this great Arctic current impinges ; that it remains there for a certain period of the year, and in the spring that tbetish go with it, and remain on the shore there until this cold current of water recedes ; but that the great "ocean river," as it is called by Lieatenant Maury, the Gulf Stream, in its summer swing, approaches I very near the American coast in some places, and touching it in other places, separates the surface current from the colder waters beneath, where tbese fish feed, and thus drives them from the American shore to I colder regions. He further pointed out that even in the Gulf of St. Law- i leuce there are many places where these fish do not live ; that zones of water of different temperatures are found there, some warmer and some colder tban others ; and that in the colder zones these fish live, whilst in the wanner zones they are unable to live. Yon will recollect, no doubt, without ray calling your attention par- ticQlarly to the evidence, that a number of witnesses, American and British, testified that every now and then after having tolled the fisU ont from the inshore waters by throwing pogie bait they would suddenly «i8aiH)ear and be lost to them, and this is accounted for at once by Pro- 1862 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. feasor Hind's evidence. The caase is this : that the flsh then suddenly find themselves in » zone of warmer water in which they do not care to live, consequently they at once dive to a (greater depth for tbe puriMse of finding a zone of water more congenial to their habits of life, aud by and by they find their way back to the shore. Another piece of evi- dence which Professor Hind gave struck me as being of f^reat impor- tance in this case. He pointed out one extraordinary phenomenon, which is observable in the great Bay of St. Lawrence. Ho says tliut the titles come in through the Straits of Belle Isle, and are divided by the Mag- dalen Islands into two portions. One portion runs away along the southern coast of Labrador, around the island of Anticosti, hiuI up the northern bank of the river St. Lawrence, while the other portion passes down to Prince Edward Island and into the Strait of North uiubeiiauii. He says that, in consequence of the great distance whicli one portioD of the tide has traversed while the otl^er has traveled a shorter distunoe, the tide coming down from the northern coast meets the ebb title about the middle of the island, aud as a consequence of that there is reaiiy high water always found about the center of the island ; mid for that reason the island presents the peculiar appearance it dues, having bveu hollowed out year after year by the action of these tides. The ett'ectof that phenomenon is — and it is a phenomenon which 1 think Professor Hind stated only occurs in one or two other places in the habitable globe — that the whole of the flsh food is carried inshore. The cold water which is necessary to the existence of these food-fish of coinueroe, such as the mackerel and the cod and the halibut, is carried inshore in the bight of Prince Edward Island ; it is carried inshore along the southern coast of Labrador ; it is carried inshore along tho northcru bank of the Kiver St. Lawrence. All this he points out as being the necessary result of that tide. These lish are thus brought inshore, and they necessarily have to remain inshore in order to get the food which they most desire to feed upon. 1 then put this question to Professor Hind : " If there should be two classes of witnesses here, each of tiiem being a numerous class, ami if one class swears that the catch of mackerel off the Prince fldward Island shore is very slight within the three-mile limit, and the other that this catch is very good within the three mile limit, which would you say, in a scientific point of view, is telling the truth ?" '' Undoubtedly," he replied, " those who swear that a very great portion of the catch is taken there within the three-mile limit, because science says that this must be tho case." So you see that, supposing these witnesses came here and houestlv told what they believed to be the truth, we have science stepping iaaud deciding the question, and moreover deciding the question entirely ia favor of the British case. I shall therefore not trouble your excellency and your honors any further with the evidence upon that point, hut pass to another branch of my argument. I believe that I stated yesterday in the course of my argument, that were we to assume the American accoaut of the inshore catch of mackerel in the gulf to be correct, and fix it at one-third, that even then it would be quite impossible for them to pros- ecute successfully mackerel fishing in the gulf, without having access to the inshore fisheries. The business would not pay. They vonld eventually be compelled to abandon the Gulf of Saint Lawrence alto- { gether, and in thatcase their market would not be supplied with mackerel* j The evidence shows that although an exceptional catch may be made in the bay without going near the shore at all, yet that no man in bis senses would fit out vessels and send them into the bay unless he bad AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1863 tb« privilege of following the acbools of mackerel to tlie shore. There jg a consensus of evidence on that point, I Hubinit. Tbera was a statement made with reference to this fishery by Mr. Foster in his speech in connection with the evidence of George Mackenzie, which I tbink I can convince Mr. Foster was erroneous. No doubt he unwittingly misrepresented Mr. Mackenzie's statement. Mr. Foster. What is it about f Mr. Thomson. You put in his mouth this language; it is quoted in ronrspeecli : " There has not been for seven years a good vessel uinckerul Sshery, and for the last two years it has been growing worse and worse." Xow, lie did not say anything of the kind ; and I want to sliow that ibis is the case. 1 will read you what you said : We have the utatement of one of the Prinre Edward Island witneiifiofl, Qeorge Mnckon/io, ,,g piM 133 uf the British Evidence, who, after describing the H^radual decrease of tlie Aiiior- lonnthery by vessels, says, " There has not been for seven years a p^ood vesHel umci0 barrels, and there were imported into their market from thel^ritish I'rovinces about 01,000 barrels, that makes a total <;atch in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence of 171,000 barrels; that is to say, the catch on the United States coa.st was 130,330 barrels, or 43 per cent., and the catch in tlic (iulf of Saint liawrence 171,000 barrels, or 57 per cent.; this makes a total of 301,330 barrels. Now these very figures themselves are about the very best evidence that can be advanced as to the relative value of these two fisheries. With reference to the value which the United States themselves put on our flslieries, T want to cite .some of their own figures ; and the value which the Americans themselves have set on these Hsheries is very con- clusively shown by admissions of their own public men. Sir Alkxandeii Galt. Teforeyou take up that point, Mr. Thomson, will you be kind enough to tell me what the proportion of the catch you claim as taken inshore, bore to the whole American consumption, 50 percent, you have made it, and 1 think it was 33 per cent. Mr. Thomson. 1 say that if the proportion of the voyages, taken inshore, within the three-mile limit be two thirds, there were taken in British territorial waters about 50 per cent. 8ir Ai.EXANDKii (Jalt. Fifty i)er cent. Mr. Thomson. Yos. 1 will read the proposition again: Now; allow- iu[;as the United States atlidavits aflirm, that one-half of the catch was ti(ken inshore, viz, 40,000 barrels, add importations from Canada, 91, 000 uarrels, which inakeB 131,000 barrels ; and therefore there have been taken in British territorial waters 45 per cent, of the entire consumption of the Unified States. That is what I said. Mr. Foster. That is assuming the whole of your catch to have been tak..i inshore? Mr. Thomson. Yes; and if the portion vouched for as taken frotr? within the three-mile limit be two-thirds, then these figures would make 152,000, or over fifty i)er cent, of that consumption. Mr. Foster. I hope that the Commission will not charge as for the privilege possessed by British fishermen of catching mackerel. Mr. Dana. Some of the British catch is takeu eight miles from land. Mr. Thomson. In order to show the value, as stated by Americans themselves, of these fisheries, I will quote the language of Mr. Secretary 1866 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Seward, which is quoted on page 10 of the British reply to the United States Answer. Mr. Secretary Seward said : Will the Senate please to notice that the principal fisheries in the waters to which these limitations apply are the mackerel and the herrinj; fisheries, and that these are wliat are called " shoal fisheries," that is to say, the best fishing for mackerel and herring is within three miles of the shore. Therefore, by that renunciation, the United States renounced the best mackerel and herring fisheries. Senators, please to notice also, that the privilege of resort to the shore constantly, to cure and dry fish, is very important. Fish can be cured sooner, and the sooner cured the better they are, and the better is the market price This circumstonce has given to the colonies a great advantage in this trade. That stimu- lat,ed their desire to abridge the American fishing as much as possible ; and, indeed, they seek naturally enough to procure our exclusion altogether from the fishing-grounds. Mr. Foster. What year was that ? Mr. Thomson. 1853. Touching the mode in which the Treaty of 1818 as regards large bays, shall be construed, Mr. Secretary Seward said this: While that question is kept up, the American fisheries, which were once in a most pros- perous condition, are comparatively stationary or declining, although supported by lar;re bounties. At the same time, the provincial fisheries are gaining in the quantity of tish ex- ported to this country, and largely gaining in their exportations abroad. Our fishermen want all that our own construction of the convention gives them, and want and must have more— they want and must have the privilege of fishing within the three iu- hibited miles, and of curing fish on the shore. Certainly the circumstances which induced Mr. Secretary Seward to use that language in 1852, have not since changed iu such a manner as to authorize the United States or any of her public men to use differ- ent language today. Senator Hamlin, after describing the magnitude and importance of the American fishery as the greatest fountain of their coininercial pros perity and naval power, declared that if the American fisliermen were kept out of our inshore water, an immense amount of property thus in vested would become useless, and the fishermen would be lett iu waut and beggary, or imprisoned in foreign jails. And in the House of Eepresentatives, Mr. Scudder, of 3Ia.ssacliusetts, referring to this subject, said : These fish are takeu in the waters nearer the coast than the codfish are. A considerable proportion, from one-third to one-half, are taken on the coast and in the buys and gulls of the British Provinces. Now, upon that question, not only as to the value of our fisberies,but also as to the proportion of the catch which is there taken, this seems to be very strong testimony coming from an American statesman. He continues: The inhabitants of the Provinces take many of them in boats and with seines. The boat and seine fishery is the more successful and profitable, and would be pursued by our fisher- men, were it not for the stipulations of the Convention of 1818, betwixt the United Slates and Great Britain, by which it is contended that all the fisheries within three miles of tbe coast, with few unimportant exceptions, are secured to the Provinces alone. Mr. Tuck, of New Hampshire, said : This shore fishery which we have renounced is of great value, and extremely importaut j to American fishermen. * * From the first of September to the close of the season, the mackerel run near the shore, and it is next to impossible for our vessels to obtain fares with- out taking fish within the prohibited limits. The truth is, our fishermen need absolutely, ^ and must have, the thousands of miles of shore fishery which have been renounced, or tbey i must always do an uncertain business. He may well call them thousands of miles, because we have shown by j evidence here that they amount to no Isss than 11,900 square miles. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1867 He further says : If onr mackerel men are prohibited from going within three miles of the shore, and are wrcibly li«P' ^^"^y (^^^ nothing but force will do it), then they may as well give up their buiiness first as last. It will be always uncertain. This is a significant observation. We find through all these speeches allusions made to the trouble which the course that had been adopted ander the provisions of the Treaty of 1818 toward the body of Ameri- can fishermen coming on our shores to fish would continue to bring upon the two countries, and that war was imminent. Why was this 1 Surely, if the fishery on their coast is so valuable, they can stay there, and if the fisheries on our coast are so valueless, they can stay away ! We have not asked them to come into our waters. And it does appear to me that it comes with extremely bad grace from these people to make complaints that harsh measures are used to keep them out of tbem. What right have they at all ? They have renounced all right. Ihey have solemnly, as far back as 1818, renounced any right to enter these waters, and that convention is in full force still, save as tempora- rily affected by the Washington Treaty. We have no right except tem- porarily, under the same treaty, to enter their waters. But, according to the argument of Mr. Dana, we have the right to enter them, because be says that there are no territorial waters belonging to any country. In that sense you cannot be prevented from fishing in any waters, if I mlerstand his proposition correctly; and we therefore have the right to go there and fish. But what do the United States say ? They hold to no such construction of the law of nations. So far from that being the case, their own shore-fisheries cannot be touched by foreign fish- ermen, and even under the treaty, by virtue of which your excellency and your honors are now sitting, our fishermen have only the right tolisbon their shores from the 39th parallel of north latitude north- ward; not one step, not one mile to the southward of that parallel can they go. The strongest possible proclamation of sovereignty which one country can possibly bold out to another is here held out by the United States with regard to their territorial waters to England and to the world; and yet, for the purpose of getting into our waters, we are told that, under the law of nations, American fishermen can come in and demand complete freedom of access to them ; but when it comes to their own waters that doctrine will not do at all. This is the I mhciio ad ahsurdum, with a vengeance ! Who ever heard anything I hkeit! Here is a solemn agreement which has been entered into be- tween two countries, and yet we have complaints — complaint after complaint — regarding the means which our men have exercised in order to keep these people from fishing in our waters, from which they are inhibited by a solemn treaty. Why, it does not seem to me to be fair — not to use any stronger term than that, and using the mildest possible term to characterize it — to adopt this tone. All thisseenis to be most nnfair; and here Mr. Tuck states that nothing but force will keep the American fishermen out of our waters. But there is a strong reason for the employment of this language. What is it ? Why, our fisheries are 1 valuable, while theirs are practically useless ; " and the truth is," j says Mr. Tuck, "our fishermen absolutely must have access to our thou- sands of miles of shore fisheries." He states : Tkey (the American fishermen) want the shore fisheries ; they want the right to erect and I namtain structures on shore to cure codfish as soon as taken, thus saving cost, and making wterlish for market ; and believing their wishes to be easy of accomplishment, they wiU Mt consent to the endurance of former restrictions, the annoyances and trouble which they have Ro long felt. 1868 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. iH i I I Now, this is very extraordinary language for any man to use. The admission is clear, aud also the conclusion which Mr. Tuck draws from it. It is this : they want our inshore fisheries, free from those restrictions the effect of which the United States fishermen have so long felt; and this is simply a declaration made on the part of Americau citizens that a solemn agreement entered into between their country and Great Britain is an agreement which they do not choose to keep. But of course such views cannot be tolerated in any court. Now, let us see what are the views as to the value of or r Jisheries entertained by the persons who live in Boston, the very center of the fish trade. I will call your attention for a few moments fo the first annual report of the Boston Board of Trade, of 1855, and just after the Eeciprocity Treaty had come In force. It was presented at the annual meeting which was held on the 17th January, 1855. I will only read an extract, but the whole book may go in, if necessary, and be considered as read, if you please. This is the same extract which I read when I cross-examined Mr. Wonson : But in connection with the Reciprocity Treaty, it is to the importance of tlie fisheries that your directors wish at this time particularly to call your attention ; seventy pur cent, of the tonnage employed in the whale, cod, and mackerel fisheries in lae United States beloo» to Massachusetts, and Boston is the business center. liy colonial 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-grouiiil. Tlie valuable mackerel fishery is situated between the shore and a line drawn from tlie St. Croii 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 withJD thes« limits following their several indentations are not less than four thousand miles iu extent, all excellent fishing-grounds. Before the mackerel fishery began to be closely watched wi protected, our vessels actually swarmed on the fishing-ground within the spaces iuclosed br 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 iifty-sixTeaseli were sent to the Bay of St. Lawrence in 1%3. Of these, not more than one in ten made the second trip, and even they did not get full fares the first trip, but went a second time in the hope of doing better. The principal persons engaged in the business in Gloucester estimated that the loss in 1853 amounted to an average of one thousand dollars on each vessel, with- out counting that incurred from detention, delays, and damages from being driven out ol the harbor and from waste of time by crews. It was agreed by all parties that if their ves' sels could have had free access to the fishing-grounds as formerly, tne diifercuce to that dis- trict alone would have been at least four hundred thousand dollars. In 1653, there were forty-six vessels belonging to Beverly ; thirteen of thorn went to the bay iu 1852, but, owing to the restrictions, their voyages were wholly unsuccessful, and uone of them went iu 1853. At Salem, only two mackerel licenses were granted in 1853, and at Marbleliead onlj sii. At Newburyport there are ninety fishing-vossels ; seventy of these went to the bay for mackerel in 1853, but almost all of them, it is said, made ruinous voyages. At Bastouonlv « dozen licenses were grauted for this fishery in 1853, and very few of the one hundred ves- sels belonging to the towns of Dennis aud Harwich, on Cape Cod— two-thirds of which are engaged in the mackerel fishery — went to the bay foi mackerel last year, because of the ill- success attending the operations of the year previous. One of their vessels of one hundreil tons burden, manned by sixteen men, was six weeks in the bay iu 1853, and returned with only one barrel of mackerel. Unless some change had taken place beneficial to the interests of our hardy fishermen, the northern fisheries would have been wholly ruined, and in all probability have entirely ceased except on a very limited scale on our own shores. The one hundred and fifty thousaDd tons of shipping employed in those fisheries would have been obliged to seek employment else- where, and the product of the fisheries themselves, amounting to three or four million dol- lars annually, would have been lost to us. The present treaty opens to us a^ain all these valuable fisheries, and our thanks are due to the distinguished statesmen who have labored , iu bringing it to a successful termination ; and your directors are most happy to make meu- tiou of the services of Israel D. Andrews, esq.— a' gentleman whom we hope to have the : AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 186D lessnre of meeting' to-day — who has worked most assiduously for the last four years in col- P'ji,- gnd furnishing in his valuable reports almost pU the information possessed on the nl«ct, and without whose exertions, it is hardly too much to say, the treaty would never h»»e been made. Is not this conclusive ? These vessels, I suppose, kept away from the three-mile limit, and they made ruinous voyages ; and yet we have had witness after witness declaring here on the American side that the best figbing was outside of that limit, and that there was no fishing inside itb. In This is the opinion of the Boston Board of Trade on this subject fgct we bold the key in our hands which locks and unlocks the Xorth American fisheries of both countries ; and of course it is necessary for us to take care that we are not deprived of our rights without receiving proper and adequate consideration. Your excellency and your honors will recollect that the Reciprocity Treaty was not put an end to by us ; but it was put an end to by the act of the United States against the desire of Great Britain, and the wishes of the Dominion of Canada. On page 391 of the American evidence, the following question was pat to Major Low, the then witness on the stand : Looking up the files of the Cape Ann Advertiser, with reference to the Centennial, I iclice ft statement relative to your fisheries, and to the effect their prosecution has had ou Gloucester, to which I would like to call your attention, to see whether you agree with it or Mt. Of course it has been shown here before the Commission, and it is well known to everybody that is acquainted with the fisheries, that this paper, the Cape Ann Advertiser, is the great organ of the fishing in- i terests of New England. This article runs as follows : In 1841 the fishery business of Gloucester had readied its lowest ebb. Only about 7,000 I barrels of mackerel were packed that year, and the whole product of the fisheries of the port was only about $300,000. In 1851 the business began to revive, the George's and Bay Chaleui fishery began to be developed, and from that time to this year, 1875, has been steadily increauing, until at the present time Glou^^cster'a tonnage is 10,000 tons more than Sslem, Newburyport, Beverly, and Marblehead united. Nearly 400 fishing-schooners are owned at and titte I from the port of Gloucester, by 39 firms, and the annual sales of fish I ire said to be between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000, all distributed from here by Gloucester looses. THE COMMERCIAL WHARVES. The wharves once covered with molasses and sugar hogsheads are now covered with fish- I iakes, and the odors of the ' ' sweets of the tropics " have given place to " the ancient and fish- like smells " of oil and dried cod ; the few sailors of the commercial marine have been succeeded by 5,000 fishermen drawn from all the maritime quarters of the globe ; and the wharves that were the wonders of our boyhood days are actually swallowed up in the splendid and I 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 I St Gloucester, and many persons thought that never more would a majestic ship be seen en- liering this capacious and splendid seaport. But never in the palmiest days of Gloucester's Iforeiptrade were such immense vessels seen as at the present day. Ships of 1,500 tons |(as big as six William and Henrys) sailed into Gloucester Harbor from Liverpool and Cadiz, jud came into the wharves without breaking bulk, and also lay afloat at low water. jMore than forty ships, barks, brigs, and schooners of from 400 to 1,400 tons, laden with Ittlt alone, have discharged at this port the present year, and also the same number last year. Ilheold, venerable port never presented such a forest of masts as now can be seen ; some- Itiiiiessix ships and barks at a time, besides innumerable schooners. What THE CITY OP GLOUCESTER OF 1875 AND THE TOWN OF 1825. I a contrast is presented, as a ship enters the harbor now, with what was presented in The little rusty, weather-beaten village, with two " meeting-houses " nud iv few dwell- 1870 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ■■'•+*; Ivro or throe thousand people with $500,000 proo. ingg and wharves gathered aronnd them ; erty, was all that Gloucester then was, as near as we can ascertain. Now the centVai V*"!" without suburban districts, contain 14,000 people, with Jl9,000,000 valutition. ' The article contiuues in tbis fashion : Five banks, with nearly $2,000,000 in them (includin^t savings) j and this Increase h arisen, not from foreign commerce, but from the once despised and insignificant fisheries ^ It will be seen by a review of the history of Gloucester that a foreign commerce did n build the town up in population or wealtii ; that from 1825 to 1850 its increase had hw very small; but from J8.i0 to 1875 it has grown from 8,000 to 17,000 inhftbltHnts and ." valuation from $2,000,000 to $9,000,000 ! It is the fisheries that have mainly caused tb' 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 "Oakcs'Cove It is the fisheries that have built up Rocky Neck and Eastern Point, and caused ward i (Gravel Hill and Prospect street) to show nearly all the gain in population fromlSutn 1875. This is the testimony of the organ of the Gloucester fisbermen. I might consi;uie a great deal of your time in similar quotations. I turn your attention now to this book which was quoted by my learned friends on the other side, this book of Mr. Adams upon " The Fisheries and the Mississippi.*' At page 204 this language is used under the head of lish ing liberties and their values : Of these ten thousand men, and of their wives and children, the cod fisheries, if J mar be allowed the expression, were the daily bread — their property — their subsistence. To how many thousands more were the labors and the dangers of their lives subservient' Their guuic whs not only food and raiment to themselves, but to millions of other human beings. There is something in the very occupation of fishermen, not only beneficent in itself but noble and exalted in the- qualities of which it requires the habitual exercise. Incomaiou with the cultivators of the soil, their labors contribute to the subsistence of mankind, anl they have the merit of continual exposure to danger, superadded to that of unceasing toii. Industry, frugality, patience, perseverance, fortitude, intrepidity, souls inured to perpetual conflict with the elements, and bodies steeled with unremitting action, ever grappling witb danger, and familiar with death — these are the properties to which the fisherman of the ocean is formed by the daily labors of his life. These are the properties for which He who knew what was in man, the Saviour of mankind, sought His first and found His most faithful, ardent, and undaunted disciples among the fishermen of His country. In the deadliest rau- cors of national wars, the examples of latter ages have been frequent of exempting, hj tbe common consent of the most exasperated enemies, fishermen from the operation of hostili- ties. In our treaties with Prussia, they are expressly included among the classes of men " whote occupations are for thecommon subsistence and benefit of martkind ;" with astipulation that, in the event of war between the parties, they shall be allowed to continue their empioj- ment without molestation. Nor is their devotion to their country less conspicuous than their usefulness to their kinii, While the huntsman of.the ocean, far from his native land, from his family, and his fireside, pursues, at the constant hazard of life, his game upon the bosom of the deep, the desire of his heart is, by the nature of his situation, ever intently turned toward his home, his chil- dren, and his country. To be lost to them gives their keenest edge to his fears ; to return with the fruits of his labors to them is the object of all his hopes. By no men upon eartb have these qualities and dispositions been more constantly exemplified than by the fisher- men of New England. From the proceeds of their ' ' perilous and hardy industry, " the value I of three millions of dollars a year, for five years preceding 1808, was added to the exports of the United States. This was so much of national wealth created by the fishery. With what branch of the whole body of our commerce was this interest unconnected i Into what artery or vein of our politica body did it not circulate wholesome blood ? To what sinev of our national arm did it not impart firmness and energy? We are told that they were *' annually decreasing in number": Yes! they had lost their occupation by the war; aui! where were they during the war f They were upon the ocean and upon the lakes, figbtin; the battles of their country. Turn back. to the records of your revolution— ask Samuel Tucker, himself one of the number ; a living example of the character common to them all, | what were the fishermen of New England, in the tug of war for Independence f Appeal to I the heroes of all our naval wars, ask the vanquishers of Algiers and Tripoli, ask the k- I deemers of your citizens from the chains of servitude, and of your nation from the humilis- tion of annual tribute to the barbarians of Africa, call on the champions of our last struggles | with Britain, ask Hull and Baiubridge, ask Stewart, Porter, and Macdonough, what pro- 1 portion of New England fishermen were the companions of their victories, aud sealed the proudest of our victories with their blood , aui then listen if you can, to be told that the AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1871 with SoOO.OOO prot. w the cential wards, ition. ul this increase haj nificaiit fisheries, a commerce did not t8 increase liad b««n inhabitaDts, and its > mainly caused this ed Gloucester harbor to " Oakcs' Cove." t, and caused ward '.1 ulation from Ifflij to »r fisbermen. I Jtatioiis. I turn y learned friends Msheries and the the head of lisk- od fisheries, if I miiy heir subsistence. To ir lives subservient' lions of other kuman sneficent in itself but exercise. In comoiou 3Dce of mankind, ani hat of unceasing toil. Is inured to perpetual 1, ever grappling witt isherman of the ocean which He who knew ind His most faithfol, In the deadliest ran- of exempting, by the operation of hoatili- the classes of men ' with a stipulation lontinue their eooploj- -ifulness to their kind. nily, and his fireside, he deep, the desire of d his home, his ctil- J9 his fears ; to rctura \y no men upon earth ed than by the fisher- f industry," the value dded to the exports of ] y the fishery. With ; innected '? Into what | ood 1 To what sine* re told that they were i lion by the wan m on the lakes, fightinij 'olution— ask Samnel common to them all, endeuce? Appe»Ho 1 Tripoli, ask the re- ion from the humil* J of our last struggles icdonough, what pro- stories, audseiled the to be told that the ufindiig citizens of the West were not at all benefited by the fishings privilege ; and that l few li»hermen in a remote quarter 'vere entirely exempt f rum the danger. D„( tre are told also that " by far the (greatest part of the fish taken by our fishermen before the present war was caught in the open sea, or upon our own coasts, and cured on ur OKU shores." This assertion is, like the rest, erroneous. " The shore fishery is carried on in vessels of less than twenty tons burthen, the proportion ofwliich, as appears by Seybert's Statistical Anna! -, is about one-seventh of the whole. With regard to the comparative ralue of the Hank and Labrador fisheries, I subjoin hereto information collected from several persons acquainted with them, as their statements will jlioff in their minutest details. I know of no language that can more forcibly bring home to the Com- mission the value of this fisher3% If the eloquent language that I have nnoteil contained a tittle of the truth, then this fishing isthe nursery of the American naval marine. The future maritime defenders of their country are to be found amoncst the bold and fearless men who prosecute these tisiieries, and amongst them alone. From the fishing-vessels of America sprang these maritime defenders of her flag, who maintained with un- (liiuuted bravery the honor of their country in the last war with Eng- land, and from the same source must be drawn those who doubtless would do so again if unfortunately another war should arise between the two countries. Yet, when we speak of such a fishery as this, we are calmly told by Mr. Foster you must not look at these advantages at all, but like business men, you must, pencil in hand, put down the figures, and make a calculation of the values as though it were a petty matter of bargain and sale between man and man. In the name of our common liamanity, in the name of the common honor of England and America, and of tbe Dominion for which I am counsel this day, I repudiate such a construction being placed upon this treaty. There are some other passages in this book to which I may call your attention. At page 210 this language is used : These fisheries, as most advantageously secured to the United States by the Treaty of l':3, and made at the time, I have always understood, a sine qua non of that treaty, offer m invaluable fund of wealth and power to our country; one which has never been duly attended to, nor justly appreciated, but which, if continued and improved, was destined to grow with our growth and strengthen with our strength. The prosecution of these coast and bay fisheries, although it had already become extremely advantageous, had undoubtedly reached, in a very small degree, the extension and impor- tance it was capable of attaining. The unsettled state of the commercial world for the past tKentjr years, and the more alluring objects of mercantile enterprise which such a state of things evolved, seemed, in point of immediate consideration and attention, to throw these fisheries into the background ; but still, until first checked by the system of embargoes and [estrictious, and finally stopped by a declaration of war, they were silently, but rapidly, pro- pssing, and reaching an importance which, though generally unknown to our country and M siatesinen, had become highly alarming to the governments and more wealthy merchants ; of the provinces, and was beginning to attract the attention and jealousy of the cabinet of Great Britain toward them. The shores, the creeks, the inlets of the Bay of Fundy, the Bay of Chaleurs, and the Gulf oft>t. Lawrence, the Straits of Bellisle, and the Coast of Labrador, appear to have been designed by the God of Nature as the great ovarium of fish ; the inexhaustible repository of I this species of food, not only for tbe supplv of the American, but also of the European con- tinent. At the proper season, to catch them in endless abundance, little more effort is needed than to bait the hook and pull the line, and occasionally even this is not necessary. In clear weather, near the shores, myriads are visible, and the strand is at times almost literally pavid with them. All this was gradually making itself known to the enterprise and vigilance of the New England fishermen, and for a few seasons prior tp the year 1808, the resort to this employ- ment bad become an object of attention, from the Thames at New London, to the Schoodic; and boats and vessels of a small as well as a larger size were flocking to it from all the in- termediate parts of the United States. In the fishing season, at the best places for catching ihecod, the New England fishermen, I am told, on a Sunday, swarmed like flies upon the ibores, and that in some of these years, it probably would not make an overestimate to rate the nnmber of vessels employed in this fishery belonging to the United States at from 1,500 lioS.OuOsail, reckoning a vessel for each trip or voyage, and including the larger boat-fish- 1872 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ery ; and the number, if the fisheries were continued, would shortly be still further and rerv greatly extended. * The nursery for seamen, the consequent increase of power, the minfi of wealth, tho accn- mutation of capital (for it lias been justly observed that he who draws a codli^h from the sea gives a piece of silver to his country), the effect upon the trade and custom of Great Britain, and the corresponding advantages to the United States, of which the enlnrgement of such an intercourse was susceptible (tor the stock of Hsh appears inexhaustibln), you are much better able to conceive them than I am to describe ; but I with pleasiiiH point thom anew for your consideration, as, on many accounts, presenting one of tlie most inti-reHtinir public objects to which it can be directed. At page 199 the following language is used : Be tho opinion of Mr. Russell what it may, the portion of the fisheries to which we m entitled even within the British territorial jurisdiction, is of great importance tu this Uuioo To New England it is among the most valuable of earthly possessions. Kow, in the course of his argument, Mr. Foster put the question as if it turned distinctly upon who paid the duty, the producer or the consumer. Whether that be absolutely necessary for the purpose of determining this case in favor of Great Britain or not, is not for me to say. That is a question of political economy with which I am neither desirous, nor probably capable of dealing. But I am not afraid to let our case turn upon that question. I think I shall show you, by evi- dence of witnesses and by figures, that in every instance in this case the duty is paid by the consumer. I am speaking more particularly of the mackerel. I shall conclusively siiow that in the year when the Re- ciprocity Treaty was in force, the price of mackerel fell off; that inime diately after the Reciprocity Tre.ity terminated, the price of maclierel rose in the market. 1 shall show that immediately after that state of affairs was terminated by the Treaty of Washington the price of mack erel again fell olf, and we say that these facts establish at ouce that tbe consumer must have paid the duty. Our witnesses have, one and all, or nearly all, testified that in their judgment the consumer paid the duty. In answer to the question put by the learned counsel associated with me and myself, " Would you rather have the Americans excUuled from your fisheries and pay the duty?" they have said "Yes." While I am upon this subject I will remark, although I will not have time to turn attention to the document itself, that Mr. Foster, or at all events one of the learned counsel for the United States, read in his speech a communication from Hon. Peter Mitchell, then minister of luariueaud fisheries, for the purpose of showing that the repeal of the Eeciprocity Treaty would be ruinous to our fishermen. Now, upon reference to that communication you will find that what he did put forward was this: that if the Americans would come in without either paying a license- fee or giving any other compensation at all for our fisheries, and if they fished in our territorial waters where the fish were to be taken, side by side with our own fishermen, and then carried their catch into the American market free of duty, while our fishermen, fishing on the same terms and with no better appliances, were met there with a duty of $2 a I barrel on mackerel and $1 on herring, it would necessarily be ruiuous. | And that proposition no doubt has a vast deal of truth in it. It is ini- X^ossible, I assume, for two persons to fish upon equal terms in the same | waters, and then when they go into the American market for oue to be j met by a duty while the other has no such duty to pay, without it oper- ating to the disadvantage of the former. But that is a totally differeut case from the one we have to deal with. Now I shall show you, as I have said, that during the period of the j Eeciprocity Treaty the prices were low, and that the moment that treaty was repealed or abrogated by notice from the American Government | ▲WARD OF THE FISHEB7 COMMISSION. 1873 the prices rose ; that the moment that state of affairs was terminated bv tbe Washington Treaty the prices fell again, and M'e say that is con- clauve proof that the Americans have to pay tbe duty. There has beeu iconcensus of testimony, Ameiican and British, upon that point. Let us see what the American witnesses say, for I affirm that on both sides tlie witnesses agree in the statement that the consumers pay the duty. It ii^ true that American witnesses who are themselves fishermen, or those who speak the opinion of fishermen, say that they would pre- fer tbe old state of things. Why f Because under that state of things tliey could steal into our harbors and carry off our fish for nothing, and tliea tbeir British competitor was met in the market with a duty of 12 i» barrel, while they were free. But I apprehend the consumer did Dot want that state of affairs. These witnesses admitted that it made tbe flsb dearer, whenever the question was put to them. I have cut out tbe evidence referring to this point, and I will just read it : AMERICAN WITNESSES ON ULTIES. Page 75.— F. Freeman : Q, If yoii were allowed to make your choice, whicii would you take — exclusion from the Biitish inshore fisheries and the imposition of a duty on colonial-caught fish, or tbe privilege of fishing inshore in British waters and no duty t — A. I would rather have the dutv. Q, You say you would rather have the duty paid ; you think you would make more money ; you are speaking as a fisherman f — A. Yes. Q, You would have a better market for your fish ? Under the present system the con- inmer gets his fish cheaper, does be not ? You would make the consumer pay thai $i duty f \'u muld sell your fish %2 highi r ? — A. Yes, Mr.TRESCOT. Ttiat is political economy. Mr. Thomson. Why did you ask bim 7 Mr.TREScoT. I asked bim simply which system he would prefer. Mr. TiioMFSON. I am asking him why. Q And you say the reason is that you would get so much money in your pocket at the [ expense of tbe people that eat fish. Is not that the whole story ? — A. Certainly. Page 93. — N. Freeman: Q. Were you among those who opposed or favored tbe continuance of tbe Reciprocity I Treaty t— A. I was among those that opposed it. Q. There were some that opposed it. or rather required the duty to be maintained upon codfish f— A. I was one who preferred to have the duty retained upon codfish. Q. Upon codfish ? — A. Yes. Q. Your people wished in fact to keep tbe duty on codfish? — A. Yes. Q, Wh^? Be kind enough to state why. — A. Because we felt it would be better for us I u a cod-tishing town to exclude as far as possible the fish from the provinces. It would I (ire vs fl btUer chance, as we supposed, to dispose of our fish at higher rates. J Q. And the elfect of tbe treaty you considered would be to reduce the price 7 — A. Wo I (apposed that the effect of the treaty would be to bring in codfish from these provinces into I ooT port, and of course necessarily it was presumed that it would reduce the price of fish. I Q. I suppose the mackerel fisheries have the same object, to keep up the price of fish ? — I A, I presume they have. Q. Then, of course, you think your views are correct ? You think now, I presume, that I jou opinion was correct?— A. Yes. I Q. And you still continue to think that is correct, and that the effect of tbe provisions of llbe treaty is to bring down the price of fish ? — A. Yes ; I thiuk that is the tendency. I am jnot aware whether it has brought tbe prices down. Q. I mean to say you have not changed your opinion ? — A. No. Q. Of course there might be other causes operating, but that is tbe general tendency of Ithe treaty ?-A. Yes. I Q. To make the fish cheaper for tbe consumer ? — A. We have so regarded it. Well, jpeibaps it would have that tendency. We have thoutrbt that it would. Q. That is precisely what your opinion was? — A. Yes. Q. You have not altered your opinion ?— A. No. Q- Your opinion, if you will allow me to put it in my words, is that it makes Jish cheaper pnecomumers in the United States ?—\. My opinion is that it will have that tendency. 118 F 1874 AWABD OF THE F18HEBT COMMISSION. Page 107. — Graham : Q. Ton My that yon wonid prefer a duty on Canadian fish entering American DiirkH I to the privilege of fishing^ within three miles of the shore in the bay T— A. Yes ; I thvinA I went fishing, Q; WhyT— A. Because I do not think that the privilege amounts to as much u tbt duties to us. Q. Why do you want the duty kept on t — A. Because, in the first place, wo would nt more for our tish in the United States. I Q. And when the duty is abolished the price naturally comes down T— A. The fish mii then be a little cheaper. Q. That is your opinion f — A. I do not think that the price would come down much. Q. Then why do you want the duty kept ont Do you not think that you (i^ave a ratlin I hasty answer 1 You say you would prefer the duty to the privilege of fishing in the liar I of St. Lawrence, within the limits Y — A. Yes. Q. Why T I understood yon to say it was because this would keep the price up ?-A. That was a little erroneous, 1 think. Let me think the matter over. Q. Why would you rather prefer the duty to the privilege mentioned Y— A. Because iU would keep the price up, and we would then get more for our fish. I thought you Lad mt a little. Q. I merely want your statement on the point T — A. That is my candid opinion. Q. You now speak as a fisherman 7 — A. Yes ; if I was fishing that would be my idea Q. All classes of men have selfish motives ? — A. I want to got all I can for what I have | to sell, and to buy as cheaply as possible. Q. And in order to get a high price for your fish, you want the duties on ?— A. Yes, Page 124.— Friend : Q. Yon thought yon would get more mackerel and get a better price for tbem ?— A. If ve I had a duty on mackerel we would get a better price, and would get more mackerel if tve | fished ofi' shore. Page 130.— Orne : Q. You sav yon would prefer a duty of $2 a barrel to the liberty of fishing within tlie | limits of the bay f — A. I do. Q. Why f — A. Because I think the macke rel which I take to market would then bring more. Q. Would the price be then higher by $2 f — A. I could not say. Q. What is your belief f — A. / believe that would be the case, Q. Consumers might appreciate the matter differently T — A. I speak as a fisbeiman. Page 147. — Leigbton : Q. In regard to mackerel, leaving herring out, would yon prefer a duty on mackerelt- A. Yes. Q. Yon speak as a fisherman f — A. Yes. Q. Why would you prefer a duty on mackerel t — A. Our mackerel would fetch lhtln^\ more a barrel. We lose that, you know. Q. By the duty coming ont — A. Yet; the fithermen lose it. The governmetU dots»ii\ lote it. Q. And the people who eat the fish gain it ? — A. Yes. Q. And if yon were to speak to a man whose business was consuming mackerel, jooj would get an opinion adverse to a duty 7 — A. Yes. 1 Q. You would not object, I suppose, to run the duty up a little higher; bow would thitj suit the fishermen T — A. I think that is about right. Page 160.— Eiggs: Q. You say you would prefer a duty being imposed on our mackerel to the right to &li] inshore in British waters f — A. I should. Q. Why do you want a duty on ? — A. It is no benefit to us to fish inshore, that I ever| saw. Q Q Why do you want it on ? — A. Well, we would have a better market for our fish. Would you get a higher price for them T — A. We should ; yes. And therefore you are speaking as a fisherman; as such you would like to get Utl highest price you could for your fish t — A. Certainly. _^ I Q. You think that the imposition of a duty would give you a better market t—fesi itl Canadians had to pay the duty it is likely they would not fetch the fish in. I Q. What would be the result of that ?— A. We would have a higher price and a quicierl market. j Q. Yon would have a higher price ? — A. I do not know that this would be the case orj anything about it, but it would be a quicker market for us. reduction of tbo du AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1875 Page 187.— Smith: A YoD speak as a fisherman ; yon want to i^et think you would get 7— A. As much as the duty. the most you can. How much do yon Perhaps you would like to have a little more on. c^ppojiDg B amy oi 9^ wwi pui uu, 1 suppose it would still have the effect of raising the „r;»nf iish f— A. I think it would kill nn. No, let me see. I don't know anythinsr about P"" • . . 1 L_i I .1 v i:.u £.1. «..4 »... /i.i. ...„..i * ' • • • '. ■» Q, I don't know but you are right. ipposin? a duty of 93 was put on, I suppose it would still have the effect of raising the nriceof iish f— A. I think it would kill nn. No, let me see. I don't know anythii - I tbiuk by keeping the English fish out our fish would bring a better price. that, Page 201.— Procter : Q. Speaking as a fisherman, would you prefer to have the duty on T — A. Personally, I Boiiid rsther liave the duty on. Q ^vhy r— A. Because the duty is better for us, for it would have a tendency in years of rood catcnes to prevent your people from increasing their business. It has that tendency. Q. Hbs it any tendency to uetter you as well as to injure your neighbors Y — A. That is what we were looking for — for better prices. Q, Has it a tendency to increase prices to your fishermen f — A. It would. U. So, if it increases the price of the (ish, it strikes me the consumer must pay the in* Teased price f— A. I am not clear that the duty has anything to do with it; it is the I L'atch. . Page 207.— Procter : Q, And did not the duty on Canadian-ctiught fish replace the bounty? — A. Yes, and the I leiluctiuD of tlio duty on salt was granted as un offset for the removal of the duty. Page 208.— Procter : Q. And that came later T — A, Yes ; two or three years after the ratification of the treaty Q, When it was nroposed to take the duty off you remonstrated, thinking that this would Uduce the price of nsh, and this was the general feeling among fishermen and of the in- 1 liibitanU of the coast of New England ?— A» Yes. Page 312.— Warren : Q, Now, with regard to the right of carrying our fish free into the United States, I suppose roa think that it is of no advantage to your fishermen, that provision of the treaty f — A. I have no idea it is any advantage to our side of the house. Q. It is a disadvantage, isn't it 7 — A. Yes ; it is against ns. Q, Be kind enough to explain how. — A. All these things seem to me to be regulated by I rapply and demand. If there is 100,000 barrels of mackerel hove into our market on top of I what we produce, the tendency is to depreciate prices. Q, If tbiR provision of the treaty increases the supply of mackerel in the United States I market, it will bring down the price of fish f— A. State that again. I Question repeated. A. I think it would have that tendency. Q. That is the reason you think it is no advantage to your fishermen to have the privilege I of fishing inside ? — A. No, putting both questions of the treaty together, it is no advantage, bwause the supply is increased and the prices are depreciated. Q. Yon will admit this, that it is an advantage to the consumers, by bringing down the I price t You admit that Y — A. Yes. Q. Then, in point of fact, it gives yeu cheap fish 7 — A. The tendency is to cheapen them. Q. For the people of the United States ?— A. Yes. Page 326.— Lakeman : Q. The American fishermen want the duty back on fish, I suppose 7 — A. I do not know I iboat that, I am sure ; but they naturally would wish to have it back again, I suppose, in I 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 7 — A. The consumer would then get his fish cheaper. The more fish that are put on the market the cheaper the consumer gets I ihem. Q. Is not the result of the treaty, which admits your fish into the American market on I (qua! terms with the American fish, to make the price of fish lower in that market? — A. It has that tendency evidently. Q. Therefore, he gets his fish for less money ?— A. Evidently he does. When herring are abundant the price is lower. Q. It farther follows that although a certain class of fishermen may lose something by ta free admission of British fish into the Ame, an market, the American public gain by It '-A. By getting their fish at a lower price ? Of course, it makes the price of fish lower ID that market. That is clear. Q. Then the consumer gets the fish cheaper ? — A. He evidently does ; the larger the quan- tity that is put upon the market the le8s;the price will be. 1876 AWARD OF THE FI8HERY COMMISSION. Page 380.— Sylvanus Smith : Q. Suppoiilnir the markerel onnght in colonial wnterH were excluded, would ii or would it not buve any cfl'ect upon the price you got for your Hsh I SnppoHiuif oiiefourili oi tliP(|uiii tiiy coniiutned in the Htnteii who excluded, would it have any etl'ect on the prirn of the utWr threo-fourtha 1 — A. I think Honiu, not much. I think it would stiraulato our lioni« pro. duction. Q. In what way would it Htimulate it 7 I)y raiNinfir the price, is it not 7— A. Well, to i BDiall extent. (j. Well, then the cflVct of the Krilixh mackerel coming in \n that the conniinier iiabli' to buv it cheaper than he oihurwiHe would .' — A. Well, up to a certain point, 'l'\w cfteii would be very .small. There is not a largo enough ((uautity. It is our home catch tbntti- focts it. rage 420.— Myrick: Q. What would be the eiTect upon the buHineHM of vour firm of putting hack the fnrnifr duty of $2 a barrel upon mackerel sent from Prince Kdward Inland to the tStateH .' I would like you to explain your views in this regard particularly 1 — A. Well, I suppose, niuoe »e havo got our business established there and our buildings and facilities for carryinfj^ on the fishery, it would be difficult for us to abandon it altogether, but we would tlivii turn our attention more particularly to cod-fishing, until, at any rate, the mackerel season i^nt well td- vanced and the mackerel oecame fat, and if any would bring a high price it would be tbov taken in the latter part of the 8ea.sou. We might catch some of them, but we would uot un dertake to catch poor mackerel to compete with those caught on the American shore. Q. Explain why not f— A. Well, No. 3 mackerel, which are poor mackerel, generally bring a good deal less price than fat mackerel, and men do not catch any more poor mackerel than thev do fat ones ; the cost of catching them, and of barreling and shipping them, in the same, while the fat mackerel bring a better price. We would carry on the cod-fishin|^ bii«i. ness irrespective of the American market ; we would catch, cure, and ship codtish to uthrr | markets — to the West India markets— and we might make a fair business at that ' but lu to catching mackerel exclusively under such circumstances, it would not do to depend on it I at all. Page 430. — A(yrick : Q. What is it that fixes the price of mackerel in the United States market ?— A. 0, mil I of course il in the supply and demand, 0$ it the case with tveruthiu/f else. When there i^i largo catch of mackerel on the American shore, prices rule low ; this is a very seutitive market. If a fleet of 500, 600, or 800 vessels are fishing for mackerel, and tlioHe iutereitdl j get reports of the fleet doing any thinf;, the market falls at once ; and this is the case [ ticularly when prices are any way iutlated. Page 4S8.— Isaac Hall : Q. You told Mr. Foster that if a duty was reimposed you would consider very seriooslj whether you would continue in the business f — A. Yes. Q. You made that statement on the assumption that you paid the duty Y— A. Ye.^. Q. I think it has been explained very clearly that the price of fish depends almost altO' getber on the catch ; this is the case to a large extent ? — A. To a large'exlenl ; yes. If there | is a large catch of mackerel prices rule low, and if there is a small catch they rale high. Q. It the evidence given here on the part of British witnesses is correct, two-thirds of the I fish taken by American vessels in the Gulf, I may say, are caught inshr'e; and assuoiinn that two-thirds of their whole catch in the Oulf is taken inside of the three-mile limit, codM I the American fleet, if they were excluded from fishing within this limit, prosecute the Gajf j fishery for the other thiru ; would this pay them? — A. I think it would be a difficult buii' ness to do so, if that proportion is correct. Q. If the price goes up, teho pays the enhanced price ; is it not the consumer f —k. Yts. Q. And if the catch is large the price goes down ? So it would depend in some meaiiml on whether the catch on the American or on our own shore was large as to who would paj| this duty ? — A. Yes ; and on the quality of the mackerel. These are quotations that I make from the American evidence. Ido notj quote from our own, as Mr. Dana admitted that there was .such acou{ sensus of evidence on that point that he almost insinuated that it was] too uniform to be depended upon. I now propose to deal at length with two questions of vital iiuportaucej in this inquiry, viz : Ist. In favor of which country is the balance of advantages arisiug from reciprocal freedom of trade gained by the Treaty of Washington! And ▲WARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1877 2(1. Upon whom is the incidence of duties levied upon fish exported by CanatlA into the United States, the producer or the cousumer f I again (if I may do so without giving offense to my learned friends QDtbeotber side) express my obligations to Mr. Miall for the valuable iiMJtitance lie has afforded in preparing my argument on these points. Article XXI of the Treaty of Washington is as follows : Itisairreed that for llio torm of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this treaty, fish luJ finli-oil of nil kluds (except fish of the inland lakes and of the rivers fallinur into them, mil except Hnh preserved in oil), bcin); the products of the fisheries of the United Slates or of the Dominion of Ciiniulii, or of Prince Kdwnrd Island, shall be admitted into each coun« irv rfipectivelv free of duty. ArtK'LK XXII.- Iiiasinnch as it is asserted by the Clovernment of Iler Britannic Majesty that the privileeo^ accorded to the citizens of the United States under Article XVIII of this ireaiy are uf KHtater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty to ,l,( milijerts of Her Britannic Majesty, and this assertion is not admitted by the Government of tiio United Ntates, it is further ap^reod that Commissioners shall be appointed to de- irimiiie, having; rei^ard to the privileges accorded by the United States to the subjects of Her BriiHiiniu Majesty, as stated in Articles XIX and XXI of this treaty the amount of any ri)in|ii'n8Htiun which, in their opinion, ought to be naid by the Government of the United Stales to tiioOnvornment of Her Britannic Majesty III return for the privileges accorded to the citizens nf the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty ; and that any sum of money which the said Commissioners may so award shall be paid hy the United States liuverDineiit in a gross sum within twelve months after such award shall i:avo been given. The advantages which might he expected to flow from the reciprocal freedom of markets, provided for by Article XX [, might be of two kinds— 1. Increased trade. 2. Increased profits upon the volume of trade already existing. The latter, however, could only obtain upon the supposition that the duties pro\ iously levied bad been a burden upon the foreign producer. lu reference to the first of these questions it is contended — 1st. That the increase of consumption in the United States of British- caught fish has not been equal to the increase of consumption in Canada of the products of the United States fisheries. 2d. That a considerable portion of the products of British-American fisheries, exported to the United States for many years past, has been re-exported to foreign countries, where they have entered into competi- tion \rith other foreign exports of Her Majesty's British-American sub- jjects; and it must l^ borne in mind that these fish have not paid any duty. These propositions will be dealt with seriatim. By reference to statement No. 8, to be found on page 435 of the Brit- sh Evidence, it will be found that for the seven years following the ab- I rofration of the Reciprocity Treaty {when duties were payable upon impor- n«fton«) the imports of fish and fish-oil from the United States into the I Doujinion of Canada and Prince Edward Island were as follows : mi $ii72,:«)6 11*8 J7(),1.5t) \m 99,563 \m 99,409 if^i I2:i,:«l 1B7,> 123,670 i'^'i 279,049 Itiiearerage annual value being 1152,506. During the years 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, when no duties were payable, [they have, uader the operation of the treaty, been as follows : 1874 : $728,931 1875 727,587 IW6 679,657 1877. 750,382 I tbe annual average having been increased to $721,637. 14:;^ 1878 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. The increase, therefore, of the TJDited States ezportations of Ish ami filih-oil annually to Canada has been $569,131, of which 8170,030 con. sisted of fresh fish, leaving $390,101 as the increase upon articles previously isubjected to duty. As against this gain to the United States the British producers have gained an increased market in tiie luited States of only $340,589, as will be seen by the following figures to be found in the same statement. During the seven years immediately preceding the Wasliinfrton Treaty when duties were payable, the United States imported the fish products of Canada and Prince Edward Island as follows, viz : 1867 $1,108,779 1868 1,103,859 1869 1,208:805 1870 I,l29,6fi5 1871 1,087, :M1 1872 9:?3,04l 1873 l,31)3,3et» the annual average being $1,137,839. Since the treaty has been in full operation the annual averaf!;e has la creased to $1,505,888, the imports having been as follows: 1874 $1,612,205 1875 - 1,6:J7,712 1876 1,455,629 1877 1,317,917 the increase in the annual average being $368,049, of which increase $27,460 was due to fresh fish, leaving $340,589 as the increase upon arti cles previously subjected to duty. From these figures it is clear, then, that "^ respects the advantages arising from an increased mariiet the United States and not Canada has been the greatest gainer. It may be remarked, before leaving this part of the sul^ect, that although the sta- tistics put in by the Government of the United States, as to the total imports into the United States from Canada, approximate very closel,T to those put in by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the exports from Canada to the United States, there is an important discrepancy j between the exports from the United States to Canada as put in evi- dence in Table XIV of Appendix O, and the imports into Canada from j the United States as put in evidence by her Majesty's Government. This has already been referred to during the course of the i^.idence, { but the attention of the Commissioners is now again directed to the ex plicit admissions of Mr. Young, the Chief of tbe Bureau of Statistics at] Washington, in his reports of 1874, '75, and '76. With regard to tbisi subject, for example, he says, at page XV of his report for 1876 : '^DuriDgj the year ended 30th June, 1876, the total value of domestic merchandise I and produce exported to Canada, and which was omitted iu tlie returusi of the United States custom officers on the Canadian border, as appearsi from the official statements furnished by the Commissioner of CustoiNsI of the Dominion, amounted to $10,507,563, as against $15,596,524 in tbej preceding year, and $11,424,566 in 1874." 2. I beg now to call the attention of your excellency and your bonorsj to the fact that a considerable proportion of the products of the Britisli-f American fisheries, exported to the United States for many years p has been re exported to other foreign countries, where they may be fairly presumed to have entered into competition with the direct foreign exports of Her Majesty's British-American subjects. This will clearly appear by a reference to statement No. 11, to found on page 437 of the British Evidence, which shows that tbe exporti of dried and smoked, pickled and other cured fish (exclusive of Calij AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1879 fornia) to all other foreign countries, from 1850 to 187C, averaged ainnu- 3lly (at a gold valuation) as follows, viz : 1850 to 1854 $755, 165, Non-reciprocal years. I860 to li^(*6 1,001,984, Reciprocal years. 1866 to 1873 1, 196,554, Non-reciprocal years. \87'i to 1876 1,640,426, Reciprocal years. Now, comparing these exports from the United States to all foreign countries with the imports from Canada into the United States, it would appear that they are large.y I iterdepeudent. The imports referred to are as follows: 1850 to 1854 $792,419 iaM;tol866 1,377,727 18<36to 1873 1,137,839 K3to 1877 1,505,888 ^Vitli regard to this matter, I call attention to the following assertion made at page 9 of the "Answer " of the United States, viz : " But while the result (of the Washington Treaty) to them (Canadians) has been one of steady development and increasing wealth, the United States cod ishery even has declined in amount and value." If, then, the domestic production of the United States has decreased, and the exports to for- eign countries have increased in about the same ratio as have the im- portations from Canada, ie ;k not evident that the increased imports have been made mainly with a view to the supply of foreign markets, or what is equivalent, to supply the hiatus in the markets of the United States due to the exportation of a greater quantity of their own fish products than the yield of their fisheries warranted in view of their ovD requirements for home consumption ? It would seem from an ex- aolDation of the statistics that the increased importations from Canada during those years in which no duties were levied on Canadian fish were largely doe to an increased foreign trade, and it is contended that Her Majesty's subjects gained no substantial pecuniary advantage from sup- plying those foreign markets by indirect rather than direct trade. On the other band, the tendency of this class of trade is to throw the for- eign carrying trade hitherto conducted by subjects of Her Majesty more and more into the hands of the ship-owners and brokers of the United States. A close examination of Canadian exports confirms this view. Of the entire exports, those to the United States and to other foreign coun- tries compare as follows : Tears. Peroentage sent to tbe Onited States. Percentage sent toother foreign countries. 1850-51 , 31i 31, 'o «M 1JS6-66 , Wyb m-'-a 5l« iro-76 68a If any further reasoning is required in support of this very evident contention, the following extract from page 529 of the United States Census Report for 1860 may be useful : " By the warehousing act of 1 1846, foreign fish were allowed to be imported and entered in bond, and thence exported without payment of duty ; but under the reciprocity I act colonial fish are admitted free of duty. These acts have caused our principal fish-distributing cities, such as Boston, New York, and Fhila- delphia, to become exporters of large quantities of foreign fish." 1880 AW1.BD OF THE FISHEST COMMISSION Although, therefore, the export trade of Oanada has progressiTely increased from year to year, it is plain that the removal of fiscal obstrnc. tions on the part of the United States has had the effect, more or less of tarning a certain proportion of oar foreign trade, with otber foreigtj countries, into American channels. In otber words, a larger proportion of the West Indian and South American fish trade of Canada bas been done through United States merchants, whenever tariff restrictions have been removed. Now, the able counsel and Agent of the United States bas 'chosen as the basis upon which to determine the question of remissions of duty the year 1874. ' It is contended that it would be manifestly unfair to take as a basis upon which to estimate such remissions, those years daring whicb it is alleged the exportations from Canada to the United States bave {mainly in consequence of such remissions) considerably increased. The United States imports Irom Canada and Prince Edward Island of fish and fish-oil from 1867 to 1873, during which period duties were imposed upon such importations, were as follows : 1867 «il, 108,77!) 1868 l,103,a-)» 1869 1,208,805 1870 1,129,665 1871 1,087,341 1872 933,041 1873 l,39?,38i) The average annual value of the above-mentioned importation was $1,137,810, and the largest in any one year, $1,393,389, in 1873. The commerce and navigation returns of the United States give the importation from Canada in that year at $1,400,562 ; or, iuclndiag New- foundland, at $1,685,489, as follows : Deacriptioii. FishO'reah) Herring Haokerel Sardines, &c., preserved in oil All others not elsewliere speciHed. Oil, whale and fish Total. Imported. Quantity. 8, 637. 734 Iba . . 5.3, 039 bbis . 89, 698 bbls . 137. 315 galls. Values. Rate of duty, i--.*;'"! mm ♦278, 707 179, 377 60.%778 3.537 553,033 66,068 1,685,489 Free !. tl.OODor bbl..| S-OOr/orbbl.-l 50 percent.: 13^ per cvui, 90 per cent. | t53.039 1T»,3M 1.763 13,813 ; 321, ?35 Now, by reference to the United States Commerce and Navigation Re- turns for 1873 (page 311) it will be seen that the re-exports of foreign M were as follows: Barrels. Amount. Bate. Doty. Herring 19,998 36,146 •81.775 176,396 913,534 gs,aoi ♦1.00 per bbl.. 9.00perbbl.. 13) per cent 90 per cent »19,9-S Mackerel TilM AH other 2S,S» Oil (pace 319). 5,1* Total ii«,in ▲WABD OF THE TISHERT COMMISSION. 1881 This sniD, therefore, representing duties which never were collected, nast be dedacted fh>ni the aggregate dnties accraed, as shown by the mm jnst previously given, viz : $321, 035 Deduct— Duties on re-exports $126, 167 Estimated duties on fish products not covered by Washington Treaty, estimated at 10, 000 136,167 Thus leaving a sum of 185, 768 in regard to which it remains to be decided whether or not its remission has iuured to the benefit of the Canadian producer. The United States contend, at page 31 of the Answer, that the rerais- sioD of duties to Canadian fishermen during the four years which have already elapsed under the operation of the treaty has amounted to about 1400,000 annually, which proposition it was explicitely stated would be conclusively proved in evidence which would be laid before the Oom- nission. This extraordinary assertion which, it has been contended, has been contravened by the whole tenor of the evidence, whether ad- (lacedon behalf of the United States or of Great Britain, was followed up by the laying down of the following principle, viz: Where a tax or duty is imposed npon a small portion of the producers of any com- modity, from which the great body of its prodncers are exempt, snch tax or duty neces- urily remains a burden upon the producers of the smaller quantity, diminishing their profits, which cannot be added to the price, and ao distributed among the purcliasers ind consumers. It is contended in reply that this principle is true only in those cases in which the ability on the part of the majority of producers to supply tiie commodity thus taxed is fully equal to the demand. Tbr question whether the consumer or producer pays any imposts j leviec' unon the importation of certain commodities does not depend upon whether the body of foreign producers is large or small relatively to the body of domestic producers, w:ith whose products theirs are to come into competition, but simply upon the question whether or not the eiisting home production is equal to the demand. If it be not equal, and a quantity equal to one-third or one-fourth of that produced at home be really required, prices must go up until the foreign producer can be tempted to supply the remainder, and the consumer will pay the in- I creased price not only upon the fraction imported, but upon the greater mtity produced within the importing country as well. And the I tendency of all the evidence in this case, British and American, has been I a most explicit and direct confirmation of this principle. The British evidence, to which I shall immediately call your attentiont I proves beyoid a doubt that when duties were imposed upon mackerel of t2 per barrel, British exporters to the United States realized a suffi- cient increase of price to enable them to pay those duties and still receive a net amount equal to the average price received before those I dnties were imposed, as well as after they were removed. Upon a careful examination of the United States testimony, it will, I nbmit, appear that during those years when duties were imposed upon firitishcaugbt fish, the price of mackerel when landed by United States I vessels from their fishing voyages in the bay, was to the full extent of '"'dntyin excess of the price they commanded after the duty was I repealed, or before it was imposed. 1882 AWABD OF THE FI8HEBY COMiaSSION. It is impossiblelto conceive a clearer proof that the consumer and Dot the prodacer had to bear the burden of the duty, and not only that bat an equivalent burden upon every barrel of mackerel caught and landed by the United States mackerel vessels during the existence of that dutv In the evidence adduced on behalf of Her Majesty's Goverament this point has been established beyond possibility of refutation. The aver- age prices obtained by the following firms, viz, A. H. Crowe, Lawson & Harrington, and Young, Hart & Co., in gold, at Halifax, after payment of duties and all other charges, are given by the various witnesses as follows, the sales being]made in all cases to IJnited States buyers: British evidence. 1861-1866 (ODRiNO reciprocity). P. 424, A. H. Crowe P. 419, LawsoD & Harringtoa P. 425, Young, Hart t& Co ...No. 1. $13 12 ...No. 1. 12 78 ...No. 1. 12 66 No. 2. No. 2. No. 2. Average prices 12 83 1866-1873 (dutiable period). $S75 7 98 8 54 8 42 No. 3. )6 C.) No. 3. 6:a No. 3. 6 01 ti4; p. 424, A. H. Crowe P. 419, Lawson & Harrington. P. 425, Yonng, Hart & Co ....No. 1. $13 05 ....No. 1. 13 30 ....No. 1. 14 46 No. 2. No. 2. No. 2. Average' prices. 13 60 $9 43 9 83 10 62 9 96 1873-1877 (during Washington treaty). P. 424, A. H. Crowe P. 419, Lawson &, Harrington P. 425, Young, Hart & Co .... No. 1. $12 37 No. L 12 25 No. 1. 12 81 No. 2. $10 00 No. 2. 8 62 No. 2. 9 39 Average prices. 12 47 9 33 No. 3, J6 ,•» No. 3. 6 63 No. 3. 6 -a 6«! No. 3. f8 1)0 i No. 3, 7 No. 3. 7H] It will be observed, then, that the Halifax merchants had to submit I to no decline in price from 1866 to 1873. The evidence adduced on behalf of the United States proves tbe | prices at which mackerel caught by United States vessels in the Bay of j St. Lawrence during these same periods were valued, on settling witii i the crews (exclusive of the cost and profits of packing, which wotild j have increased the prices by $2 per barrel), to have been as follows: AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1883 Tmt. \tii. 1S9. im- 1861. m. IK). wi. Average . IM. l*i". m. 1(69. ira. IKl. IW. Avenge . liJ4. lsT5. IjTC. Average . «7 eo la 00 13 30 11 90 5 30 7 60 10 96 11 13 14 30 9)93 09 10 34 15 74 13 3-4 18 45 17 80 11 90 9 86 6)85 97 14 33 9 85 - 5 58 14 46 11 03 10 3S $16 00 16 00 13 00 800 14 00 5)67 00 13 40 9 35 6 00 11 33 10 30 4)40 88 ! 4)36 75 9 19 lit Is'? o •10 98 13 85 10 87 577 7 63 10 84 18 31 13 93 8)84 07 10 51 15 35 14 18 18 85 17 31 8 33 5)TJ 85 14 77 10 46 6 35 14 18 11 60 4)43 49 10 63 These prices produce the following result : Witnesses. Hi" all •i rt s si- ■£8 •OH II 11 JOProctor 110 34 iSmith Nil 0«rge Steele 10 51 Arenge price in United States oarrency I 10 43 Approximate gold prices* i 9 17 |14 33 13 40 14 77 •10 33 9 19 10 63 14 17 10 01 11 33 9 00 ' Average price of CDrrency, 1857 to 1865, 88 cunts ; 1866 to 1873, 80 cents ; 1873 to 1876, 90 cents. From these prices it is abundantly clear that the consuming classes in the United States were compelled to pay at least $2 (gold) per barrel more for all the mackerel brought in by Cluited States vessels during the existence of the duty. What stronger evidence can be required than these facts (perhaps the only facts with reference to which the testimony of witnesses on both sides is fnlly and absolutely in accord) to satisfy an impartial mind as to the real incidence of taxation upon the article in question 1 And iuas- 1884 AWABD OF THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. HI • mnch as the mackerel is the only Qsh the market for the best qnalitjes of which is limited to the United States, it is not deemed uecessarv to continue the inquiry with reference to other fish products to which' the markets of the world are open, and whose prices therefore can in uo way be influenced by the United States. Now, if your honors please, there is but one other subject to which I will call the attention of this Commission, before I close, and that ig to the offer made by the American Commissioners at the time this Treaty of Washington was being negotiated. I refer to the offer to remit the duty on coal, lumber, and salt. The circumstances are stated at length in the Reply of Great Britain to the Answer of the United States, and therefore I need not refer particularly to the figures. The sum wag $17,800,000, as far as I can recollect. Xow, if it is true, as contended by the United States in their Answer, that the remission of duties means a boon to the persons in whose favor they are remitted, and that these persons are the producers, then it is clear that this is a fair estimate, put by the American High Commissioners themselves, upon the Jishing priti. leges that they were then endeavoring to obtuinfrom the British Government. Whether that is a correct principle or not, is not what I am here to con' tend. My argument is that that was the view of. the United States as a country, believing in the proposition that the producer, and not the consumer, pays the duty. In tl eir own Answer they put the remission of duties which they say :aures to our benefit at $400,000 a year. While we do not admit the i correctness of their view of that remission, either in principle or amonnt, thf'ir answer is an admission of their estimate of the value of the con- 1 ees ' : afforded to them. If the concessions were worth as much as that. \%-i^ he award of this Commission must of necessity be in fevor i of Orettt Britain for a large amount. But it may be said '^Ton hare got i the value of this because we have remitted these duties." We have j shown by evidence and argument, conclusively, that the producer does not pay one dollar of these duties, that fish from the Halifax market was j sent there during the period when the duties were paid, and that the fish merchant here received back, in his own counting-house, for the fish sold in Boston, as much money as when there was no duty paid at all. The remission of duty, therefore, is a benefit to citizens of the United I States, and not to us. I have, in order to close this argument to day, passed over a Dumber 1 of subjects which I at one time intended to call to the attention of the Commission. But the time is pressing. We are to a considerable ex- tent worn out with the labors of the Commission. Yesterday I asked] the Commission to open at an earlier hour today, in order that 1 mig finish my remarks without further adjournment, and I am happy to bel able to redeem my promise. I I have now brought my argument on behalf of Great Britain to a j close. To the shortcomings and defects of that argument I am paiD-| fully alive. But the cause I have advocated is so righteous in itself, has been supported and sustained by evidence so trustworthy and con- j elusive, and is to be decided by a tribunal so able and impartial as that I which I have the honor to address, that I entertain no fears of the] result. Although I rejoice that a responsibility which for many months hasi pressed with no ordinary weight upon my learned colleagues and mjl self, is well nigh ended, yet I cannot but feel a pang of regret that tbej days of my pleasant intercourse with the gentlemen engaged in audj connected with this most important inquiry are drawing to a close. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1885 For tbe kind consideration and unfailing urbanity extended to my colleagues and myself, I tender to your excellency and your honors my most sincere acknowledgment and thanks. What shall I say to my brethren of the United States f To their aniform courtesy, tact, and kindly feeling we chiefly owe it that this nrotracted inquiry has almost reached its termination without unpleas- ant difference or dissension of any kind. To the cause of the United States, which both my patriotism and my professional duty constrain me to regard as utterly untenable, the iibility« ingenuity, and eloquence of Judge Foster, Mr. Dana, and Mr. Trescot, have done more than justice. They have shown themselves no anworthy members of a profession which in their own country has been adorned and illustrated on the bench and at the bar by the profound learning of a Marshall, a Kent, and a Story, and by the brilliant elo- qaence of a Webster and a Choate. From my learned, able, and accom- plished brethren of the United States I shall part, when this Commission gball have closed its labors, with unfeigned regret. A few words more and I have done. To the judgment of this tribunal, should it prove adverse to my anticipations. Great Britain and Canada vill bov^ without a murmur. Should, however, the decision be other- vise, it is gratifying to know that we have the assurance of her counsel, that America will accept the award in the same spirit with which En- gland accepted tbe Geneva judgment, and like England pay it without annecessary delay. This is as it should be. It is a spirit which reflects honor upon both countries. The spectacle presented by the Treaty of Washington, and the arbitrations under it, is one at which the world mast gaze with wonder and admiration. While nearly every other nation of the world settles its difficulties with other powers by the dreadful arbitrament of the sword, England and America, two of the most powerful nations upon the earth, whose peaceful flags of com- merce float side by side in every quarter of the habitable globe, whose ships of war salute each other almost daily in every clime and on every sea, refer their differences to the peaceful arbitrament of Christian men, sitting without show or parade of any kind in open court. On tbe day that the Treaty of Washington was signed by the High Contracting Parties, an epoch in the history of civilization was reached. Oa that day the heaviest blow ever struck by human agency fell upon that great anvil of the Almighty, upon which in His own way, and at His appointed time, the sword and tbe spear shall be transformed into the plowshare and the reaping-hook. BKIEF ON B REPLY TC STATES. The extent t( eitends od its i I been treated wi "Anna," 5 Kob, thing— "^erm' i \ Stowell— was s) . tlie shore, bat e I iucreased, if uo i tance woald be j of America. 1 [ rale is stated b^ I jngon a citation I i$ that the domi I sea extends as f I Xo dispute has i ] coast from whicl b, and therefo I CDSSiOO. It is admitted jidgeswho have j npon or carried i j lias the right of < I of its adjacent w J within its territo I Lav (second edii of every state e: and adjacent par I same state." Cponexamina jin the eighteen tl [tainedhowfartli I the United Statei The following i It 18 agreed by the iJotheUuited State I Inited States, signet Iwddrjing fish once IM, the inhabitantf I «er Britannic Majest J of this treaty, to taki |Mfl in the bays, hart IDninswick, and the c imto adjacent, wlthoi l«on to land upon the Ifllands, for the purpo pdoingtheydonoti ^I>I?ENr)IX K. BRIEF ON BEHALF OP HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT IN REPLY TO THE BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. The extent to which the ilominion and jurisdiction of a maritime state extends od its external sea-coast has not always or by different nations been treated with unanimity. After the introduction of fire-arms (see "Anna," 5 Kob., 385) that extent or distance, upon the then reason of the thing— "term* dominium Jinitur uhifinitur armorum vis, as cited by Lord gto^ell— was said to be usually recognized to be about three miles from the shore, bat now that the range of modern artillery has been so largely iucreased, if not upon other grounds, it is probable that a greater dis- tance would be claimed by many nations, including the United States of America. The practical, and therefore real and true reason of the [ rale is stated by Kent (''Commentaries" I, p. 32), where after comment- , jDgon a citation of Aznni, he says : "All that can reasonably be asserted is that the dominion of the sovereign of the shore over the contiguous { sea extends as far as is requisite for his safety and for some lawful end." I No dispute has arisen touching the distance from the external line of I coast from which American fishermen have been excluded from taking b, and therefore that subject may be rejected firom the present dis- I cnssion. It is admitted by all authorities, whether writers on international law, I jndges who have interpreted that law, or statesmen who have negotiated npon or carried it into effect in treaties or conventions, that every nation has the right of exclusive dominion and jurisdiction over those portions of its adjacent waters which are included by promontories or headlands Tithin its territories. The rule is thus stated in Wheaton^s International Law (second edition by Mr. Lawrence, p. 320) : "The maritime territory of erery state extends to the ports, harbors, bays, months of rivers, and adjacent parts of the sea inclosed by headlands belonging to the I same state." Upon examination of Article I of the Convention of 1818, mentioned I in the eighteenth article of the Treaty of Washington, it will be ascer- tained how far the privilege has been conceded by the latter article to [the United States fishermen to use bays in British North America. The following is Article XVIII of the Treaty of Washington : It 18 agreed by the High Contracting Parties that, in addition to the liberty secured Itothe Uuited States fishermen by the Convention between Oreat Britain and the I United States, signed at London on the 20th day of October, 1818, of taking, curing, hod drying fish on certain coasts of the British North American Colonies therein de- I W, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in common with the subjects of jHer Britannic Majesty, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII I of this treaty, to take fish of every kind except shell-fish on the sea coasts and shores, jMd in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New IBrangwick, and the colony of Prince Edward Island, and of the several islands there- liiiito adjacent, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permia- jiiou to land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also upon the Magdalen jWands, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish : Provided, That in lioaolDgthey do not interfere with the rights of private property or with British fish- &.'■''■ I- 1888 AWAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. eriuen in the peaceable use of any part of the Bald coasts in tbeir oociipancy for th same purpose. It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to tlio ma flfiherr and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and all otlier lisherius in rivi'r.s and Id til' mouths of rivers, are hereby reserved exclusively for British iishernieii. '^ Article I of the Convention of 1818 is as follows: Whereas differences have arisen roapectinK the liberty claimed by the I'nited Statei for the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, and cure tisli on certain coastH, lijiys, harbors and creelcs of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, it is UKreed t)Htweeii thii High Contracting Parties that the inhabitants of tlie said United i'tateH hIiuII have forever, in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, the liberty to talcelii^li of every kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland whicli uxtunds Irum Cape Kay to the Rameau Islands, on the wt'stern and northern coast of New foundlaml fi'om the said Cape Ray to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of tlie MaKmentioued limits. On the part of Great Britain it is maintained that the IJuited States] fishermen were prohibited from fishing within three mariue uiles of tlie j entrance of any of sucb bays, creeks, or harbors of His Britaunic Majes- ty's dominions in America, while the United States Goverumeut contend | that the United States fishermen were permitted by that article to f in the said bays, creeks, or harbors, provided they did not approaciij within three miles of the shore in the pursuit of their calling. The correspondence between the Government of Great Britain and! that of the United States, a portion of which is set out in the Unitedj States brief, shows that with the exception of the Bay of Fundy, wbickJ for exceptional reasons, and by the indulgence of Great Britain, waaj differently treated, Her Majesty's Government has uniformly contended] for the construction now relied on. This correspondence as well as the utterances of American statesmen,^ support the construction contended for by Great Britain. Mr. Stevenson, United States minister in London, in 1841,Marcii2',L writing to Lord Palmerston, then foreign secretary, puts the two mm very clearly, " The provincial authorities," he says, •* assume a right tor exclude the vessels of the United States from all their bays (even inj clading those of Fundy and Ghalenrs), and likewise to prohibit their approach within the three miles of a line drawn from headland to head< laud, instead of from the indents of the shores of the provinces. Tluj AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1889 fishermen of the United States believe that tliey eaii with propriety take fisb anywliere on the coasts of the iiritish provinces if not nearer thau three iuih'« to land." But Mr. Everett, also United States minister in London, in 1844, May Jo, piitsadirt'erent construction upon tlie Treaty of 1818. In his letter to Lord Aberdeen of May 25, 184-i, (pioted iu the United States Brief (pp. Ij, 10, 17, and 18), he says: Itwos notdiioiisly tlie object of tho article of the treaty in qncHti(»ii to i)iit nn end totbedifticiiltieH whicii had grown out of tiie oiiorations of the fmhermen from ttie Uulted StiitfM tvluug the cooHta and upon the chores of the Nettled portions of tlie coun- try, »u8uch a doctrine, he says that he *' admits it to be the intent of the 119 F 1890 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. treaty, as it is in itself reasonable, to have regard to the Reiicial line of the coast, and to consider its hays, creeks, and harborn, that is, imknk- tiona usually so aecounted, as included within that line.''^ Wiiat line! Clearly the line within three miles from which all American tlsliingres. sels are exchuled under the convention. Mr. Everett never vj'iitiirwi to taiut that the bay of Miramichi or the bay of Chaienrs in three iiiileH of the place of shelter along the greater part of the , while in reference to the entire extent of shore within the Bay o. ^ undy they would be wholly prohibited from fishing along the coast, and would be kept at a distance of twenty or thirty miles from any place of refuge iu case of extremity. This argument impliedly admits that, whatever may be the case as to the Bay of Fundy, United States fishermen were, by the Treaty of 1818, excluded, except for purposes of necessity, from other bays along the coast of Her Majesty's colonial possessions and from fishing within three miles of those bays. The British Government, however, in 1845, whilst maintaining as a I matter of strict construction that tlie Bay of Fundy was rightfully claimed by Great Britain as a bay within the meaning of the Conven- tion of 1818, relaxed the application of this construction to that bay, and allowed the United States fishermen to pursue their avocations iu any part of it, provided they should not approach, except incases specified in the Treaty of 1818, within three mile '>f the entrance ot anv j bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunf This proviso shows clearly the constructioi at that time (1845)1 and before by the British Government upon lu^ word "bay "in the) Convention of 1818 on both points, that the dimensions of the bay were I immaterial, and that uo approach was permissible within three miles of| the entrance of a bay. In a state paper dated July 6, 1852, Mr. Webster, Secretary of Stated although contending that the wording of tue Convention ot 1818 w\ not conformable to the intentions of the United States, as one of the couj tracting parties, says : It would appear that by a strict and rigid construction of this article (Article I o(j Convention of lisl8) fishing vessels of the United States are precluded from enteringl into the bays or harbors of the British proviuces except for the purposos of shclterT repairing damages, and obtaining wood and water. A bay, as is usually uuderstoodJ is an arm or recess of the sea entering from the ocean between capes or beadlauds; m the term is applhd equally to small and large tracts of ivaler thus situated. It is common td speak of Hudson's Buy or the Bay of Biscay, although they are very largu tracts oo water. J The British anthorities insist that England has a right to draw a line from headlanJ to headland and to capture all American fishermen who may follow their |iursiiitj iul side of that line. It was undoubtedly an oversight in the Convention of IHlt* to iuai;esr large a concession to England, since the United States had usually cuiisidered thai those vast inlets or recesses of the ocean ought to be o[)eu to American tisberiuena freely as the sea itself, to within three miles of the shore. Had this language been used by so great and experienced a statesinaj as Mr. Webster iu any ordinary debate, it would be testimony of tlij most weighty character against the views put forth on this subject ii the answer of the United States. But when it is borne iu mind thaf Mr. Webster used these words in his official capacity as Secretaryi State they must be considered as conclusive. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1891 Mr. Kusli, who negotiated the Treaty of 1818, in a letter to Secretary M»rcj» d»t«<^ ^^^^ *^"'y» ^^^3» ^^y^'- These «re tli« (IocIhJvo wodIh in our favor. Tliey inonn no more tliiin that our Huli- ernifn, whilst flHliiiiR in the wHterH ».f tlio Uuy of Fiindy, Hlionld not gt) m'uror tliuii three niilHi* t<> >"'y "^ tliomi Htimll innur l>ayH, creolcH, or linrliorH wliiuli aro Itnown to indent the ooutttH of Nova Scotia and New HrnnHwiulc. To mippowt tbny worn lM>nn Inixl mi ItitMi hIiU'h niiiNl. Im< wiUilii Mio tlniiiliiliMt ol'tlio K*tv, no niu'Ii JnrtNilli>Uon i>iiii lio olidniixl,'' Now, nIt, MiIn Mi'KiuiKMit. NiMMim III 1110 to iirovu liiio iiinnli, I tdiiik It would illvnut thi< Ihiltoil Hli(h>H ol'Mii< liiii'lioi'or Itimtoii, n\\ Mio luiiil iti'oiinil \\\\M\ IihIimiun lo Mm. HotiiiNi'ltN or (lii> I'nltoil 8lHN, wliilo tlio nnuitli of Mio liiiv In mix mlliw wido, |i vonlil NiiniMiiliM' out- iliiniliiloii ovor Iioiik iNlitnil Hiniiiil -h iloiniiiinti whiili, | |.|j||,|, ilu»Stn(i> of Ninv York ninl Mii> Uiilloil SiutoM wonlil mil. wlllinuly ^ivK iip. Il, woiilii niiniMiilm- Moluwino Hny ; It wonlil hiiiihhiIit, I IliiiiU, AIIikiiiiuIh H.miihI, liuil Mm CJmn. »|i»»kii Hay; iiml I liollVvii it woiilil Nnrriihii|ii«tliu llity III' Sun (''ninciNCo on Mio I'liolllo ooknI.. i^tMuitor Tiu^k, diiriii); tlio niiiiio dcibato, Niiiii : I'iM'liiiim I hIiiiII tii> llion>{lil to nliiM'no Mio ('oiiiniiNslonoiH of MM with nviMlimliiiii; out- iiiloi'ONlN. 'riioy illi) NO, in llin liii|Mittiuil. i'<>iiiitioliMiNNiiiiiN, itiiil Mii>t'i> WUN iiii louNiiii tu iinMi'l|iiiti> lliiii \vi< hIiimiIiI «viM' liiivo oi'fiisioii to ilo NO. Miti'kiM'ol wim'i< I.Iioii roiinil ivn »lMitiilii.ntly on Ww coiihI (i| Ni>w F.iiuliinil i«N iMiywIiiMV In llio worlil, iinil il. wiin not, till yoiiiH utter Mini Huh lioiMitil'nrtlNli, ill It. H>'<'nt i'ii|iHlly ^lowii ii|i nIiiimi l.'^ltH, iinil no viot llio I'oil llNlioiy, kiiiI thin tlii\Y iliil in ii niiiiiimi' K'^nniilly niitiit. fiu'lory lo llio,Hi> iiionI liit.oroNloil. Tlio (loomiuMit ih\{v\\ April t'J, ISOIJ, pnrliully (|tio(('ii tU pii},'o L'.Sofj tho lliiitoil HluU's briol", would ooiivo.y u t'tii' «liiu*roiit inciiiiiii',' ilKivenj ill t\\\\. 'riu> (-oiiiiiiissioiiorN lu'o (IrsiriMl to iiotimi t.liat MuM).\U'ii(;Llh(>riii given is ill tlio toxt iiiinuMliatoly pn'coilinl by tlio rollowiiijf : tloi' MiijoNly'N (JoviM-nmont imo I'loiiilv of opinion Mint, by tlio (!oiiv«ntioii of l>^l^,j thtf Uiiitoit StutiMi li»vii iinioniKMul tlio iIkIU. or IInIiIiik, not only within Ihroit nilliHiifi tlio coloniivl NliotvH. Iiut within thioo inilwi ol' u lino ilrnwn aci-oNH tlio iiioiiihiifniir] Urltish liay or oiih^k. lint tlii> i|iioMlion, wliiit in n Hiitinh hay or iti-onk, \h onu wliicii] htwi hiM>ii Mio ociMWiioii ot'iliSllonlty in I'oriiinr tiiiiim. | U In tli«ivfor<». «i/ /iiwfM^ tim wInIi ol' llnr MiOoNty'N MovornniiMit iioitlior t(iciinwil«,] nor, /or thr prvwHt, to ont'oivo uuy ri^litN in tliiN r«m|HMtt which itro in thidr iialiinMi|ieo| to Miiy Norioim iimmtion. It imust 1)0 rtMiuMnboriMl tliut at tlio date of this dixMiinoiit tlio Amorij can tisliornuMi wimo passing from tliu freo nso of all Oaniuliaii liMlu^ml jrrantoil by tbo Rooiprooity Treaty to tho litnitutionH )f Mh> (>oiivt'iitiott| of 1S18, ami I lor Miyesty's (lovernniont, through friendly fiiciiiigs, dej Kinnt to Kiv(^ Aineri(' Hrr MuJKMty'.i ijiiiiiliiJoiiK, llio AiiH'iliMiii llHlioriiH'ii will III' < nilli'MMf It ; Mint. U toMii.y (it. Ih |irit', tllO HI|hN('(|ll«WM IMIHHIIgCS ill Ml(f tlMMIIorillt- (Iniinvliitili iniM'tMiicly (uiihtril in tlio bii«ti: It iitil) iitlirr iiH to tlio i or, 11' MiIn Ih liii|irniitliittlil)<, to Hii^i^imt hoiiio lino of ilnlinoiitlon itloiiK tlio wliolo I'liiiHt, wlili'li. tlion((li not III rtxiii't tionlorinity with tho woriln of tlio ronvori- limi, niiiy it|i|>*'ii'i' '<* llioni rotmiNtont In HiilmtitiMM> with tho jimt rip;htH of tho two iiaiiiHiH, iiihI onliMilutoiJ to roniovo omiHioti for fiitnro controvofHy." Il JH not iiiliMiildil iliitt tho roHolt of tho OoninilHHioii hIioiiIiI not'.nKMitiily lio oiiiIhmIIciI • in II now ('iiiiv)>iition liolwoon tho two ooiiiitrloH, hut if nil iii^roonii'nt run Im an IvimI itt I it limy 1)0 millirionl Mint It hIioiiIiI ho In Mio I'onn of iin nnilorHtiinilliiK hotwinn tho two gnviTiiMioiitN itN to tho prurtii'iil Intorprotitllon wliioh Hintll hoj^lvoti to tho (/'oiivoiitioii I o( 1H|H, It would l>o iliniciilt lor ttio (^oiiiiiiiHHioiMM-H, with ttm cotiLrxt of tho inii'iiiDiati'liiiM MiiiN iH-fofn tlxMii, Ml iiiiiliirNt.aiiil, nvU,4>h (iovrtiirnoiit, liowhyit iiiiv dotttriiio nviih liiid .nioviiiKiill obstaoh's by tho [teniponvry rohixation of tlioir rights, antl thoi'oby protnotiti^; a friondly iaiidiimicabh^ Hotthiinont. This ooiisiihiration may oxphiiti tlio, Jan^naKO lof Mr. ]{o}rors in his lottor to the admiralty of April '.W, IHH), (pioiod latp.aOof tho briof. Itinay bo lioro addod that tho Joint llijjfh (/oinniissionors, whon the iWashiii^rton Troaty was in (;onrso of no^otiatioii, could not sr I did not Iporetlic dilVoroiKto which htid from titno to timo arison as to (ho intor- Iprptation of tho Ihst article of tho (Jonvontion of IHI8. In fact, those jtiiffereiices had givon birth t opinion of the court, liffined " bays" to be " inclosed parts of the sea.^'' ^ United States v. Bevan ^ |3Wheatoii'.s Reports, p. 387.) 1898 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Again, Mr. Justice Story, in a question of indictment for assault with intent to icill, under the crimes statute of 1825, cap. 276, sec. 22, which declares "that if any person or persons upon the high seas, or in any arm of the sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay, withio the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, on board any vessel, shall commit an assault ' &c., decided that the place where the murder was committed (the ve's 6.. I lying at such time between certain islands in the mouth of the Bos- ton River) was an arm of the sea. "An arm of the sea," he further said, " may include various descrip. tion of waters, where the tide ebbs and flows. It may be a river, har- bor, creek, basin, or bay." (United States v. Grush, 5 Masou, 299.) It would thus appear that the word " bay " has received a positive detinitiou as a term of jurisprudence, which is in accordance with the common use of the term in text-books on the law of nations, which invariably speak of "bays" as ^^ portions of sea inclosed within indenUof coasts^'" and not as indents of coast. Assuming, therefore, as established beyond reasonable doubt, that the word "bay" signifies an arm or elbi)W of the sea incjlosed witiiin head lands or peaks, and not an indent of the coast, we may consider what is the true intention of the expression " within three marine miles of a bay." Are such miles to be measured from the outer edge or chord of the bay, or from the inner edge or arc of the bay? In the first place it may be observed, that the inner edge or arc of a bay touches the coast, and if j the distance is to be measured from the shore of the bay, the word "bay" j itself has virtually no distinct signification from " coast," and has no supplemental force; prima facie, therefore, this interpretation does not recommend itself on the grounds already stated. Again, the interpretation which is given to the measure of distance from bays must be given to the measure ot distance from creeics and j harbors, both of which, by the municipal law of the United States, equally as of Great Britain, are infra corpus comitatus, and whose waters are subject to the provisions of the municipal law precisely as the shores of the land itself. But it may assist in determining this question to keep in mind the rule that in contracts "on doit interpreter une clause par les autres clauses contenues dans I'acte, soit qu'elles precedentoaj suivent." (Pothier, ^Obligations, No. 96.) In other Avords, a subsequent J clause may serve to interpret a former clause, if the latter be at all am-i biguous. Accordingly, we find the renunciation of the liberty to tishj within three marine miles of any of the bays, creeks, or harbors of Hisj Britannic Majesty's dominions followed by the proviso that Americanj fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays and harbors for certainj specified purposes other than taking fish. In other words, they mayj prosecute their voyage for other purposes than fishing tvithin theentrajm of any bay or harbor, but may not take fish within three marine inileH of any bay or harbor, i. e., within three marine miles of the entramm any bay or harbor. If this interpretation be not adopted, the ]>fon'«oj would be absurd ; for if American fishermen are imjilicitly permitted ta fish within three marine miles of the shore of any bay or harbor, the.^ are permitted to ente^' such bay or harbor, if the breadth of the mouti be more than six miles, and the distance of the head of the bay or harboj from the entrance be more than three miles, for another purpose i\m for the purpose of shelter, or of repairing damages, or of purcha8in|| wood, or of obtaining water. J But the convention expressly says, *^^for no other purpose wMew] If, therefore, they cannot enter any bay or harbor for the purpose ol AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1899 nrosocutiup: their occupation of fishing, it cannot be intended that they should be allowed to fish within three marine miles of the shore of any bay or harbor, as the two provisions would be inconsistent. Accord- jngiy, as the question resolves itself into the alternative interpretation of sliore or entrance, it follows that the correct interpretation which uiakes the language of the entire article consistent with itself is within three marine miles of the entrance of any bay, such entrance or mouth bciug, iu fact, part of tlie bay itself, and the bay being approachable by fishing vessels only in th<^ direction of the mouth or entrance. That a bay of sea water wider than six miles at its mouth may be withiu the body of a county is laid down by Lord Hale in his treatise ])i Jure Maris et Braehiorum ^mdem (Hargrave's 2Va6'<«, chapt;er 4): "An arm or branch of the sea which lies within the fauces terrw, where a Diaa may reasonably discern between shore and shore, is, or at least may be, within the body of a county." This doctrine has been expressly adopted by Mr. Justice Story in De Lovio v. Boit (2 Gallison's Reports, p. 420, 2d ed.), in which, to use the language of Mr. Wheatou's argu- ment iu United States v. Bevans (3 Wheatou's Reports, p. 358), " all the learning on the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the admiralty is col- lected together." There is, consequently, no doubt that the jurisdiction of the municipal law over bays is not limited to bays which are less than six miles in breadth or three miles in depth, since the general rule is, as was observed by the same eminent judge in United States v. Grush (oMasoa, p. 300): "That such parts of rivers, arms, and creeks of sea, are deemed to be withiu the bodies of counties, where persons can see from one side to the other." That the jurisprudence of the United States has recognized the prin- ciple of courts of municipal law exercising jurisdiction over bays at a (listauce uiore than three miles from the shore, is shown by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Church v. Hubbard. (2 Cranch's Fieprts, p. 187.) In this case an American brigantine, the Aurora, when at anchor in the Bay of Para on the coast of Brazil, and four or five leagues from Cape Paxos, was seized and condemned by the Portuguese authorities for a breach of the laws of Portugal on a matter of illicit trade. Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the court, said, "Nothing is to be drawn from the laws or usages of nations which proves that the seizure of the Aurora by the Portuguese Government was an act of lawless violence." The same principle was also involved in the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States upon the seizure of the British vessel (irauge by a French frigate within the Bay of Delaware, and which ns accordingly returned to the owners. In his report to the United States Government (14 May, 1793), the Attorney -General observed, "that the Grange was arrested in the Delaware, icithin the capes, before she bad reached the sea," that is, in that part of the waters of the Dela- ware which is called the Bay of Delaware, and which extends to a distance of sixty miles icithin the capes. It is worthy of remark that the Bay of Delaware is not within the body of a county, its northern headland, Cape May, belonging to the State of New Jersey in property and juris- diction, aud its southern headland, Cape Henlopen, being i)art of the State of Delaware, yet the whole bay was held to be American territory. The same principle was also involved in the judgment of th*' Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Martin and others v. Waddell (16 Peters' l^e2)or««, 367), in which it was agreed on all sides that the prerogative of the Crown prior to the American Revolution extended 1900 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. over all bays and arms of the sea, from the river iSt. Croix to the Dela- ware Buy. Again, in the report of the committee of Congress (November 17 1807) on the att'air of the Little Belt, it was maintained that the British squadron had anchored within the capes of Chesapeake Bay and mthin the acknoicled{fed jurisdiction of the United States, whilst it seems that the alleged violation of territory had taken place at a distance of three leagues from Cape Henry, the southern headland of the Bay of Chesaiieake. This assertion of jurisdiction was in accordance with the iiistrnctions sent May 17, 1800, from Mr. Madison to Messrs. IMonroe and rincknev according to which it was to be insisted that the extent of the neutral immunity should correspond with the claims maintained by Great Brit- ain around her own territory ; and that no belligerent riglit should be exercised within the chambers formed by headlands, or anywhere at sea within the distance of four leagues, or from a right line from one hcmUand to another. What those claims were, as maintnined by Great Britain, may be gathered from the doctrine laid down by Sir Leoline Jenkins in his report to His Majesty in Council December 5, 1005 [Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, vol, ii, p. 720), in the case of an Ostend vessel having been cap tured by a Portuguese privateer about four leagues west of Dover, and two Dutch leagues from the English shore, in which case a question arose whether the vessel had been taken within one of the King of En- gland's chambers, i. e., within the line (a straight one having been drawn) from the South Foreland to Dungeness Point, on which supposition she would have been under the protection and safeguard of the Euglisb Crown. The same eminent judge, in another report to the King in Council (vol. ii, p. 732), speaks of one of those recesses commonly called "Your Majesty's chambers," being bounded by a straight line drawn from Dunemore, in the Isle of Wight, to Portland (according to the account given of it to the admiralty in IGGl). He says, " It grows very narrow westward, and is scarce in any place four leagues broad, I mean from any point of this imaginary line to the opposite English shore." And in a third report, October 11, 1075 (vol. ii, p. 780), he gives his opinion that a Hamburg vessel captured by a French privateer should be set free, upon a full and clear proof that she was within one of " Your Majesty's chambers at the time of seizure, which the Hamburger in his first memorial sets forth as being eight leagues at sea over against Harwich." This doctrine- is fully in accordance with the text-books. Thus Aznni writes in his Droit Maritime de V Europe, chap, ii, art. 3, § 3: "Lesobli gations relatives aux ports sont 6galement applicables aux baies et aiu golfes, attendu qu'ils font aussi partie de la souverainete da gouverne- ment dans la domination et le territoire duquel ils sont places, etquiles tient 6galeraent sous sa sauvegarde : en consequence, I'asile accorde dans une bale on dcins un golfe, n'est pas moins inviolable que celui d'an port, et tout attentat com mis dans I'un comme dans I'autre, doit etre regardd coinme une violation manifesto du droit des gens." Valin, f<"«- ^ ment. d, VOrdonnance de France, tit. "Des Rades," art. i, may be cited] in confirmation of this doctrine. j The words used in the Ist Articleof the Convention of 1818 are, "On the coast of Newfoundland, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, on] the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mount Joy," &c. The word "on" is thus used as applicable to shores, coasts, bays, creeks, and harbors, and the United States renounce any liberty to take, After cooimc AVVAKD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1901 drr, or cure fish on or within tliree marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors. it is admitted that the liberty to fish is renounced within three miles of the coasts. If the contention of the United States, that this renun- ciation applies only to a specifled distance from the shores of the coasts, bitvg, creeks, and harbors, and is to be ascertained by a line following the bays, creeks, and the indents thereof at a distarujo of three miles, be right, then shores, or coasts if synonymous with shores, is the only uecessary word, and the words, " bays, creeks, and harbors," are with- out meauiug — a construction which would be contrary to the rule which reiiiiires that ettVct be given to every word. Tlie word " bay," then, must have a meani-ng. Tlje distance, therefore, from headland to headland ought not and can- not be coutin6d to a measure of six miles in oriler to give exclusive dominion within the bay formed by the headlands. The general principle is that navigable waters included in bays be- tffeeu two headlands belong to the sovereign of the adjoining territory as being necessary to the safety of the nation and to the undisturbed nseof the neighboring shores. (Pufteudorf, b. 3, c. 5; Vattel, b. 1, ch. 33.) The difiQculty of limiting the extent to which this privilege should be carried is thus stated by Azuni : It is difficult to draw any precise or determinate conclusion amidst the variety of opiuioD8 as to the distance to which a state way lawfully extend its exclusive doniinioa over the sea adjoining its territories and beyond those portions of the sea which are embraced by harlK)rs, gulfs, bays, &c., and estuaries, and over which its jurisdiction auquestionably extends. (Azuni on the Maritime Laws of Europe, 1, p. 206). After commenting on this passage of Azuni, which he cites, Kent Considering the great extent of the line of the American coasts, we have a right to claim for fiscal and defensive regulations a liberal extension of maritime jurisdiction, tud it would not be unreasonable, as I apprehend, to assume, for domestic purposes con- nected with our safety and welfare, the control of the waters on our coasts, though in- cluded within lines stretching from quite distant headlands, as, for instance, from Cape Add to Cape Cod, and from Nantucket to Montauk Point, and from that point to the cape of the Delaware, and from the south cape of Florida to the Mississippi. It is certain that our government would be disposed to view with some uneasiness and sensi- bilty, in the case of war between s>me other maritime powers, the use of the waters of oir coast far beyond the reach of uaunou shot, as cruising ground for belligerent x)ar- poses. Chancellor Kent therefore considers that some distance between the headlands of more than six miles would properly be insisted on by the United States for securing the objects above mentioned, the safety of tlie territory, and other lawful ends. The right of exclusive Ashing is undoubtedly a lawful end. (Vattel, b.l,c. 23.) And where the nation has an exclusive right it is entitled to lieep the exercise of that right in its own power, to the exclusion of fltbers. lu the Convention of 1818 no limited construction was put upon the wd " bay." The treaty employs as distinct terms the words " coasts, bavs, creeks, and harbors." " Bay," therefore, should be taken, in the ; plain and ordinary sense of the term, to mean a portion of the sea iu- cloiibd between headlands, wl 'ch, together with the shores within them, belong to the same nation. The entrance to this bay is marked or ascertained by a line drawn I from headland to headland, whatever be the depth of the bay, and i tboagh the line drawn from headland to headland exceed six marine 1902 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. The United States renounced the right to talce fish in sncii The Treaty of Washington, 1871, frees them from such reinuiciation The restriction or exclusion is alto{;ether removed. The case of the Queen vs. Keyn (L. R. 2 Ex. Div. (Y,i), so much relied on in tlie Answer and Urief of tlio United States, affords no support whatever to the posi. tion there tal^en. The question involved in that case was whether or not a foreigner comnmnding a foreign vessel could legally be convicted of manslaughter committed whilst sailing by the eMernal coast of Em landy within three miles from the shore, in the prosecution of a voyage from one foreign port to another. The court, by a majority of seven judges to six, held the convictioi) bad, on the ground that the jurisdiction of the common law courts only extended to offenses committed within the realm, and that at coinmoii law such realm did not extend on the external coasts beyond low-water mark. None of the judges, however, doubted that Parliament had full power to extend the laws of the realm to a zone of three miles arouiitl the outer coast if it saw fit so to do. The Lord Chief Justice of Englaiul by whose casting judgment the conviction was quashed, not only guarded himself expressly against being understood as throwing any doubt what- ever upon the jurisdiction of the courts over inland or territorial waters but emphatically ailiinied such jurisdiction. '■'■ But," says he (p. 16L')' "only so much of the laud of the outer coast as was uncovered by the sea, was held to be within the body of the adjoining county. If an offense was committed in a bay, gulf, or estuary, inposed to extend over. When it is ased as synonymous with territory, I take the true meaning of the term ' realm of England' to be the territory to and over which the commou law of England extends. In other words, all that is within the body of any county, to the exclusion of the high seas, which come under a different jurisdiction only because they are not within any of those territorial divisions into which, among other things, for the administration of the law, the kingdom is parceled out. At all events I am prei)ared to abide by the distinction taken in the statutes of Richard II, between tho realm and the sea." This clearly shows that as far back as the time of Richard II, beyond which legal memory is not permitted to run, the | realm of England was known and understood to include within itsj bounds those inland waters which were inclosed from the high seas be tween headlands. The Answer of the United States (p. 5) quotes with approbation the I strong condemnatory language of the Lord Chief Justice, and holds it out to the Commissioners and the world as applicable to the contention of Great Britain in this matter. If the language was really so aiiplied,! it might be considered as damaging to the case of Great Britain, bntifl it has no reference to any question now before the Commission, thenitj is submitted that its presence in the Answer is calculated to mislead.! In the course of his judgment, Sir Alexander Cockburn, referringtoj claims made by England centuries ago, not merely to exclusive domiDj AWARD OB' THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1903 ion over the fonr seas, but to the right to preserve thejpeace of the King ill all seas, and even to treat as pirates the crews of those foreign ves- jelswbicli ret'useil to strike tlieir colors to a Kind's ship on any sea, pro- ceeds as follows (pp. 174, 175): "Venice, in like manner, laid claim to the Adriatic, Genoa to the Ligurian Sea, Denmark to a portion of the Xortb Sea. The Portngnese claimed to bar the ocean route to India and tlie Indian seas to the rest of the world, while Spain made the like assertion with reference to the West. All these vain and extravagant pretensiniiH have long since given way to the influence of reason and comraon sense." The remaiiiderof the passage quoted in the Answer is to be found at p. 196 of the Keport, where referring to the jurisdiction of the admiral, which extended over the whole oci'an as regards British ships, and to the reasoning of some older authorities which sought froiu that circamstance to extend the realm of England over the whole ocean, the Lord Chief Justice says : " These assertions of sovereignty were man- ifestly based on the doctrine that the narrow seas are part of the realm of England. But that doctrine is now exploded. Who at this day woald venture to affirm that the sovereignty thus asserted in those times now exists? What English lawyer is there who would not shrink from maintaiuing, what foreign jurist who would not deny, what foreign gov- ernment which would not repel such a pretension ?*' Id what possible way this language can be mside to bear upon tho present inquiry, Her Majesty's Government are at a loss to under- stand. Sir Robert Phillimore, one of the judges who agreed with the Lord Chief Jastice in the conclusion that the conviction ought not to stand, was equally careful to put the consideration of the law governing bays and inland waters out of the case. He says (p. 71) : "The question as to dominion over portions of the seas inclosed within headlauds or con- tigaous shore such as the King's chambers, is not now under considera' (ion. The King's chambers referred to by Sir Robert Phillimore are tbem- elves well-known bays or inlaud waters on the English coast, inclosed I within headlands, many of them as large or larger at the mouths than 1 are the Bays of Miramichi or Chaleurs. It is coufldently claimed by Her Majesty's Government that the case iftheFrancouia, so far from affording any support to the Answer of I the United States, is an authority in favor of the right of Her Majesty to exercise sovereign and exclusive jurisdiction over all "bays" and other inland waters lying on the coast of British America inclosed with I headlands, be the distance between such headlands what it may. A subsequent case directly in point and containing an interi)retation I of the vera word in the very instrument now under discussion, has been decided by the judicial committee of the privy council, the highest appellate court in the realm in relation to all British colonial matters, as lately as the 14th February, 1877. The case is that of The Direct ] InM States Cable Company (Limited), appellants, v. The Anglo- Ameri- I Telegraph Company {Limited), and others, respondents, reported in the Ikw Reports, Appeal Cases, vol. 2, p. 394. The suit was one in which Ithe respondent company had obtained and injunction against the appel- jlautcompany restraining them from laying a telegraph cable in Con- jception Bay, Newfoundland, and thereby infringing rights granted by Ithe legislature of that island to the respondent company. The appellant jcompauy contended that Conception Bay (which is rather more than jtwenty miles wide at its mouth and runs inland between forty and fifty jiniles) was not British territorial waters, but a part of the high seas. The rm ^?«^«?^ 1904 AWARU or TUE FI8HEKY COMMISSION. buoy and cables complained of were laid witiiin tlie bay at a distance of more than three miles from sbore. Tbe contention of the rospoiideiit company was not sustained, and the injunction was retained. Tlie jiKk' ment of the judicial committee was delivered by Lord Bhicklmrn ami the attention of the Commission is directed to the foUowiiij^ quofation from the judgment, which, so far as judicial interpretation cmi affect that object, must be held to set the question at rest : Bofore proceeding to diucuss tho second question, it ia deHirable to Htato the facti 'which ruioe it. ConceptitHi Bay lies on the enstern side of Newfoundland, botwooii two pronifln. tories, the Houthuru ending at Cape St. Francis, and tlie nortlieru promontory at 8|ilit Point. No evidencu has been given, nor was any riMpiired, as to tlie ly this doctrine to anyparticaj lar place, nor to defiue what was meant by seeing oi discerning. If it means to ser what men are doing, so, for iustauce, that eye-witnesses on shore could say v to blame in a fray, on the waters, resulting in death, the distance would be v ited ; if to discern what great ships were about, so as to be able to see their manauveia it would be very much more extensive ; in either sense it is indefinite. But in Regia< r. Cunningham, (Bells C. C, 86), it did become necessary to determine wlu'ther a paj tioular spot iu the Bristol Channel, on which three foreigners on board a foreign sliij^ I lO. and so does L-.nd Hale. The! I, tisas this language : " That ami terno,' where nan may reasonably! may be, within lO body of a county,] iheriif oi coroner. Edward II, Corone,] AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1905 DUB of tkl lunty, audi no refer- f [ale. Tb«| That ami easoDablyl county, f I, Corone,| yparticoj IDS to i k|d eomrnitted a crime, was within. thn county of Glamorgitn, the imliotment having, flwtlier aeoeiwurily or not, chikrtted tbe oS'enae as having been ouminittutl in that The Hriitol Channel, it is to he remembered, is an arm of the soa dividing England from WalM' Into the njtper end of this arm of the sea the rivor Severn Hows. Then the arm of the Hca lies between SnmersetHhini and Glamorganshire, and nf forward be- tween DovonHJiire and the counties u( Glamorgan, Carmarthen, and Pembroke. It fideoa w it (lexcends, and between Port Eynon Head, the lowest jioint of Giuti<.organ- ,hjre,amltlieo|)itosite shore of Devon, it is wider then Conception Hay ; between llurt- l,g,l Point, in Dovonsliire, and Penibrokeehire it is mnch wider. The case res()rvei* taken as tlie finding of the Jury. It also showed that theH|N)tin ((iiesMon was outside Pt^iartli Head, and could not, therefore, be treated as filhin the smaller bav formed by Penarth Head and Laveruock Point. And it set out what evidence was given to prove that the spot had buen treated as part of the county I ofGlaiuurgan, and the question was stated lo be whether the ]>risoners were properly coDvictod of iin utfense within the county of Glamorgan. The case wiis much considered, being twice argued, and Chief Justice Cockburn I delivered judgment, saying: "The oidy question with which it becomes necessary for g« to deal is whether the part of the sea on which the vessel was at the time when the offenw was coniriiitted forms part of the body of the county of Glamorgan, and we I ireof opiuion that it does. The seit in question is part of the Bristol Channel, both ihoteiof which form part of England and Wales, of the county of Somerset on the one side and the county of Glamorgan on the other. We are of opinion that, looking It tbe local situation of this sea, it must be taken to belong to the counties respect- ively hy the shnres of which it is bounded ; and the fact of the Holms, between which and the shore of the county of Glamorgan the place in question is situated, having ilways been treated as part of the parish of Carditf, and as part of the county of Gla- morgan, is a strong illustration of the principle on which we proceed, namely, that tbe whole of this inland sea between the counties of Somerset and Glamorgan is to be oinaidered ns within the counties by the shores of which its several parts are respect- ively bounded. We are therefore of opinion that the place in questi■■'. .. Ma^ 1906 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. are Vac rnles as to dimensions and configurations vhich, apart from other conitidera- tions, would lead to tbe conolnsion that a bay is or is not a part of the territory of the state possessing the adjoining coasts ; and it has never, that they can fiiul been made tbe ground of any judicial determination. If it were necessary in thiH case to lay down a rule, the difficulty of tbe task would not deter their lordships from at- tempting to fultill it. But in their opinion it is not necessary so to do. It Heems to them that, in point of fact, tbe British Qovernment has for a long period exercised domiuion over this bay, and that their claim has been acquiesced in by other nntions BO as to show that the bay has been for a long time occupied exclnsively by Great Britain, a circumstance which in tbe tribunals of any country would be very Impor- tant. And, moreover (which in a British tribunal is conclusive), the Brititth \vg,\ii\i. ture has by acts of Parliament declared it to be part of the British territory, and part of the country made subject to the legislature of Newfoundland. To establiMh this proposition it is not necessary to go further back than to tbe 5!) Geo. Ill, c. ?" passed in 1819, now nearly sixty years ago. There was a convention made in 1U18 between tbe United States and Orcat liritain relating to the Hsheries of Labrador, Newfoandland, and His Majesty's other ])(>sHes$- ions in North America, by which it was agreed that the fishermen uf the United Stat«D should have the right to lish on part of tbe coasts (not including the part of the iHland of Newfoundland on which Conception Bay lies), and should not enter any "buyH"in any part of the coast except for the purposes of shelter and repairing daira^'eti, and purchasing wood, and obtaiuing water, and no other purposes whatever. Itneenu iti:possible to doubt that this convention applied to all bays, whether large or Hinall, on that coast, and consequently to Conception Bay. It is true that the conventiuD would only biud the two nations who were parties to it, and, conse know, taking the bulk of the fleet, but certainly one-half fished as much j I did outside. Q. You say you were fishing in the gulf up to within the last 8 I years?— A. Yes. Q. And you went back this year for the first time in 8 years ? — A. I For the first time, Q. Did you find a great difference in the fishery ? — A. No man could Uaremade me believe there was such a difference between the fishing ihin present year and what it was 8 years ago, when I left it. The bay jfi?iiiiigis spoiled entirely by keeping vessels out of the bay; that is my jopiniou, for there is no fish except right along the land, and very few at hat, aud of very poor quality. Q' How long have you been in the gulf this year ? — A. Four weeks I |«isinthe bay. 1908 AWABD OF THE FISHEBT COMMISSION. on Q. And what have you caaght this year ? — A. 104 barrels I have board. Q. What should have been your catch in a good year ?— A. 300 bar- rels in an ordinary year. Q. You think tlie fish have not only fallen off in quantity but so ia quality ? — A. Both in quantity and quality. Q. During the eight years you were not fishing in the gulf where were you fishing? — A. In American waters. Q. What sort of fishing had you there ? — A. We had good fishing. Our eight years' average was better than any eight years' average 1 have made in Bay St. Lawrence. Q. What do you suppose your average was? — A. 1,000 barrels. Q. With a vessel of what size ? — A. We say a schooner this size ig just as good as any. The size does not matter so much iti our owu waters as in Bay St. Lawrence. Q. What do you suppose is the number of the fleet engaged in mack- erel-fishing in American waters? — A. 400 sail. Q. These vessels are confined to the maciierel-flshing in Ainerican waters, and will average from 5 to 6 barrels to the ton ?— A. I don't know that. The small vessels catch about as many as the large vessels because they are nearer the market and go right in and come right out,' and do not lose any time. Q. With regard to your large experience in the mackerel fishing, is it a profitable business taken by itself? — A. It has not been so for the last 5 or 6 years. Q. Have you found it pay unless you did something else ?— A. ' o. When we went into Bay St. Lawrence we could not have made it pay except we had done other business with it. We simply put in there three or four months in the summer time when we could not do aoy other business. Q. What would you consider a fair profit for a mackerel fisherman as you conducted the business ? — A. We could not make anything more than insurance and wear and tear ; not anything, really. Q. And the profits were obtained by running the vessels on other voy- ages ? — A. Yes ; and in the winter we generally make $2,000 by ruuuiiig j with fruit into New York. Q. Among the advantages you had fishing in the gulf, what was the | advantage of having the privilege of transshipment? — A. I never con- sidered it any. I followed it for five years, and the result was I lost] by it. Q. What was the object of transshipping ?^A. The object in our j case was to get a good market, to get the mackerel into market early. Q. Not so much to make a third fare? — A. The object was to get tbeinj to market in good condition so as to get a better cull. When they are! two or three months on board a vessel they don't look so well. Jf tlieyj are sent in early you get a better cull, the fish are better quality, andj you get more money for them. But I found the expense more tliaa| made the ditt'erence, and I stopped transshipping on that account. Q. W^hat was the expense of the transshipment? — A. About $1.50 perl barrel when I transshipped. That is including freight and expenses inl Boston. Q. In your ordinarv trips when you were accustomed to fish in tha Gulf of St. Lawrer/.to, what was about the annual expenditure, tbd amount of money you laid out ? — A. When I used to land my fish I used| to pay out on an average from $1,000 to $1,200. AWARD OF THE FISHEBT COMMISSION. 1909 Q. That was for current expenses at the ports I— A. Yes, at the Strait ofCanso, where I used to laud. Q. In tbose days, what was the average number of the fleet that did very much as you did t — A. I don't know that I could make a very good average. Q. Give an approximate amount, to the best of your judgment. — A. goo or 700 sail, certainly. I have boeu in the bay with 9W) sail of Amer- ican vessels, but the number rather diminished along the last years I went there. Every'thing tended to drive them out of the bay — cutters and one thing and another — and finally I went fishing in our owu waters, and did a good deal better. Q. Judging from your experience in the gulf, and your exi)erlence of tlie American fisheries, you have really no doubt about the value of the fislieryou the American coast as compared with the fishery in the gulf? * -A. No; not the slightest. It is worth ten times as much as the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery. Q. In American waters, where is the bulk of the fish taken ? — A. They are taken from 10 to 30 miles from the land ; that is where we take most gsh. The men who fish most outside get the most fish, both on the Amoricaa and Canadian shores, except this year. Q. \\^hat is the matter with the fishery on the United States coast this year f— A. The trouble is on account of the bait. The cold east ffiud iu the spring killed all the live bait — the shrimps — and the fish did not come to the surface. There is plenty <'f mackerel on our coast. I left plenty of fish there, and I would have done better there than in Bay St, Lawrence; and if I had gone back to our coast I would have been $1,000 better off. I held on, for they told big stories of the quau- tityof fish; but I have given it a fair trial, and found there was none. Q. The bait, I believe, is found not only inshore but also outside? — A. It is found offshore just the same as inshore; there is more offshore than iushore as a rule. I know the trouble was caused by the east wiuds, of vhich we iiad a great quantity, killing the bait, for we could not account for it any other way. "'here was plenty of maokerel south, but when we got on tiie ea*^t coast they did not come to the surface, and that is the reason the fishermen could not catch them. By Mr. Thomson : Q. Then, 8 years ago, the fisheries in the gulf were first rate ? — A. Eight years ago they were rather slim. I left to-day eight years ago. The cutters drove me out, or rather 1 cleared out because they made such a row with me. Q. You did not like to annoy the cutters by staying there? — A. I did not like to be scared to death all the time. I did not care anything about the cutters. Q. You did not care about the cutters, but you did not want to be scared?— A. I could not tell whether I was 3, 5, G, or 7 miles from shore. You might ap|)ear to be three miles from shore and might not be more than one. The atmosphere is such you cannot judge distances with your eye. Q. It was impossible to tell whether you were three miles from the shore?— A. You cannot do it. Q. It is not impossible to tell whether you are one mile or half a mile from the coast! — A. I have seen the time when I was one mile off and I thought I was more than three miles. Q. You recollect the time when you were one mile oft and it looked as if you were three miles off? — A. Yes. it:? 1910 AWABD OF THE FISHEBT COMMISSION. Q. I sappose that was pretty much all the time yon fislted ; you were actually a mile from the shore and the distance looked like three miles?— A. If that is your opinion I am perfectly willing. I tell you facts; j'ou can draw what inference you please. I have stated just exactly, to the best of my judgment, what I did in Bay St. Lawrence, and I tell yoa just the same and nothing else. ~~ Q. I understood you to say that on many occasions you fisbed within one mile of the shore when it looked three miles off? — A. I told you i could not judge the distance. 1 did not refer particularly to flshertneii. When I have been making land sometimes I have found myself close inshore and had to tack out. Q. Did you not tell me you were frequently within one mile of the shore when you believed you were three miles out f — A. Yes ; but I did not refer particularly to fishing. Q. Did you tish during those times when you thought yon were three miles off shore and it turned out you were only one mile?— A. ^^o. If I thought I was inside the three miles I would not fish tbere. Q. Then I understand that no consideration would hvvo indnced you, when in the gulf, to have fished within three miles of ' ''ore?— A. I don't intend to convey any such idea. I would u .i. ..ereverl could find them, if no cutters were there. Q. If the fish were within the three-njile limit you would follow them!— A. I would if there was no cutter there to take me. Q. Did you do that ! — A. I fished off shore and did not pretend to {jo inshore because I did not do better tbere. While I perhaps one iiionth might have done better inside, take the months through and I did bet- ter outside. Q. Did you or did you not fish inside the three miles before the end of the eight years ? — A. I fisbed inside three miles because I stated that I caught one-eighth of the mackerel inside the three-mile limit. Q. Do you swear that you did not catch more than oueeigbtb within the three-mile limit ? — A. I swear that, to the best of my judgment, I did not catch more than one-eigbtb within the three mile limit. Q. Then, in point of fact, you swear positively that the inshore fish- eries of the gulf are not nearly so valuable as those away out?— A. They were not when I fisbed tbere. Q. How long did you fish there ? — A: Fifteen years. Q. Ending eight years ago? — A. Nine years this summer. Q. That would be from 1854 to 18G9 ? — A. I don't remember dates. Q. You stated that you fisbed there fifteen years, ending eight years ago ? — ^ . Yes. Q. Tht-n you fished during the whole of the time of tb« Reciprocity Treaty, which commenced in 1854? — A. Yes, I fished under that treaty on a license. Q. During the time the treaty was in force did yon not fish inshore | as a rule ? — A. Inshore when I thought I could catch more fish Miere. Q. Did yon catch more fish inshore than out? — A. No, I did not catch j any more ins'x re than outside. Q. Then, as I understand, you did not fish inshore? — A. No, because] I did better out. Q. How did you take your fish ? — A. With hooks. Q. Not with purse-seines? — A. We had a seint^ but we never did j much with it. Q, You caught them altogether with hooks ? — A. Yes. Q. What bait did you use ? — A. Fogies and clams. Q. Where did you get them ? — A. We got them from home ; some I j AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1911 bonght in Canso, from yonr people down there, but they are brought (Ijere from our shores. 1 always carried bait for the first trip with me. Q. What was your average Ciitch each year from 1854 down to 1$69?— A. I should ttiiuk about 600 barrels. Q, Would that be a fair average catch for each vessel in the fleet ? — X, That would be more than an average, a good deal. Q. You were more lucky than theyf — A. I think I was. Q. What was the size of your vessel f— A. 1 had vessels of diflFerent sizes; I was in several different vessels during that time. Q. What is the ordinary size ? — A. About 100 tons. Q. And during that time you got COO barrels per season? — A. Yea. Q. And other vessels got far less ? — A. I don't know. Some did bet- ter tlian I did. Q. What do you place the average at ? — A. I don't know that I could give an average for the whole fleet. Q. Have you any reason to believe that the majority did far worse tbau you ? — A. I know our vessels did which went from the place I live. Q. Q. tlieii. Where do you live? — A. At Newburyport. How many vessels went from that port ? — A. Twenty five sail Q. They all went into the gnlf ? — A. Yes. I used to get more than tjiey did; and judging from what they caught, I got a good deal more than the average. That is all I have got to go by. Q. You don't know in regard to the other vessels? — A. No. Q. Did you ever go to fish in Bay Chalenrs? — A. I never fished but one season in Bay Chaleurs in my life, and that was the season of the liceiisefi. Q, Tliat would be 186^" ?— A. I caught 200 barrels outside of Cara- ()uette Bank. That was the only time I fished in Bay Chaleurs. Q, You never went in before ? — A. I have been there to harbor but Dot to (isb. Q. Where do you take the fish ? — A. Outside of Caraquette Bank, four miles from the land. Q. Inside of Point Miscou ? — A. Yes. Q. How far inside? — A. About 15 miles, I should think. Q. About 4 miles from laud ? — A. Yes. Q. How did you judge the distance that time? — A. I judged by the I lay of the laud. Q, At what time did you fish 4 miles from the shore ? — A. We carried I a patent loj; and sometimes we ran out and measured the distance so that we could tell the number of miles. That was. when the cutters I were around. Q. Wiiy were you afraid of the cutters when you were fishing with a I license f^A. I am speaking of the time when there were cutters about. Q. Why did you not go nearer the shore when you had a license? — I A. Because we could not catch as many fish there. Q. Why did you not try? — A. It would have been no use to have I gone inside the Bank. We caught them outside where the fish play. Q. Did you ever try inside ? — A. I never hauled to inside of the Bank, |bntif fish had been there vessels would have been inside. Q. Did you ever go close to the shore to see how much worse the flsh- jingwas than the outside fishing ?— A. I don't think 1 ever did. Q. As a rule, you always caught your fish threeor four miles out f — lA. Without I saw somebody catching fish inside. ^ ..d 1912 AWABD OF THE FISHEBT COMMISSION. Q. Do you mean in boats f— A. No, in vessels, there jf 1 had seen vessels in there. might have gone Q. Were American vessels there? — A. Plenty of English vessels were there. Q. If you saw a vessel catching fish inshore yoa would follow in?-. A. I did not always follow in, but I have done such a thing. " Q. As a rule, did you fish much inshore ? — A. Very little indeed. Q. I suppose you have fished along Prince Edward Island !— A. I have fished there, but not very much. I know^ nothing about the iu. shore fishery of the island. Q. Take the north side of the island, from North Gape to East Point do you say the inshore fisheries are comparatively valuless as coiupHred with the outside fisheries ? — A. I say they used to be when I went mack- erel fishing. Q. For 15 years you found it so? — A. I found it so right along, jear after year. I never fished in there. Q. Do you say the fish were not there ? — A. I don't know anything about the fish when I was not there. I made a point to run from Em Cape to North Cape ; I never fished inshore of the island. Q. Shall I be right iu stating to the Commission that yon have no practical knowledge of the inshore fishery of Prince Edward Island ?- A. t have had more this year than ever before. Q. Will you undertake to say that during the 15 years you were fish- ing in the Gulf — that is to say, from 1854 to 1869 — the inshore fisberien of Prince Etlward Island, from North Cape t.o East Cape, were nothing j as compared with the outside fisheries? — A. I don't mean to say any- 1 thing of the kind. Q. What did you mean to say about the inshore fishery ? — A. I mean to say we used to fish off East Point in the fall of the yeai% and offshore j in the summer time always. We fished also off North Cape; but we < did not fish within three miles of the shore. Q. You never went inside of the three-mile limit? — A. I have said I caught one-eighth part inside of the limits. Q. Did you fish during those 15 years, during 12 years of which tiiel Reciprocity Treaty was in force, enough inside of the three-mile limit at Prince Edward Island to be able to tell the Commission whether the inshore fishery is worth anything as compared with that outside!— A. | It was not worth more than the outside fishery, from my experience. Q. How do you know that, if you did not go in and try ? — A. We had! captains go down to ttie island, take vessels and go and fish where they] pleased, and we beat them when they fished inshore a'»d we fished out- side. Captain Jacks, of Newburyport, had an island vessel. Q. You swear that during that time, when you were fishing oiitsidcJ other captains went in and fished within the three miles along tbel bight of the island, and you beat them all ? — A. They went and tished;] I cannot say where. Q. When I put the question as to your knowledge of the inshore! fishery of Prince Edward Island, you put forward the captain's expe-f rience ; why did you give such an answer as that if you knew nothiiiif j about it ? — A. I tell you I fished around East Point and around >orth Cape. Q. Will you undertake to say that you have any personal kuowledd of the fisheries between North and East Capes in the bight of the isiaul within three miles of the shore ? — A. I do not think that I have ; I hav^ not, within three miles of the shore. Q. So during the whole of these 15 years you carefully avoided goina AWARD OF THE FISHERT COMMISSION. 1913 iritbin this limit ; and daring that time you say you lost money ? — A. «(. Q. Did you make money T — A. I did very well. q[ You did very well ?— A. Yes. a And so well that yoa did not think it necessary to go inside the limit. Did you ever fish along the shore of Cape Breton ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you always keep three miles oflf the shore ? — A. No. Q, You did Ash within the three-mile limit ? — A. I did sometimes. q' As a rule, did you keep three miles off shore, or fish inside that limit?— A. Of course, we kept outside, when we could catch fish out tbere. Q. Did you catch fish oftener inside than outside of the three-mile Ijiujt?— -A. We caught them outside a great deal oftener than inside, fortbe very reason, I suppose, that the fish were there. If the fish had been inside, we would probably hare caught them in tbere. Q. Did you state, in answer to Mr. Trescot, that during these 15 years you lost money by fishing in the bay ? — A. No, I do not think so. Q. Did you not state that since that time you have done better by I carrying' ou the American fishery than you did during the whole of 1 tiiese 15 years ? — A. Yets, I did. Q. Then you did not lose money in either case ? — A. I lost money one I n}\ if you liad a mind to reckon it in that light. I just got about insur- ance, aiid wear and tear of the vessel, and pay for the employment of tbe vessel during three or four months, when we could not do anything I else. Q, In point of fact, you made no money ? — A. Beckoning it that way, I we did not. Q. You laid up no money ; you only paid for wear and tear? — A. We I paid for insurance and interest on the money; and that is every cent |Tbich we ^ot out of it ; and I could show the books to prove it. Q. And during the last eight years you have been fishing on the I American coast? — A. During the last six years, throwing out the two last years, when I did not make much money, fish being very low in I price, we have done first rate there. Q. On the American coast ? — A. Yes. 1 averaged over $2,000 a year Q. For six years? — A. Yes — previous to the last two years. Q. Were these six exceptional years, or were they a fair specimen of jtbetishingon the American coast? — A. Yes; that is, since I followed it. Q, You are a Newbury port man? — A. Yes. Q. I presume that you had as much knowledge of the fisheries near I jour own doors, by reputation and hearsay, as you did of the Gulf of St. [Lawreuee fisheries before you started to fish in the gulf? — A. 1 used to liiu the Bay of St. Lawrence altogether. Q. When you had good fisheries at your own doors, why did you start loff to the gulf fisheries ? — A. Because we did not know how to catch |tbeiu,and did not understand making seines so as to catch them. Q. So you went to the gulf fisheries? — A. The fish in the gulf would Ibile huoks, and our fish would not do so. The latter are too shrewd to |bite hooks ; we had to make nets to catch them. Q. Your fish were too shrewd to take the hook ; it was only the un- Ifottunate British fish that could be so gulled ?— A. The latter would |bite the hook. Q. And that was what drove you to the gulf fishery ? — A. As soon as he understood the making of seines to catch the fish in deep water we |ii(imiich better on our own coast. Q. Did I understand you to say that the catch off your own coast was 1914 ▲WABD OF THE FISHERT COMMISSION. taken ten miles out from the shore? — A. I should think that tbree quarters of what we caught were taken ten miles from land. Q. You mean off the coast of Maine and Massachusetts ?— a. Yes- and all along the coast. ' ' Q. Where did you j^-f t the other quarter ? — A. We might get them inside of that ; but the men who fish outside and stay there get the most fish, I can tell yon. Q. The men who fish outside on the American coast get the most fish ? — A. Yes. Those who stop right near the land do not get so inanv Q. The American inshore fisheries, according to your stutenient are I just a little worse than the British inshore fisheries, while yonr offshore fisheries are better than the British off-shore fisheries ?— A. I guess thev are better now. Q. This has been the case for the last two years? — A. Yours are good I for nothing now. They are not worth sending a vessel down to them. ' Q. You allude to our shore fisheries ? — A. 1 mean the tisheries in tlie j bay. Q. Out in the bay the fisheries are good for nothing?— A. The fishery j in the bay is good for nothing. Q. Your offshore fishery is first-rate now? — A. I believe that this] year is exceptional on account of the bait. Q. But take the last six or seven years ? — A. Taking the last eightl years into consideration, it has been good enough. There have heeuj plenty of fish and we have done well there. Q. And you do not know anything about the off-shore fisheries in tliel gulf during these years? — A. We had vessels go there from NewhiiryL port every year, but the results were so unsatisfactory — they lost so) much monej', that lately only three were sent there. Q. W^as this in consequence of their keeping out in the bay?-A,| These vessels were fitted out for the bay because they did not under] stand seining. Vessels were fitted out for the bay, until results weresn poor that they were taken oft" these grounds. Q. Did yon understand that they fished inshore? — A. I do not know where they fished. They fished anywhere. They stated that dnring the last two years they could not catch fish there except inshore; hut I hardly believed it until I came down this year. The fish have been nearer the shore this year than they used to be. Q. You say that the off-shore fisheries on the American coast are firsts rate, while in the gulf the off-shore fisheries are good for nothing?— a| Yes, now, during this present season. Q. And the inshore fisheries of the gulf are better than the American inshore fisheries? — A. Yes; along the coast more fish are caught witlij hooks there than on the American coast. Q. During the last eight years, when you have been making $8,000 1 year, have you fished in your own schooners ? — A. I owned part of then Q. Have you fished in the same vessel during the whole eight yearsj — A. No; I have been during the last eight years in the S. C. Noyei and in my present vessel. Q. Are you the owner of her? — A. I am part owner of her, and alsoo the S. C. Noyes. Q. What is the name of your present vessel?— A. The Miantonomij It is an Indian name. Q. What is her size?— A. 77 tons and 45-hundredth8 is her register Q. What is the size of the other vessel ?— A. 124 tons and 76 hu^ dredths. . Q. These are not the same vessels in which you went to the gulf !-i AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1915 Tgevrrwent in tbe £falf in this one nntil the ]>resent year. I always feat there in the 8. 0. Noyes. She is ten years old. I afterwards had L|,j,orie, which I have now, built. Q. These were the vessels which you used during the eight years ueutioned !— A. Yes. Q, Which one did you command? — A. I went for two years in this lone when new ; and in these two years I made $6,000 clear money on our own coast. I then never went nigh your waters. Q. When speaking of Ashing on your own coast, you mean that yon IdidsoS or 10 miles from the shore? — A. I do not know as it was that distance, but I caught threecjuarters of the mackerel ott" shore. I Q. At least three quarters ? — A. 1 should think I caught at least three- luaarters of the fish outside of ten miles from the shore during that I time. Q. Who are the other owners of the vessels with you? — A. I could not til till I see the papers. There are several owners. Q, Do I understand you to say that you cannot tell the names of the Ijoiut owners of the vessel — that they number several people, and that I ton cannot remember their names? — A. I cannot remember them — Iperbiips not the whole of them. There are Hayden, Brown S. Noyes, Itnother Noyes, and Dr. Peevil, &c. Perhaps I cannot remember them III, Q. Where do these gentlemen live ? — A. At West Newport and New- Ibnryport. Q. They are all alive? — A. Yes. Q, Ami all of them are acquainted with the facts which you state, ind they are all alive ? — A. Yes. Q. Tliey know all about it? — A. They got the money, and they know ilUbout the catch as well as I do; and they can show you the books forany time during the last 15 years. Q. Who is the agent? — A. Edward Burwell, of Newburyport. We lavegotit all in black and white. I don't want you to take my word ()rit, not a bit. Q. And he is quite ready to make the same statement ? — A. He will ihotryou the figures which will make the same statement. Q. i think you said there were about 67 vessels in the bay in an liDswer to Mr. Trescot. What did you say ? — A. I said that there were )or 700 vessels there, as well as I could judge, about 15 years ago. I Q. In what year was this ? — A. I could not pretend to tell the year. , Q, Was it more than eight years ago ? — A. O, yes ; it was 10, 12, or "3 years ago. I Q, And the owners of all these vessels were still under a delusion re- l>«liiig the fisheries on the American coast? — A. No. I do say that lie Cape God vessels always fish on our own coast with hooks, and do istrate; they do well on Georges, but our fishermen won't go there. I Q. Iain speaking of the same ground where you say that during the wttwo or three years you made $2,000 or $3,000 a jear, ten or twelve filesoutfroui your coast? — A. They did not think that they could catch fsli Id deep water with seines. They had not tried it, so they did not Mtrahout it; but as soon as this was once tried of course it was a suc' Mil, I Q. Do they now catch the fish in these waters with purse-nets ? — A. k [Q. What do they catch in these nets besides mackerel? — A. We do tgetmucU of anything. 1916 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Yoa catob nothing but mackerel t — A. We catch pogies and men haden, and herring, with the mackerel— bine-backs, as wu cull them Q. What are the pogies and meuhadeu ? — A. What wo use for bait We catch them sometimes. Q. How many do you take at a draught t — A. That varies very much- 1 sometimes the haul is very large and sometimes very small. ' Q. Do you save all the fish you thus get f— A. We sometimes catch so many that we cannot save them, and have to let them gu; and some- times we get so many that they let themselves go. Q. Are they alive or dead when you let them go 1 — A. They are almost I always alive. Q. Do you mean to say that you do not kill any with the seines?— A. We kill the small mackerel which get meshed in the net; the small lie. ing taken with the big ones, of course are killed. Q. Do you not take a large number of the stnull fish ? — A. We did lantl season, but never before. Last year the small and large tish were mixed I together, and we hauled in a great many of the small ones, wliioli werel meshed and killed. Q. This destroyed them, of course? — A. Of course they were wortjiless,! Q. And you have not had them back again this year !— A. I tell yoiif we have plenty of fish on our shore if they would only show ou the sur-j face. It is not for want of fish that they are not taken. Q. How do you knowf — A. I saw them out south. Bait wasfoundl there and plenty of fish were schooling out south this spring. Q. Do you mean that there was no bait on the coast of Maine— that! there were no pogies there ? — A. There were pogies enough, but no bull for the mackerel. Q. Are not porgies bait for the mackerel ? — A. The former are a bij fish, and the mackerel could not eat them very well, unless they wer^ ground up. Q. This fish requires to be prepared for bait ? — A. Yes. Q. What was the bait on your coast? — A. This little shrimp bait, < which I spoke. Q. Is that shrimp found ten miles from the shore ? — A. Yes; and iift]| miles. Q. And that bait has failed this year ? — A. Yes, entirely on the easier shore, but not out on the southern shore. Q. How do you know that it is to be found down south ?— A. I \va there and saw the fish. Q. Where did you go ? — A. To Cape May and all along down there. Q. This spring ?— A. Yes. Q. Did you get many fish? — A. We did not get a great many; obtained a couple of hundred barrels. Q. Were) these not poor mackerel ? — A. Yes. Q. And are not the fish, the number ones, caught in theGuIf of Sain Lawrence, flrst rate ? — A. We now have not got over 20 barrels of uud ber ones on the vessel, and they are nothing but miserable trash. Q. Have you marked them number one? — A. The iaspectoriniiri them. If I could do so, I would mark all the fish number one. Q. I have no doubt of that.— A. There is no trouble about that. Q. I have not a shadow of doubt about that.— A. There is no troub| about that. Q. You would mark them all number ones? — A. Yes. Q. And they are good for nothing?— A. They are very poor fish, deed, speaking candidly about them. Q. And what the inspector will inspect as number ones are triisli fl AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1917 . According to the best of my judgment, I should say that about 20 in the 104 barrels I have are tit for number ones, and tlie rest for number Q. And these are poor trash I — A. They are of very poor quality. Q Did you not say that they were poor trash and good for noth« jgtfi-A. I say that they are not fit to eat. Q, Who are the unfortunate people upon whom yon expect to palm tlieinoff f— A.. People who don't know anything about miiukcrel. There ire plenty of such people iu the world, to whom you can sell almost IDVtLiDK' Q, Are not the inspectors sworn officers ? — A. Yes. Q, And you expect these sworn inspectors to mark them No. 1 although theY are such poor trash and not fit to eat? — A. Yes, sir; and they will lie marked bay mackerel, not shore mackerel, and people will buy them fith tbat uuderstanding. Q. Do they understand tbat No. 1 bay mackerel are fit for nothing? — A. Tbey Hre not nearly so good as shore mackerel ; we have to sell the former for $3 or $4 less, and perhaps $5 or $6 less than the latter. I btvesoid them at $9 less than ours in the market. Q. No. 1 bay mackerel is not equal to No. I American mackerel ? — A. Ko; but I have got $3 a barrel more for the former than the latter, j fben wefi.shiHl in the bay 15 years ago. Q. Why is that?-— A. 1 could not tell you. Q. There was a time when tlie bay mackerel were better than the I American mackerel ? — A. Yes ; they used to be better than our shore they commanded a better price ; but during the last 8 or 10 years litliHsbeen quite the reverse; but why this is so is more than I can tell Q, The American fisheries along the coast failed, until within the last year or two, very much ? — A. I am not aware that this was the case. Q, I allude to the inshore fishery on the American coast ? — A. I did lot know that it had. Q. You did not know it ? — A. No. Q. Will you swear that this was not the case? — A. I do not know thiit it was. Q, And you never heard that it had failed ? — A. No. Q, You did not know it of your own personal experience, and you Kver beard that it had failed ? — A. No. Q, And you have been a practical fisherman for 15 or 23 years? — A. Yes. That is my business. Q. And during these 23 years you have no personal knowledge of the American fishery having failed on your coast, and you have never heard o( such a thing? — A. 1 have known that mackerel were awful scarce, Mtiiey are in your bay this year, but I know that they were plentiful lastjear. They were more plentiful on our shore last year than I ever ttw them to be in the Bay of St. Lawrence. Q. Then you have not known, and you never even heard, of the American fishery on your own coasts failing at all ? — A. Failing en- Itirelyf Q Practically failing, and not being worthy of pursuit ? — A. It has |bnmore of a failure this year than I ever saw since I went fishing. Q- Do I understand you to say that during all these years, as far as joo are aware, the American fishery on the American coast was about meood as it was during the last two years, and better, of course, than 18 been this year; and tbat you know of no dittierence iu this re- ifrA'*t'« ^^^:'[ 3+* ,»«--■. »; '> .^*k.:v" 1918 ▲WARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Intioii f— A. I know but little about it. I used to go to the Bay of St Lawrence. Q. Why (lid you come np here t— A. I pursued the Haliory in tlip Hav of St. Lawrence, but between Newburyport and Cape Coil the lioh^r. men pursued it along our own shores. Q. Did you ever see vessels tlshing along the American coast !--A. ( know that they used to do better there than we did here. Q. Then why did you not stop and tlsh there t — A. Because I tli(»iij;lit that they could do better there than we could. We had always lieeit accustomed to come here, and we could not go anywhere else, as will be the case with any man when he has got into a habit. Q. And you kept this losing business up ; not to put it too strong you continued this business in which you only made eiioiif;)! to puy fur iuteroNt and wear and tear ? — A. I did not say that we lost by it. Q. But you only made enough to pay interest and wear and tear on the vessel? — A. Yes ; and the depreciation on the vessel, and wbeii \ve did that we thought we had done well. Q. And you passed vessels Ashing on the American shore and doing better than you could f — A. We could not all get crews and go there . and fish. They were brought up to that kind of fishing and they could get crews for it, but we could not. Q. Why not? — A. We did not have enough men, and men were scarce. Q. Do they take a larger number of men on vessels fishing along the American coast than they do in the bay ? — A. No; they take jusl tbi same number. Q. Why, then, were you i>revented fishing on the American coast! A. We could not get crews to stay there. The men had themselves d faith in the shore fisheries. Q. This was fishing ten miles offshore? — A. The men werebroughi up to fishing here, and they thought that they must come here and tish, Q. Were they not just as able to manage a vessel and tishasothei men? — A. I do not know but what they were just as good fishermen, but they never fished there, and we could not get them to go on George'i Bank, they had such a dread of it. Q. I am not referring now to George's Bank. How many miles i that from t he shore ? — A. Abont 100 miles. Q. I am speaking of the fisheries in which you have been engagei during the lust two years, about 10 miles out from the shore?— A. lea George's Bank our shore fisheries. Q. Then do I understand, when you speak of having made $2,000 year for the last six years, that you refer to George's Bank, wbich joi call the shore fishery ? — A. We go there at certain times of the year. Q. Do I understand you so to include that Bank ? — A. I never did bul little of that kind of fishing. Q. Will you answer the question ! Do you approve of that or not ! A. I do not, in my case. I can leave it out in my case. Q. Did you fish there during that time? — A. I was there twice dui ing that period. Q. Did you got any fish there ?— A. I obtained about 10 barrels. Q. The trip down there was a failure? — A. It was in my case. Ijui simply go across there from the south to try for a week or ten dayswi the other vessels. Q. Then your experience of George's Bank during the last 8 or years is that the fishing there has been a failure ? — A. The vessels thi stop there and fish do first rate. Usher ■ Geurge's Bank 1 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1919 Q ^nd yon did not atop there ? — A. No ; I expected to And dah oa (lieeMMterB sliore, where I wetit uiid flHhed. Q Uiirint; these 8 years you only obtained 10 barrels of flsh on George's Bimli ?— A. Yes. Q, And ail the rest you secured on the American inshore Ashing poiiuds!— A. Yes. Q. Aud you toolc them nil about ten miles from the shore ? — A. I said IsbouUl judge that 1 took about three-quarters of what I caught out- iltle of teu miles from the shore. Q, ilow far outside of lU miles ? — A. From 10 to 50 miles. Q. And you took about three-quarters of your flsh at that distance from the 8bore f — A. Yes; I should think that these were taken outside of 10 miles from the shore. Q. How far from the shore did you catch the other one-quarter? — A. We cannot go very near the shore; our nets are 27 fathoms deep, aikd keuiiist not go near it or we would touch bottom. We have to flsh 7 I or 8 miles from the land. Q, As I understand you, then, instead of catching oiie(|narter of the till inshore, not a isingle barrel of all those you have taken duriii^r the i8t eight years have been caught within three miles of your own coast I I -A. in some places we can go within a mile of the shore and have ilfiity of water. Q. You are upon oath, and you say that during these eight years you liiavenot, OD any one occasion, flshed within three miles of your own t?— A. I have caught one-quarter of the flsh from two or three juiileHOUt, according to my judgment. I do not know exactly how far it was from the shore. I never deflne it. I might have caught one- I quarter of my flsh inside, i)erhaps, of three miles from the shore. Q, Did you not tell me just now that you caught one-quarter of the llsli within 7 or 8 miles of the shore and the other three-quarters from 10 ItooO miles out? — A. It might have been inside of the three miles that llgotthe quarter. We took them anywhere where our seine would not Itoiidb hottom. Q, Did you not tell me just now that you took them between 7 or S lor lU miles of the shore ? — A. I did not mean to say so, but I might IkvedouQ so. I did not intend to say so, if I did do it. Q. Will you tell me what proportion of the three-quarters was taken lletveeu 8 and 10 miles of the shore, and what proportion between 8 hiles from, and the shore? — A. 1 cannot tell you anything about it, Itave from my judgment. I tell you that we caught the mackerel any- |iliere where tbe net would not touch bottom. Q. You stated that it would touch bottom anywhere along shore, did Ijou not!— A. I did not say anywhere, but that we must have 27 fath- |oiii8of water for it. Q. How far have you fished from the shore ? — A. We have fished all [irouud the ledges. Q But how far from the shore ? — A. Ic was two miles from the shore. Q. Will you swear it was within two miles of the shore? — A. Yes; [Ny of mackerel are inshore, but we could not get at them. Q.Will you swear that any portion of that one-quarter was taken pithiu three miles of the shore?— A. I do not know that I could swear othat. Q. It then comes to this : You can swear that of the whole of that *tch you caught three-quarters from 10 to 15 miles off the shore, and Nasto the other quarter you cannot state that one single fish was ^eu within three miles of the shore?— A. I can. 1920 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How many were so taken ? — A. I have canght 50 barrels off Cane May within half a mile of the land. ' Q. When ? — A. Well, the year before last. Q. Was that the only time you did so ? — A. I cannot say that J recol- lect of more than that one instance. Q. How many barrels did you catch that season ? — A. 1.000. Q. And out of these 1,000 barrels you caught 950 barrels from lo to 50 miles oft" shore? — A. I did not say that. I say that tliey wore taken where the net would not touch bottom. Some vessels ctirry a fathom net. Q. Will you swear now that of these 1,000 barrels, one single barrel was taken within three miles of the shore ? — A. I couM not swear that I did. I do not know that I did, save in the one instance I have men- tioned. Q. Will you now undertake to say that the local fishery on the Amer- ican coast was exceptionally good during the last 6 or 7 years ?— A. I do not know that it has been extraordinarily good ; but, last season i there was a large catch. Q. Up to last season it was in an ordinary condition, as far as ,voa are i aware ? — A. Last season the catch on our coasts was very large, Q. And this year none have been canght there ? — A. This year there I has been a small catch so far ; but I cannot state what may yet be the I case. A long time must elapse before the fishing winds up. Q. Do you know how many barrels have been taken from 10 to .'O i miles off your coast and up to the coast? — A. No. I could not tell you j anything about it. Q. Can you give any approximate to the number?— A. No. Icoukl] not come anywheres near it. Q. Have you read the reports of this year's catch ? — A. No. Q. Do you read the papers at all ? — A. I think I do when I get them,] but I have not had many of them since I have been down here. Dowai in this country we do not get any papers. Q. You have stated in answer to Mr. Trescot that so far from trans- shipment of cargoes on our shores being a privilege it is a delimio'i andl a snare, and that you lost money by it f — A. That was my experience.! Q. Do you put that statement forward as the experience of yourl brother fishermen ? — A. Every man from our place will say the sai ej thing. Q. Do I understand you to say that it is the general experience of tliej American fishermen, so far as you are aware ? — A. I say that it is th« case with those who go from Newburyport, but I would not speak M places farther away. I do not know much about other ports. GlouceM ter is a large place, but I know very little about it. Q. Do you know whether the-Gloucester peojde avail themj>e[ves o^ this privilege of transshipment? — A. I know that they ship very fe« mackerel, and not nearly so many so they used to do. Q. Wiien did they used to transship ?— A. They did so at the sam^ time I did. Q. When did you do so ? — A. 10, 12, or 15 years ago. Q, Was this during the Reciprocity Treaty or afterward ?— A. Itwaij both at that time and after the treaty was termiuited, when we ha licenses. Q. Did you ever transship after the Reciprocity Treaty expired, an^ when you had no licenses ? — A. I do not think that we could ship witli out licenses. Q. Did you ever do so after the expiration of the Reciprocity Treat] AWARD OP THE FISHERY COxMMISSION. 1921 -A. No. I coukl jiidwben yon bad no liceii'ses'? — A. 1 think I always bad licenses, but ! voM not be positive about it. Q, Willyoii swear that you nover^evaded the license system ? — A. I wmlil not so swear, but I might possibly have done it. I am sure that [hiulaliconse every year. il Do you mean that you had licenses but did not pay for them ! — A. X(v of course if I hail them I paid for tliem. You don't generally give affiiy much down in this country. Q, Do I undeistand you to say that every year after the Keciproriity Treaty you tished in the bay, until the negotiation of the Washington Xfeaiy, you bad a license ? — A. I say there migi»t possibly be one year nkii I (lid not have one, but I think that I had oi»e every year. Q, Do I understand you to say you think you had a license every year? — A, I thiak I bad ; but possibly I did not once — during one year. Q, And during that year, when you may not have had a license, did roll go into the bay and run the risk of seizure ? — A. Yes. ' Q. And if the bay lishery was f»o good, why did you go there and run tlie risk of capture f — A. 1 do not think I was so foolish as that ; but [ m«U possibly have done so. Q. Still you are not prepared to say that you did not do so? — A. I am not. My memory is not very good on that point ; but I do not know — I oii^'bt possibly have done so. I think 1 had a license every year that tliey granted them. (j, Did you not speak about evading the cutters? — A. Of course. We (lid not go inshore when we saw the cutters. Q. Why ?— A. If we saw a cutter rcatly to take us we wouUl not ga in, Q. Dining what year was thjit ? — A. It was any year and at any time. If I saw a man at any time going to take me I would keei, away. Q, Tlien, during the Reciprocity Treaty, if you saw a cutter you would Dot go inshore ? — A. During the treaty, of course we did not care for ilie cutters. Q. When did you evade thera ? — A. We were afraid when they were there to take us, whether it was within three or five miles of the shore. Q, Daring what year were you so afraid ? — A. 1 do not know. It was after the Reciprocity Treaty when we were most afraid of them. Q. Was that in 1869 ? — A. Yes, about nine yeara ago. Q. You did try to evade the cutters that year i? — A. Yes ; but t did notthea go inside. I never hove to that year when I thought I was inside the limit. Q. i-Viid eventually you weut out of the bay on this account? — A. It wasbeccuise I was I in* of the limit. Q. Why were you in (Jread of the cutters if you bad a license ? — xl. fhey would not then give licenses. Q, lnlS69?— A. No. Q, Do you swear that no licenses were issued then ? — A. I swear that I ^liea I left the bay the last year I was there they would not give me or ?raiit anybody licenses. Q. And this was in I860?— .s.. It was in 18G9 or 1870, or the year I !tlt t'je bay, whichever it was. Q. And you state that this was in 18C9? — A. I think that it was eight [J^ifsago. No licenses were then issued, anyway. Q. Then you went into the bay with fa!! knowledge that you stoi)|)e(l, liowever, at this strait to get wood and water, and then [TiiceedLHl up to North Cape in siglit of Prince Edward Island, and off lloiiavontnre. •i'. Wlu'ie did yon begin to fish ? — A. Wo generally used to try brosid otf Xiirth Cape— nearly northeast off" North Cai)o or Prince Edward U,iiid. 'i'. Olt' which part of the insland? — A. Off' the northwest part. 'i'. Wlii'ie is Bonaventiire? — A. It is over off' the, CUispe coast. It is N outside of Gaspe. Q. And how far from the land did you begin to fish off the North [I'ape!— A, Tlie land would l)e just in sight. 'i'. And iiow far otf Bonaveiiture did you fish ? — A. We used to run l^i'-i'osee the hills. ^^ Is there a Bank in this quarter? — A. Yes, Bonaventure Bank. • :.-t i ^i^ -^m^^lS. ^wz^w^m A^l^i l;l 1 i ;if^'-t m^'' 1926 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. should tbiuk that it Q. How far from the land is it situated ? — A. is twenty miles off shore, or about that. Q. Where did you p;o from Bank Bonaventure? — A. Well, we went down off the west short, off' what we call the Pigeon Hills; we would b'l about 12 or 15 miles oft' shore. Q. Where are Pigeon Hills ? — A. On the Canadian shore, at that point. Q. How far would you be from the shore? — A. I should thiuk about 15 miles. Q. Would you lie off" Shippegan 1 — A. We would be broad off Ship. pegan. Q. And how far from the shore ? — A. From 15 to IG or 17 miles. Q. Where did you go next f — A. About the 1st of July we geueraliy struck up along the coast and across to Magi out to sell bait jidicPivncli, and wliile wo aio tlun'c, perhaps (i or 7 dittoront men will I jliiio itl)o«i''' and take us in to get l)ait. (), TIiIh iMirchase of bait is a business which tlie people of Newlound- . ^||\.(,lj,.it .'_A. Yes; if it was not for the A»u'ri(!au fishermen, I sliniild think that the people of Fortune Bay would starve ; this is what ,ii:iiiitains tlieni. (), What do you do there in winter? — A. I go there and trade for lifrrinff. 0 When you leave (iloueester to trade for herring, what do you take Ifniii ("rioucester ? How do you clear? — A. Sometimes I have gone miller register, and moi-e frequently under fishing papers. Q, What Hshing papers? — A. The same as I have now. Q, Do you take a permit to touch and trade? — A. Yes. Q. What do you take with you ? — A. Mostly money; but also a little fliHiraiid pork and kerosene oil. * Q, When you get to Newfoundland, do you outer your vessel at the ciismin-house ?— A. Yes. Q, And do you pay a duty on your goods ? — A. Yes. Q. Theu on the goods you bring for trading purposes, you pay cus- toms duty?— A. Ves. Q. And having done so, you trade with the inhabitants? — A. Yes; repay money enough for light dues, without paying any other duty, Q, Yon pay the duty on your goods when you go in ? — A. Yes. Q, Do yon remember what it is? — A. We pay, I think, $1 a barrel onpoik, 25 cents a barrel on flour, and 14 or 15 per cent, on kerosene oil-that is on cost i)rices. Q. Where do you then go for herring? — A. Generally to Long Harbor. (}. How do yon get your herring? — A. We go there and, having an- tkred, we build a scaffolding all over the vessel just as level as a table, amlliaving bought the herring, we si)read them on this scaffolding and freeze them. Q, Where do you buy your boards with which you make the scaffold- |iDj;f-A. Sometimes wo bring our own down, and sometimes we pro- cure tlieiu on our way down. Q And you build a scattblding all over the vessel ? — A. Yes ; about lorlL' leet from the deck. Q, And having bought the herring, you freeze them there? — A. Yes. Q. I''i'oni whom do you buy the herring ? — A. From the natives. Q. Do they come to yon with boats? — A. Yes. •j Do your people assist in catching the herring? — A. No. Some- iiieswe might be over on the beach and lend a hand to haul them in, ntwe have to pay luem for the flsh. Q. You lake no seines with you ? — A. No; and if our men assist the latives in hauling the seiues we get nothing for it. We buy the flsh 'ffitlieni. Q You l)uy the flsh and freeze them ? — A. Yes. '). You take them home, and they are used i)artly for bait av.d partly f food ?— A. Yes, Q. Do you salt them ? — A. No. QYou have been in this business for three years' — A. 1 have beeu occupied for fifteen winters. m:^y u •'.'31 M ft viii»^4' ,''ii»jfc|f:. ; • :,{■ mm-4 'ie:^^^-^ ^^m si, .vi, '0F' ,^j:;.r .■ ■ '•■ w^& 1930 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Yon then have carried on that business in connection with the smnJ mer mackerel fishery f — A. Yes. Q. You have traded in Newfoundland during all the years when voij were niackerel-tishing? — A. Yes; and for two years before I beciiuiii master of a vessel. Q. And during that period has the condition of the people who: you bait grown worse or better ? — A. It has Improved since I wont ibtrel for the first time. Families which when 1 first went there were worth a dollar, are now well off for that country. Q. How much monev do you spend there ? — A. Last winter I l«f| $1,000 there. Q. For herring ? — A. Yes; that is, for everything. 1 do not take imalj goods with me. Q. Taking into consideration all the American vessels which go tlierd with permits to touch and trade, as you do, how mu<;h inoiiey do tliei leave with the inhabitants of Newfoundland in payment for h( iriiij,', J far as you can judge? — A. I think that last winter tliere were aboiil thirty sail of Gloucester vessels tliere; and they would each aviiag^ •U^OOO. There were two from our firm, and we left there SUj^Ol). Q. Do you hear any complaint from the people who so deal withtli^ Americans about this business and of buying bait ? — A. No. Q. Who makes any (jomplaint, if any is made? — A. An English tira at Cape Breton does. Q. They complain about it? — A. Yes. Q. Do you go to any place in Newfoundland besides Fortune Bay !- A. For herring, no. Q. If yon were totally excluded from buying bait at Newfoundland, ( anywhere else in the British possessions — suppose that they were feucei off and you could not go thei'e at all — would you experience any i culty in carrying on the cod fishery on the Banks? — A. No. Q. Why not ? — A. I think that we would then do just as well, beeausi we all have salt bait when we left home, and salt bait would not be tberfll and the time we lose in going into Newfoundland for bait we would mak( up by fishing. Q. But if one vessel has fresh bait the others w.ant it too?— A. Yesj if a vessel alongside of you has fresh bait you are not going to catc| your share of fish with salt bait ; but if all the vessels have salt bait th fish take it. Q. Can you buy bait at St. Teter's?— A. Yes. The Fortune Baypeoj pie run over there with it in the spring. Q. They carry it there and sell it? — A. Yes. Q. Is there an ample supply of it at St. Peter's? — A. Yes; a pile ( it is taken in there. Sometimes they have to heave the herring overboan because they cannot sell it. Q. This is because they have too many herring ? — A. Yes. Q. No objection of which you are aware is made to the Aniericau trading there.? — A. No. Q. These people are willing to take United States money ?— A. \es| they are willing to take our gold. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. Where were you born in Nova Scotia? — A. At the Strait of Cans Q. How long is it since you lived there? — A. Since I was fouryead old, I have lived at Gloucester. f Q. You say that for ten years you were fishing in the Bay of St. La^ rence? — A. Yes; and during that time was master of a vessel. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1931 ictioii witli the sumj Last winter I leiu I do not take luiielj des Fortnne Bay 1 be Fortune Bay ped money ?— A. ^esj tbiQk uriug [Q, Tell me the names of the Ameriean vessels in which you fished ? — i I built the tirst one in which I fished — the Fashion. The next one lagtlie Luiira Mangan ; the next the American Eagle; the next the Fitz iBatison; and tlie next the Patliflnder. i'q'i]h(1 yon any Nova Scotians in the Pathfinder t — A. Yes. I q! How irany barrels did you catch in the Pathfinder? — A. I L obtained <)<><> barrels during one season when I was in her; d Botber season I made only one trip with her and got 300 barrels. I Q, What did you catch in the other vessels ? — A. The first year I «nt master of a vessel, I think we got somewhere in the neighborhood JIOO barrels. We made three fares. [q, What did you catch in the other vessels f— A. We caught about (I barrels in the Laura Mangan one summer; and the next summer out 500 barrels. I think we secured 400 barrels during the first sea- bo I was ill the American Eagle. [q, How many trips did you make in her ? — A. Two. Q. How many trips did you make in the other vessels ? — A. Two. m You made two trips in all of tbeui ? — A. Yes, except the first year, hen I made three trips. ]q, And in all the others you made two trips ? — A. Yes, excepting one fill, in the Pathfinder, when I made only one trip. [ Q. How long were you in the Pathfinder on that one trip ? — A. I think kat we were gone about eight weeks. |Q. Altogether ?— A. Yes. |q. Tbis was from the time you left until the time you returned? — Yes. |Q, And you got COO or 700 barrels during that time? — A. Yes; we wk about 000 barrels in the Pathfinder. IQ, Did you not get 700?— A. We caught 300 and 270 in the two m. Q. That is jast what you obtained ? — A. Yes. |Q, During what years did you take out a license ? — A. I took out a me when I was in the Laura Mangan, I think ; but I would not say Ibelber I bought two licenses or one license. jQ. Did you fish in our waters under the Reciprocity Treaty, when it Ksnot ueeessary to take out a license ? — A. Yes. ]Q. And afterward you took out a license? — A. Yes. When I went Itotbe bay in the Laura Mangan I paid the first year, I think, 50 cents ItOD. IQ, Did you take out a license the first year you fished ? — A. I think Ididsothe first year I fished in the Laura Mangan. ]Q. Did jou do so the first year you came fishing ? — A. Yes ; the first ar that licenses were issued I took one. IQ. Were you in the bay the year previous? — A. Yes; and the year pre that. Q. Tbis was when you could fish without a license ? — A. Yes. IQ. Did you take out a license every year afterward? — A. I do not pv. I almost forget whether I took licenses out for two years or not. IQ. During how many years afterward did you fish ? — A. I fished piyyear in the bay when licenses were issued. Q. Did you take out a license every year ? — A. No ; not every year. IQ. You fished without a license for one or two years? — A. Y'^es. IQ. Ill what vessel did you then fish ? — A. In the Laura Mangan and p American Eagle. I took out a license when in the former, but 1 do Wknow whether I took out a license during two years or not. Q. At any rate, you have fished without a license f-r-A. Yes. irfi^^'^ .H]^ W •:;:■■;: #^k: •ism ^»^'W^f*^'&^^'^ <^. s* IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 !f «a I I.I 25 Mi 1.8 1.25 1 1.4 1.6 < 6" ► m s^ n ^/ A /A ^/o>^ ^i. *> '^ '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. M5S0 (716) 872-4503 V [n*. <^ <^ <•> #^ «^ V- fc f/. 1932 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Yon found that others ilitl so ? — A. Yes. Q. And you did not see why yon should not do the sanio ?_A. I wj not scared of being taken, and Hnaliy we could not get lisli ciidnfrii ^ pay for tiie license. Q. And, besides, you found that others were not itaying lor lict'iiscs! A. Yes. Q. And you thought that you couhl run the risk as well as tliov .'- A. I knew that I was not going to run any risk; 1 was not {roiii'Kj fish so as to run any risk. Q. Why did you take out licenses previously?— V. The cliiUfrc wa* 50 cents a ton tlien, and I did not want to be bothered, il' 1 andKni'd around the land. If I did so I did not wish to be driven out. Q. If I understand you aright, you transshipped the last year, wlieJ you had no license? — A. I never transshipped when I had no license. Q. What did you do with your cargo, then ? — A. I shipped a triiithJ first year I was master of a vessel, but no licenses were issued tlia] year. Q. What did you do with your cargoes afterwards ?— A. 1 carrw them home. Q. Have you transshipped since the Washington Treaty bas been i force? — A. Yes. Q. Where were you fishing last year ? — A. On the Grand Bawks, Q. And the year before t — A. On the Grand Banks. Q. And where have you been fishing this year? — A. On tbeOran^ Banks. Q. What do you fish for?— A. Cod. Q. You now fish for cod altogether? — A. Yes. Q. When did you come into this port f — A. About 12 o'clock totliijj Q. Did you come as a witness, to give testimony ?— A. No. Q. You Just happened to come in? — A. Yes. Q. And you did not know anything about giving testimoiiv herel-i A. No. Q. Diu you come with the American fieet? — A. They were in beij when I came in. Q. YoU came alone? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know how many American vessels have conic down lioij this year? — A. No. I have been away from home for four inontlis. an I do not know anything about what has been going on at boine duii that time. Q. When did you last fish for mackerel ? — A. In 1873. Q. And did you fish during that year in the bay? — A. Yes. Q. Did you iish that year lor mackerel in any other [)liice besides tl^ bay? — A. Yes, I went out south that year on our shore. Q. You went south, and then came to the bay? — A. Yes. Q. That is the course usuallv taken bv American mackerel tisbers.'^ A. Yes. Q. The usual course for theju, according to the evidence given, is| commence fishing out south, and to follow the mackerel wbeii the laiti come into the bay? — A. Y'es, that is the way we did that year, but dnri^ the last three or four years there have been no mackerel in the bav. Q. How do you know that?— A. The vessels have found mackerj enough on our coast. * Q. You are now speaking from hearsay? — A. Yes. Q. Y^ou are saying what you have heard ? — A. Yes. Q. But I am referring to the years when you fished for niacken AWARD OF THE FI8HEBY COMMISSION. 1933 \^\\m\ course was to commence south mid to t'uUow the tish up into Lbavf-A. Ves. ii xbat was always the course taken i — A. Yes. (i! Ami you arrive«l in the baj' about the miihile of Juno f — A. We jgaie there about the first ol" July, 1 think. Q. Did not stime vessels jjet in earlier if — A. They came, I think, about itiflst of July. 0. Ami you remained until the 1st of November? — A. I got one fare, rat home ami came back. Q. That was the usual course which you followed ? — A. Yes. [}. The vessels followf d the mackerel up from the south and reached f bay about the mid:ll - of June or the 1st of July, and then followed round the bay, staying in the bay until late in the fall ! — A. They iiietl in the bay until about the middle of October. Q. The tish are very large and fatter in the fall than in the spring, .they not f— A. Yes. g. Give me the nam<>s of the vessels in the fleet in which you flsbed. A, Tlicre was the Captain Lee, the William Sutton, and Captain Brad- j vessel, the S. C. Noyes; the William S. Baker, the Colonel Cook, i the Electric Flash. Q. What Nova Scotians had you iit the vessel in which you fished in tbayt— A. I had Jim Summers, I think. [I, Where «loes he reside ? — A. At the Strait of Canso. II, Does he reside there now ? — A. Yes. % Give lue the names of some other Nova Scotians who were with l-A. I do not know whether I had any more with me or not. (j. I'id you have many Nova Scotians with you i — A. I guess I had ■an named Cushing with me. i|. Give us the names of all the Nova Scotians who have fished with durint; the whole period you were mackerel-fishing. — A. I had with aiuaii named Coliu Murray. Q, In the Pathfinder ?— A. No. i Did you have only one Nova Scotian in the Pathfinder ? — A. I am king whether I had any more. I had a man named Robert Carter, .lIliDli. Q, In the Pathfinder ?— A. Yes. % Where does he live ?— A. At the Strait of Canso. i Had you any others ? — A. I had John Credington. Q. That is a Canso name ! — A. Yes ; he belongs to Canso. Q. Anu we will find him there ! — A. I think that you likely will. 1^. Do you remember any other in the Pathfinder f — A. No. i Do yon remember the names of any Nova Scotians who were with previously f — A. I had a man named Colin Murray, |Q. Of Canso f — A. \'es; but I cannot think of any other names, i^lilhad a good many of them along with me. Do you know the Stapletons of Canso t — A. I know only one man Uiat name there. I Does he go fishing t — A. No. ' Can you give me any other Canso names ? — A. There was James insoD. Of Canso f— A. Yes. I- lu what vessel was he with you f — A. In the American Eagle. poyou remember any other name? — A. I have had three or four 'men with me, but I cannot remember their names, but they be- uoand there. I cannot think of any more. Mi 1934 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. I8 it difficult to tell when you nre three miles from land or not!. A. Yes. Some days land will look Higher than on other divM. Q. It is very difficult to tell whether you are 3 iiiilcs frdm shore nott — A. Yea. Q. And sometimes when you are only half a mile from the laii and down the shore. Q. We have a large mass of evidence here on the subject, and I waj to know whether you contradict it or not. It is stated that large iiu bers and fleets of vessels fish within three miles of that shore from i to day ? — A. I never fished there. Q. Did you fish within a mile or half a mile of the coast ?— A. I ne^ did ; I caught a few mackerel near the shore, but never many. Q. Did tbese Nova Scotians who were with you in the Pathtiiij catch any nmckerel inside of three miles from the shore I— A. We m\( have got 30 or 40 barrels in shore. Q. Will you undertake to say that you did not catch the most of? you got within three miles of the shore? — A. Ye.s. Q. You are positive on that im'Mt ? — A. Yes ; as to the time I \n^ her. Q. How did you know that yon were not within three miles of shore? — A. I could tell by the land. Q. Did you catch them five juiles oft" shore?— A. No, 1 do net tliink Q. You said that you caught a great many fish within 5 and 10ni| of the coast? — A. Yes; and 15 and 16 miles from it. Q. Did you catch one-half of the fish five miles from the coast f-j No. , 1 Q. You will swear that?— A. Yes; I have caught a whole tripiia^ different seasons about the Magdalen Islands. AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1935 0.1)1(1 yoii catch them there within three miles of the coast f — A* gonie of til*'"' ^ ^'^^ ""^ some I did not. Q. How iiiiiiiy did you catch within the three mile limit f — A. I could tut trll> Q. But wo want you to tell f — A. I might have taken 150 or ILT* bar- rels within the three-mile limit. (J. Would you say the number was 120? — A. 1 would not be certain Itoaltiirrel. Q. Would the number be laOf—A. We will call it 130. 0 Would you allow us to call it 140 or 150? — A. Yes. (). OrJOnf— A. No. Q. Did you take any count of the catch in this regard at all — will Itoii swear to it 1 — A. 1 am not able to swear to it in that way. I never I {}. Yoa are not obliged to say how nmny you caught within any Lrticiilur distance froni the shore. I do not think it possible. — A. No, Icaiiiiot say that; but then I can say that I have never obtained man^^ liiiiiiislioic. y. But you may have caught 125, 130, 140, or 150 barrels inshore? — |A. Yes. g. But you will not say 200 ? — A, No. I,). Tbe luimber so caught was somewhere between 125 and 150 ? — A. lies. Q. Do I understand you to say that you had a legal right to Hsh near Itbt 'imt of the Magdalen Islands ? — A. I knew that we had a legal iif!ht to catch them as close to that shore as we liked. Q Uthat the reason why you say you caught that number there in- iorel— A. No. It was all owing to where the mackerel played, I ip|)o.se. Q. Altogetlier ? — A. Yes. Q. Tbe legal right in question made no diiferenco in the matter? — A. po. When we went to the Magdalens we caught mackerel wherever we loiiil them. Q. How many vessels fished at the Magdaleu Islands? — A. I have KDasmaiiy as 200 sail there, I should think. jQ. Where did they tish ? — A. All around the islands. I Q. Inside or outside of the three miles from the shore? — A. Inside I outside, and everywhere. 1 1) Did you ever get a full fare at the Banks in a few days and thou liiuine?— A. No. [Q. Did you ever see such a thing done ? — A. No. The most 1 have rcauglit ill a few days was 200 barrels in three days ott' the Mag- bb islands. IQ Did you ever fish abive Cape Ga8p<3 ? — A. Not since I have been Werof a vessel. l^Q Hiit did you ever fish on the shores of the St. Lawrence above 4|ie(jas|M', either on the north or south side of the river? — A. No. IQ Yon never fished there at all ? — A. I have never been up to Gasi)e. h And you have never fished oft" Prince Edward Island at all ? — A. Ikave tried for mackerel there. IQ. How many tintes did you do so? — A. I could not tell you. iQ. How many times did you try on the island ? — A. I could not say. |<) Will you undertake to say that you never tried once for mackerel kill three miles of the coast? — A. Yes, I have tried for them withi'i (three-mile limit. II flow often?— A. I could not say. 1936 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Could you give any idea in tbis relation f — A. No. Q. You can give no idea whatever as to the number of times you bavel tried for mackerel within three miles of the island ? — A. No. Q. Can you give us any sort of an idea as to how inaii" times voiil tried for them at Margaree within three miles of the coast ?— A. I li'avel never been there many times. Q. How nmny times have you been there t — A. Probably half a dozeiil times for mackerel. Q. In your life ? — A. That is, since I have been master of a vessel. Q. You now refer' to the Cape Breton coast? — A. Yes. Q. Did you ever try for mackerel off any other part of the coast ori Cape Breton ? — A. Yes; down at Cheticamp. (j. How often did you try for them there? — A. I recollect tryingl once, on coming acriss from the Magdalen Islands. Q. You only recol'ect of doing so once f — A. Yes. Q. You can only give evidence as to having done so once?— A, Yes.! Q. Will you name any other place on the coast where you have si tried f — A. I have told you of all the places. Q. Cannot you name any other place ? — A. I cannot think of any more now. Q. Can you give me any sort of an idea as to how many tish von caught within Ave miles of the coast? — A. No; I could not. Q. You can give no sort of idea whatever as to such proportion f— U No. Q. Can you give me any idea as to what you so caught— more od less ? — A. The most of the mackerel I ever caught have been taken ofl the Magdalen Islands, and .broad off the Pigeon Hills. These are luy fishing-grounds. Q. You only went to these places ? — A. I would go there, ami havliijj tried for fish would leave again. Q. How many mackerel, more or less, did you catch within five mile^ of the coast? — A. I could not tell. Q. \''ou can give no sort of an idea in this relation i — A. No. Q. And no idea, whether the proportion be greater or less?-A. Xo Q. And you say that it is very difficult sometimes to tell when yo^ are five or two miles off' shore? — A. I say it is difficult to tell wbetlie you are five or three miles off shore. Q. During the time when you had no license you never on any ocd sion undertook to ascertain by the chart where you were — whether yuj were three miles from the shore or not? — A. Yes ; we did do so as ve| as we could while we were sailing along. Q. But you never undertook to ascertain whether you were withij three miles of the shore or not ? — A. No. Q. And you never heard of any other American veisel making sad an attempt?— A. No. Q. You never heard of an American trying to do so when outside ( inside of the three-mile limit? — A. No. Q. And I suppose you will agree to this, that when you are followin a school of mackerel you were much less likely to Hud out where yo| were ? — A. Yes ; that is so. Q. And when you were inside of the three-mile limijb ?— A. I uer had a cutter order me off shore in my life. Q. I ijuppQse that they would do you the common civility to give yj warning, and if you then went off nothing further would be said ab it ?— A. If yoa went inside the limit they would take you. Q. I always understoud that they would not seize \ essels if thry < AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1937 not know where they were ? — A. If they caught yea fishing inside they foald taije yon. Q. You think so ? — A. Yes. Q Wby? — A. Every vessel caught tlohing inshore they have taken, bave they not I Q. If they have taken vessels fishing inshore, why do you say that? — A. Vessels have been tak*"!, and 1 supposed that they were taken for tiiat reason. Q. You have simply heard of it ? — A. Yes. Q. And you never saw any vessels taken ? — A. No. (}. Did you ever see a cutter f — A. Yes. Q. What was she doing? — A. I suppose she was keeping American islierinen from fishing inshore. Q. Within what distance from the shore ? — A. Three miles. Q. I thought you said that there was no fish in there f — A. I suppose I U\ are to be found in there. That is what the vessels go there tor. Q. Yon do not mean to say that fleets of vessels go in to catch fish Ifhtrethere are no fish ? — A. Some go in, I suppose, when the mackerel I jre there. Q. Then the mackerel do go inshore sometimes ? — A. I think that is I likely the case. Q. Did you ever hear of their being caught there? — A. Yes. Q. Did you ever hear of a load of mackerel being caught inshore ? — |A, Xo. Q. Did you 'ear that the mackerel were very largely found near the |iliorethisyea» ? — A. I have heard nothing about them this year. Q. Did you hear of other vessels catching fish inshore ? — A. No. Q. You do not know where other vessels obtained their fish ? — A. No. |I always looked out for myself. Q. Ai)d you never heard the men on other vessels say where they |tan«!ht their fish ? — A. O, yes, very often. Q. Why do you say that you always looked out for yourself? — A. I liner bothered any man as to where, he ,t>'*>ts his fish as long as I can get Iheni. Q. When you had no license did you catch a single fish inside the jltiieeiniic limit ? — A. I think it is likely that I have done so. Q. How many do you think that you have caught within the three- lile limit ?— A. I do not know ; 1 have so caught a few. Q. ill which vessel were you then ? — A. I could not tell you. I think lis likely that I have so caught a few iu every vessel in which I have bi. Q. Was this the case when you had no license ? — A. I am trying to Biiiik whetlier I had a license then or not. I Q. You said you so caught some fish when you had no license ; how ptlvou know that you caught fish inside the three-mile limit when you Who license ? — A. I think it likely that I so got a few. Q. Do you remember saying a little while ago that you never ran any Miwbeu you had no license ? — A. Certainly. I told you that I did not pilate that I ran any risk. I think it is likely that 1 caught some fish Fitliin the three-mile limit. [Q. You do no'j know whether this was the case or not? — A. I do not; Ithiukitifilikely that Idid. Q. And why is that likely ? — A. A man does not measure his distance. IQ- But a man who is liable to have his vessel confiscated measures Miistancef^A. O, yes. \% And unless he can get a large haul of mackerel by doing so he is 122 P 1938 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. not ttvilliiif; to run that lisk ? — A. He is willing to run tbc rink if hecitDJ catch fish by dnitig 80. Q. And you did run that riskf — A. I think it is likely T diti, Q. Then you were mistaken when you said you ran no risk when voui had no license f — A. I think so. Q. Did you take licenses out during the years you flsiied in the barf I — A. 1 took out a license at tir.-it. What was the price the second yearfl Do you recollect ; was it $1 a ton 7 I Q. I 'think so. — A. Then I think that I took out a license the mmA year ; but when the price rose to $2 and $2.50 a ton I would not tali« out one. Q. In point of fact»you thought that you did not run a great deal o(j risk, as you could see a cutter when she was a long distance utt'?— A. No The cutters never bothered lue any. I was not a bit scared of tlieui. Q. You say that you first transshipped a cargo during the Heuiprooiti Treaty T — A. I shipped one trip the tirst year 1 was master of a vessel] I think that we made three trips that year. Q. And then you have transshipped under the provisioiiH of tliil Washington Treaty ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you transship afterward ?— A. No, I never sbijjped caii'o save twice. Q. Ahd you tlid so under the Reciprocity and Washington Treaty !- A. Yes. Q. And you transshipiied the last year you were in the bay'— A. Xo but the year before that, and the year before that. Q. What is the ordinary rate of freight per barrel for traiissljippjnffj — A. I think that it cost somewhere about $1.5U between tlie paymegj of freight and expenses. Q. What is the charge for freight? — A. I think that they paid iill barrel. Q. From the Gut of Canso to Boston ! — A. Yes. Q. Will you swear that this was the case f — A. No, but I think i yiaa. Q. In what steamer did you ship the tish f — A. I could not say. Q. Who was your agent there f — A. John Maguire. Q. John Maguire is a very reliable man, is he not ? — A. Yes. Q. He is very truthful and very reliable ? — A. 1 think that be is. think that we paid $1 a barrel, but I would not be certain. I luayt'q get the exact amount. Q. We had Mr. Maguire here the other day — would yon be surpiN to find that the price paid was 30 cents or 40 cents a barrel f— A. V^ but I think it was more than that. Q. But you are not sure ? — A. No : I told you so. Q. If it was 40 cents a barrel, then the expense you spoke of ni be much difierent ? — A. Yes, it would be somewhere near 90 cents, Q. What other expenses have you to meetf — A. There is tlie paeki^ home and the labor to be paid for. Q. But you have to do all that if you take the flsh home ?— A. Tb^ nowever, we are not charged for it. Q. I'ou do it yourselves ! — A. Y'es. Q. But you cannot fish while you are attending to these luattcrs^ A. No. Q. The payment of the freight is the ?nain thing at any rate?— A. j and the expenses home. Q. To that expense you would be put iu any case if you took thet AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1939 loneyonrsolf f — A. No. They charge for labor done, which when at home Ve do tor ourselves. Q. Hut you have to take time to do it ? — A. Yea. Q. And >ou are catching tinh while this is being done ? — X. Yes. q' The expenses are very small at Causo, at Maguire's ? — A. O, yes; lllrMagiiiro is a nice man. I). And the expenses there are very small !-— A. Yes ; but we have to Iboy Imrrels and things. Q. With whom do you deal at Cansof—A. I have dealt with Maguire [for two or three seasons. 1^. And that is where you spent the $100 1 Are you sure of that ?— • 1^, I iid) sure of it. I spent $100 and more too. Q, During one yearl — A. Yes, and more than that. Q. 1 meiui on the average every year ? — A. Yes, I could swear that \U\mt o:ie hundred dollars. Q. Vou said you spent $100, and that the crew spent each $4 or $5 1 — Ves, wiiile in the bay for a season, but not at Maguire's. That was lor the whole season through. Q, Would you find vessels whioli had been in the fleet around the ||;ij,'ilal(Mi islands, tishing ott' Malpeqiie and Suiris, in Prince Edward liiiiil, iind at Port Hood and other places f Would you ttnd any of the ^M'U that tished at Malpetiue, Souris, Gascumpeque. and other ports ii<; for mackerel at the Magdalen Islands? — A. Well, most of the Mackerel cat(;liers go all over the bay. Q, We find that some that go to these places do not go toother places. Pave you ever tished in the Bay of Chaleurs ? — A. Yes. (}. Once?— A. O, no; but a good many times — half a dozen times. ,i). Are you able to see any vessels which had been tishing in the pa^dalen Island waters tishing at Mal|)eque, 8ouris, or Cascumpequef -A, 1 never knew of any vessel catching any tish at Souris in my life. I(^ Ui at .Malpe»iuef — A. 0,yes. 1 have known of tish being caught IfIC k. And at Cascumpeque ? — A. Y'es. tj. And why not at Souris? — A. I never heard tell of mackerel play- pi aiound Souris. i|. \Vi> had a man here who said that a man on snow-shoes could walk pertlicni there in the water, and that one vessel got 200 barrels there lailay !— A. 1 never heard tell of them being there. IQ. Vou iiin-er tried tliere for tish f — A. No. [Q. Have yoii undt^rstood that it is a great fishing place ? — A. This is itiist I ever heard of Souris being a place for catching mackerel — P« is it fact. By Mr. Wliiteway : I Q When did you first fish on the Banks of Newfoundland — in 1873 rlSUf-A. 1874 was the first year. H And you have fished there in 1874, 1875, and 1870, and this season ? U. No, .sir. 1 have been tb.ere three seasons — those of 1875, 1876, mist;. I|j. Vuu did not fish there in 1874 ? — A. No, I was not fishing that mil [Q. Why were you induced to leave mackerel-fishing and to go to the xk^ut Newfuundland to tish f — A. I thought that I would take a »ii?i'; that is all. [*| Was it not because you thought it would be a more profitable Itration ?— A. No. During the year ot the gale a friend with whom I 1940 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. went wn8 lost, niul then I was employeil by the firm of Mansfield, ^1,01 wanted his vessels to go eoil-HshinK ; and so I went. Q. You are now, and have been since 1874, in one of MaiistiHd's vh i selsf — A. 1 was fishing there during IHl't and 1870. 1 nxninciictMl n. the fall of 1874. Q. Did you jjo the iJanks to Hsh in 1874 ?— A. No. Q. During the last flt'teen years you have gone to Fortiuu' 15a,V(liiiii|(»| the winter lor herring f — A. Yes; but not all the time as inastci. 'I Q. You went there the Hrst year you were in the Fasiiion .'_a. 1 w;,J never there in the Fashion. I was fishing for nnickerel in li<>r, but liiidl not go to Newfoundland. She is the llrst vessel of which I evt-r waj master. Q. During what months in the winter do you go to Forturip liny fori herring ? — A. We leave home for that i)lace about the i.'."»tli of Novtiii.| ber, or toward the last of the month. Q. And how long «lo you remain here .' — A. We generally leave tiara about the middle of January. Q. And duiing the time you are there you get your wintor luMTing,;!! you call them T — A. Yes. Q. How much a barrel do you pay for them f — A. Froni $1 to 8-. Q. What did you pay a barrel for them last winter ?— A. >«i'. Q. And what did you pay the previous winter ? — A. About ^l.'>», Q. Anil the winter previous to that ? — A. Six shillings, or •ji.'.'u. Q. And the winter still previous i — A. About six sliilliuKx Q. What measure do you use — the American or the Newfoutullaml !- A. Well, when herring are scarce, we take what the people },nve m. Q. Is not your measure smaller than theirs! — A. No; 1 tliiiii;tij;i ours is a little bigger than theirs. Q. If the pi'ople of Fortune liay swore that the value you gavetliei^ for the herring was only about 75 cents a barrel, would you Iw pn pared to come here and swear directly the contrary ? — A. Yes, Islmiii^ Q. Against all the people of Fortune Bay ? — A. Yes. Q. AVhat was the size of the vessel in which you generally wetit tc ;^ your winter herring ? — A. Well, 1 have been there in vessels vanin from 108 tons to GO tons ; the former was the biggest and the lattii tl| smallest. Q. W' hat has been the size of the vessel in which you have jroiio flie^ during the last few years? — A. During the last two winters I wciittiiei in my present vessel, whi«;h is of 7o tons ; and the winter itrevioiwj went there in a vessel of 90 tons. Q. What quantity of herring did you take in this vessel of 73 toiislJ A. Five humlred barrels of frozen lierring; they take up tlie looiiua^ of about two barrels of salt herring. Q. Is that the largest quantity of herring that you have evertiili^ from there ? — A. No; 1 have taken about 800 barrels. Q. That was when you were in a vessel of 108 tons ?— A. Vis. Q. But you usually take about 500 barrels if — A. Yes. Q. Dow do you make out that you pay out $1,000 from tlie tiiiic yj go down there? — A. I said that I paid out 81,000 last winter. Q. I understood you to say that you generally left $1,000 every ter that you went down there ; in this was I mistaken ?— A. Ves; 1 I did so last winter. Q. Then yon do not leave $1,000 there every year that you godoj to Newfoundland f — A. Not quite, but last winter I did; tliat is «li* left for herring, besides light-dues, customs-fees, &c. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1!)41 rac Q. What is the average mIzc of the vessels which go to Fortune Bay ? — 1 1 thinii about 80 tons. q. And NO they usually pay the spnie price for herring tiiat you tlo? — A. Tliey pay about the same. 0, I tiiink you have Maid something about their being a half starved ,¥ in Nt'H toundhind ? — A. No, I ditl not say that. I said that they foiilii l)« starved if it was not for the Gloucester vessels which go down tg Fortune r>ay. {}. II it were not for your presence there then thej' wouM be starved ? — i, I Kiiid tliat one-half of the Fortune Ibiy ])eo])le would starve if it !,)< iiot for the Gloucester lleet coming down there during the winter. {I It it was not for you they would starve I — A. One-half of them foiild. {}, Anil you pledge your oath to that ? — A. Yes. (,>. Yitu jih'dge your solemn oath before this Commission that such loiiM be tlie case *. — A. If we «liil not go there they wouhl be ou the L^ttui'St. (luhn, which would have to send them meal. (,i, 1 only ask you whether that would be the case or not ? — A. I fiiiilii not swear that they would starve to death if we «lid not go there. II, Yuu said so just a moment ago, and now you retriict the state- Bfiit !— A. Tlio people would go pretty hungry if we did not go there. I,), Then, I suppose that when we went to tish on the miserable mack- (tvlii-ihing grounds of the Gulf of St. Lawrence you were starved too ? — We always had plenty to eat. {}. Was it not a prolltable business, and did you not make a very iiuilsonie thing out of the mackercltishiug business ? — A. 1 made \r>[\^\\ to live on. Q, And you are worth money now ? — A. No. You cau tell that from |6e Imik of nie. Q. Are you not comfortably off and worth money ? — A. No. Yoa inlly ever find a man who goes fishing worth money. Q. And profitable as the mackerel business was, you thought that lishing would be a still more profitable operation, and so you went to it!— A. I thought I would have a change, and so I went cod-fish- If. Q. You say that you left Gloucester in the spring of 187o and 1876 to to Newfoundlaud to get your bait for the prosecution of the cod- iheryf— A. Yes. I Q. And you did not briug any salt bait from Gloucester ? — A. No, lot this year. I Q. Suppose that you had brought salt bait from Gloucester, what pill you have given a barrel for it ! — A. Perhaps from $2 to $3 or $5. Q. How much bait would you have taken, suppose you had takeu iffieient bait to prosecute your whole summer banking operations until lour return with the first voyage ? — A. I could not tell you. V. Would you have taken'lOO barrels f— A. No. I (|. Would you have takeu 2(H) ? — A. I tell you what the salt-bait flsh- M generally carry, and that is about 30 barrels. That is what I am tlJ oil the Banks. I Q- Yoii do not mean to say that 30 barrels of salt bait would catch a Tf?oof codfish ! — A. They also get bait ou the Banks. [QDo you know anything about it yourself? — A. I know no more '^wbat they tell me. I know nothing about it, because I never used [*)■ Where did you go for the herring which you purchased in th© ""gJ-A. For the first baiting this year I have paid $52.50. 1942 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How mnny bnrrelH did yon then f;etf — A. About 27. Q. Then you went to the tl8hiii);KroundH t — A. Yes. Q> And ufterwnrds came in to rub^tit f — A. Yes. Q. Where did you get the bjiit then f — A. At Fortune P.iiy. Q. And yon nf^ain obtained herring; f — A. Yes. Q. What did you pay for it t — A. Tliirty dollarH. Q. Did you then complete your codfish voyage f— A. No. Q. You Htill again came in for bait! — A. Yes. Q. What did you do afterwards? — A. I came in again ami yot (.;,,,. lin. Q. Where did you go then? — A. I went to Torbay, nortliHust of lit.l Jolin, and got bait and ice. I obtained ice«and capliu thin-. Q. Wliat did you pay for them!— A. I thinic iUfM. Q. Then you again went to the Ihuiks? — A. Yes. Q. Did you finish the voyage on this occasion f— A. No; I cuiiu> b.,e|j| again. Q. For squid ? — A. Yes ; to Torbay. Q. What squid did you get ! — A. I bought $110 wortli. Q. Where f— A. At Torbay. Q. How much did you pay for itf — A. Thirty cents a limniivtl; that! yrtiB for ice and all. Q. At what time of the year was this f — A. In July. Q. That price included ice! — A. Yes ; my bait and ice cost me $lloJ Q. You went out then to the Banks, and did you coiiiplute tb«{ vovage? — A. No; I went in again. Q. For what !— A. Squid. Q. What did you do then? — A. I obtained the squid, and paid oajj about the same sum of money that I did before for ice and l>iiit. Q. Did you now go out and complete the voyage ! — A. Yos; and am now on my way home. Q. With a full cargo ! — A. My cargo is not quite a full one. Q. How many flsh do you think that you now have ?— A. Alwiil 175,000. Q. And what is the tonnage of your vessel ? — A. 73 tons. Q. I believe that this has been a peculiarly unsuccessful season ontii Banks ? — A. Fish have been scarce this year. Q. They have not only been scarce, but they have also been verj scarce? — A. Yes. Last year 1 made two baitings, and I obtained bait- squid — on the Banks. Q. Last year you obtained a full voyage with two baitings?— A. Yei Q. Did you then go on a second cod fishing voyage? — A. Yes, butj did not get a full fare in the fall. Q. What did you get on your second voyage? — A. An average sba of the fleet was on the Bank, and I got 00,000. Q. That is about half a voyage? — A. It is about one-third. Q. And for this catch of 00,000 did you have two baitings ?— A. I In one baiting. This was the fall trip. I made two baitings on my tin trip. Q. And on your last trip you made three baitings on the coast j Newfoundland ?— A. Yes. All the bait I took I got in Newfoiiiuiland Q. You obtained 60,000 on your second trip, and what did you get< your first voyage last year ? — A. 140,000. Q. You obtained 200,000 on the two voyages ? — A. Yes. Q. You consider salt bait superior to fresh bait, I believe f— A. dq; I think that fresh bait is the best. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1943 0. You ndmit, tlion, tlint froHli bnit is tho best? — A. O, certainly, fh II other vuhnoU on the Hank liavu it. (J, Wlu'ii (otlllHli 8Pe i'reMli bait tliey prefer it to salt bait? — A. Yes. {), CuiiHCMix^iitlyt y<»i admit tliat it i8 of Homc a«lvanta)fe to .yuu to be ,,liif to go to tliu coaMt of Newfonndlanil and ^et freHJi baitf — A. O, iri; certainly it is; and our aoum there is an advantap' to your people. (^' Doyoii not now consider tliat it is a very j{reat ailvanta^e to you to k able to ^o there ami get ice in whicli to preserve the fresh bait f — A. Yes. Q. Do you tlirow overboard any of your sinall (Isli at tlio llimkH? — I We siivi'd them all tliis year. I liave tiuown Nunie of them over* tuiiiid. (/. Are all the fish you caujjtht large ?— A. No; we got somo small Q. What did you do this year with the small lish ? — A. NVo have theiu I M iKKird the vessel. {}. What are yon going to do with them ? — A. I am carrying them bonie. Q, Of what size are the snmll (Ish ?— A. I think thoy are 18 or 19 I aclies long. {). .\re they as small as that f — A. Yes. (^, Have you sold any of them in Newfoundland ? — A. Yes. Q. What did you get a quintal for them ? — A. $1.40. Q. Uavo you sold any cod-oil in Newfoundland ? — A. No. {). Doyoii not think that it would be a very great advantage to you to I b( able to transship your Ash into vessels at Newfoundland and send I thfiu to market t — A. O, no. Q. Would it be no advantage whatever to you ? — A. I would not care Itboutit. I would rather lug them home. Q. Yoii would rather continue to bait your vessels at Newfoundland lintilyou get a full voyage, and then go home with it ? — A. Yes. Q. Your experience of the Bank fishery only extends over the period Unce 1S7*)? — A. Yes; and I do not think that £ will trouble it any more. Ildonot like it. Q. Have you not made a very handsome profit this year ? — A. I have jiade euough to keep me going. Q. You caught 200,000 last year and 175,000 this year, and I am sufll- ItieDt of a fisherman to know that these will yield you a handsome jptotit!— A. Hardly, for a vessel like ours. Q. Do you calculate on dried fish i — A. I have 17.'i,000 green ; this liitlie way in which I sell them out of the vessel at home. Q. I l)elieve that the Bank fishing operations have been very profitable Itothe Aiuericans heretofore — and previous to the Washington Treaty, jilieiithey only used salt bait? — A. Better fares were got on the Grsind iBiDks before they ever conimenced running fresh bait than has been |lle case since. Q. Were not the American Banking fishing operations a profitable Ibiness prior to the Washington Treaty — you know as well as I do that jtliisffas the case f — A. I cannot tell you about the Banking business. Q. What induced you to go into these Banking operations — was it iotl)ecause you knew that it was u profitable busiuess with salt bait, N because you knew that it would be still more profitable with fresh l^it!— A. 0, no. 1 did not think anything about it. I have told you p reason why I went. 1 lost a friend in the gale, and then I went into p employment of Mansfield, who wanted his vessels to go cod fishing. Q. Will you swear that Bank fishing operations were not a profitable 1944 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. bnsiuess prior to the Washiugtoti Treaty ! — A. No, I would uot swear that. Q. Has this uot been a more profitable business since that treaty U A. I could uot tell you anything about it. Q. You know something about the curing of lish, I bclicvo !_.\. i tried to cure the viyyage this snininer, but I do not know whi'tlu'i 1 have done it right or not. Q. But you do know something about it? — A. Yes. Q. How long do you kve\i the fish exposed to the sun at home in tlie I process of curing? — A. About four days, I think; but 1 would not be! certain on the point. Q. And the lish is then considered fit for your, the American, luarketl I — A. Yes; the time might be a day longer. It all depends on tlie weather. I think that four good days are quite sulUcient for the iMirimsc. Q. Is uot a profit made by the owner of the vessel, in the dillV'Kine between the amount at which he pays off the crew and the amount which the fish is naturally worth in the market at the time! — A. Somt'tinud lie makes something, and more frequently he does not. It all (Icptiuis on the market. Sometimes he nuiy p.ay $3 a hundred for the lisli and get about $rl, and then he loses money; he cannot make anything under i such circumstances. Q. But usually does he not pay off the fishermen at a less amount j than the fish is naturally worth in the market at the time!— A. No, He generally pays them all he can atford to, as far as I can see. When j you come to figure up their labor, the cost of the salt, and one thing and] another. Q. Are you now in a position to estimate what it will cost per f|uintalj to cure the fish, as you have stated they are cured ? — A. Well, no. ij could not; but it will take a good many dollars when the expenses me| figured up. I forget them. Q. How was it just now that you could arrive so quickly at theestij mate of $1.50 a barrel as the cost of transshipment ? — A. 1 thought tiiac| was what I paid the first year I transshipped. Q. How did you arrive at it so quickly ? — A. Because I thought cost us that much. Q. Before you came in here did you not, in conversation with Captaio Bradley, agree as to the price you would so pay ? — A. Nc. I did uoQ say one word to Captain Bradley, any more than to bid him good day. j Q. Theu you did not confer with him before you came here?— A. >'oJ Q. How did you arrive at the amount of $1.50? — A. I thiuk wepaif about one dollar freight per barrel one year. Q. You thought so ? — A. i think I did so the first year I shipi^ mackerel. Q. And do you mean to say that 50 cents a barrel was paid for tii^ labor of transferring the barrels from one vessel to another ?— A. Tlia was for the labor at home, on the wharf and ashore. Q. But the labor at home was the same, whether you transshipped or took the fish home in your own vessel ? — A. It was paid because tlii work had to be done at home. Q. But the labor would be the same, and it would cost the sainewhi ever it was done by f — A. I suppose so. Q. You have said that j ou only used caplin bait ? — A. Yes. Q. And do you not consider that it was good ? — A. It did uot suit for bait, and I will never be bothered with caplin again. Q. Do you not know that American Bankers prefer calpiu for bait? A. O, Yes. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1945 Q. It keeps very well in ioe, I believe? — A. "What we had ditl not. Frobubly 1 did ^lot nndenstaiul icing it, or somcthiuj^ of tliat kind. Q. But wliat other American captains have ha-f. ;^,:i _-|^.^ U!||: • 1 ■ ' t 1 ' ; 1948 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. fish, Q. Is there an abundant supply for your fisbermen ?— A. Of yes. Q. Now, I did not like to ask some of the witnesses that wc had bere the other day from your neighborhood as to their own pecmiiarv conli tion, but I would like to know whether Mr. McLaughlin, Mr. .McLean. Mr. Lon , and those other gentlemen that have been examint'il before the Coi; (nission here are growing poor or improving their finaiuial con ditioii 1 — A. 1 can't say I am acquainted with Mr. Lord or .MtLciiu. I have seen them, but not to have acquaintance with them. Q. How about Mr. McLaughlin ? — A. 1 have been acMiuaintcd with him from a boy. Q. Well, he is prosperous, is he not ? — A. Yes ; he seems to be. He 1 is not a fisherman. I think he once made an estimation in re<>ari] to j this subject. Q. Is not he in the fishing business ? — A. I do not know that lie ever I hove a line. Q. You have spoken of smoked fish going to the United States.] Where does the herring-oil go ? — A. They do send some of that, too. Q. What is done with the hake sounds f Is that an important mat ter f — A. It is. It is a more paying product than the fi.sb itself. 1 sa\r| them sold at Eastport for ol/ cents a pound. Q. What do they do with those? — A. They manufacture them intol diilerent things. Q. Do they m: Ve gum-drops out of them ? — A. Some do. Q. Isinglass? — A. Yes. Q. Do you say the hake sound is worth more than the fish ?— A.| AVell, three weeks ago they would not otfer but 75 cents for iML* poiiiiiliij of green hake, but they would give 50 cents a pound for sound. Tbea| for the livers they would get 40 cents. Q. Then the gurry of the hake is worth more than the fish ?— A. Well,| it is not exactly gurry. Q. I have one question more to ask. Do the American fisherinenl down in your neighborhood behave any worse than the British !— A, think not. I think I have had worse people in my own l)()ats. Soms years ago we did have some from Cape Ann who killed fowls and pulled up potatoes. But we never had any half so bad as some of our offu.| Some from Deer Island. They killed tame ducks right in the yards. By Mr. Thomson : Q. You live in Grand Manan ? — A. Yes. Q. You are not a practical fisherman yourself. You do not fish ?— J I have not for two years. I just left the smoked herring to theboys. Q. All that fishing is done in weirs ! — A. The herring has beeu. Q. You had weirs on the shore? That is the way you chiefly couduci your fisheries ? — A. Mine is an inshore weir. Some are away out iu th^ deep water. Q. Then I understand that you have not ever pursued as a busines fishing in boats, but always iu weirs ? — A. No, not so. My liue-fishinj was boat fishing. Q. To what extent have you ever carried on boat-fishing ?— A. WelB I have said, nothing more than principally to support my family. IfisI to get some little necessaries for my family. Q. I suppose every man on Grand Mauan who owns a bit of laoj would, during his leisure time, take his boat and get as mucli fish 9 he could for his family?— A. They ought to, unless they have souiethin to prevent them. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1949 Q, There are many persons there who make a business of Ashing alto- ■tbert— A. Yes. Q. You are not one of those? — A. No; I never lived solely by it. I »lirilv8 bad a little bit of laud to work. y.And during your leisure moments, when you did not require to be oftupied on your farm, yon fished enough to get fish for your family? Ibat i8 tlie wliole story ! You fished to get enough for your family I — i, It was for the support of my family. Q. Do I understand that you got more fish than was consumed in voiir family ?— A. O, yes. ' Q. How many herrings wotdd you get in the course of a year ? — A. Sumked herriiigs ? I never put up over 3,000 boxes a year; sometimes !ot over 2,0(10. Q. What would they be worth a box ? — A. That would be hard to an- swer. Sometimes we have sold them as high as 30 cents, and sometimes asloff as 10 cents. Q. Do you mean that since you have pursued the fisheries you have Ifotan average of 3,000 boxes ? — A. So. 1 never got higher titan that. loiily own a small part of a weir. Q. All those were taken in weirs, were they not ? — A. Yes. Q. Those weirs are on the land, are they not, between high and low lattr mark ? — A. Some are built in the tideway. Q, The inshore weirs are what you use ? — A. Yes. (). Not the tideway weirs ? — A. No. y. Your weir is between high and low water mark ? — A. It is very near the low water mark. Q. It was in those weirs that you took the bulk of your herring ? — A. les. Q, Of those, you say you put up sometimes 3,000, and sometimes not over 2,000 boxes? — A. Just according as the catch of herring comes. Ite catch is a great deal less some years than others. Q. You did not, as a rule, fish in your boats for the purpose of putting up herring ? — A. Not of late years. Not since we built weirs. We mi to. J Q. How long was it since you did begin to use the weirs ? — A. The jirst weirs were built, 1 should suppose, on Grand Manan, as nearly as |lcancome Jit it, about 37 years ago. Q. Since that time you haveu't fished in boats at all ? — A. VV^e have [not fished in boats for herring. Q. What time did you yourself commence to use these weirs ? — A. I |lel|)eil to build the first weir that was built. Q. After that you ceased to fish in boats, and depended upon the heirs?— A. You understand our weirs do not fish at all times. My |»eirs seldom or ever fish until September. Q. After ,vou commenced to use these weirs did you depend upon them jfot your supply of fish ? — A. No, I could not depend upon the weir solely, Ibaiise they did not always fish. It is only for two or three months. jlhev would not get herring enough to pay expenses and support a 'amily. I bad to take a boat. Q. Would you in September take a boat and fish in each year ? — A. lAll along through the summer, before the weirs fished, we would do so. ||iloiiot mean by that before the weirs were built, but before they began Ufacli season to catch fish. Q. What time would that be? — A. They would begin about September. Q' This year have you taken any fish in weirs 1 — A. No. ••'1 m 1960 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Have you been fishing iu boats?— A. I have not myseir; inybovg have been. Q. What kind of boats do they generally use? — A. Various gjzeg, There are a great many large two-sail boats with a jib on tiicin. Q. What kind of boats have you used for the last eight or ten years!-. A. I never used anything but small boats. I did not tish tbu last two years at all. Q. You don't go out to take herrings ? — A. Well, we generally have a skiff and a separate boat. Q. Have you a skiff or a boat? — A. I have a keel-boat for fishing on a flat bottom for the herring fishery. Q. For the herring-fishing you used a skiff? — A. Yes. Q. How far from the shore do you obtain your fish — I now refer to herring ? — A. We go to our weirs. Q. I am not speaking of the weirs. You say you get no fish in year I weirs until September? — A. I don't try to fish iu boats until the lierriug come into the weirs. ' Q. Then I understand you to say that you do not attempt to catch I herring with boats, but you only use boats to take the tisL from the| weirs 1 — A. That is what we do. Q. As regards the herring, you do not take them till September?— A. j Yes, the weir herring. Q. Did you ever go out with your skiff aud take herring except out | of your weirs ? — A. Not iu our weir skiff. Q. We will dismiss the skiff from our consideration and make the ac- quaintance of the boat. Did you go out in the boat to catcli herriiigfl — A. We went out to the Ripplings to look for herring. Q. Have you gone out to tlie Itipplings during the last ten years I-| A. No ; I have not. Q. How long is it since you last went out there ? — A. I cannot tell. Q. Twenty years ago ? — A. Probably 12 or 14 years ago. Q. Have you got that boat yet ? — A. No Q. Have you got any boat in place of it ? — A. Yes ; another whichj we use for that business. Q. For what do you use the new boat ? — A. Not to go herring fishiug.j Q. For what do you use it? — A. For cod-flshing — line-flshing. Q. I understand that all the fish you have taken for the last 14 yeiirsj are fish taken with your skift" and out of your weirs ? — A. That is her-f ring fishing. I cannot say I have myself taken my boat and goue ttf catcli anything in any other way except out of my weirs. Q. And you do not begin to do that till September ? — A. Yes. Q. How early in spring do the herring strike in at Grand Mauaa?- A. it varies a great deal. Q. What time did they strike in this year? — A. This spring they did not strike in until late. Q. Where did they strike in ?— A. At North Head. You are speakj ing of the Meir fish? Q. I am speaking generally of herring. — A. The net herring and small weir herring are ditt'erent. We look for the herring striking Iir8l| at North Head. Q. What is the difference between the North Head herring wliicN strike in in the spring and weir herring? — A. For spring herring a tff^ and a half inch mesh is used, and for weir herring a two inch luesh. Q. Then I understand that the weir herring is a small and iuferio herring compared with the other? — A. At times they are; they are niixe schools. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1951 Q, Take them as a body, are tbe herring taken in weirs inferior? — A. Tbelierring are interior, as they are so very different in size. We get iBixed scboolH. Not one-half can we string to cure. Our weir herring lie small. Tbey are not so large as net herring. Q. As a rule, are not weir herring inferior herring ? — A. Tliey are, tiecanse they are mixed. Large and small mixed cannot be as valuable u herring of a regular size. Q. Tben herrings taiien in nets are large herring ? — A. The meshes of tbe nets are large enough to allow small herring to go through ; but iu the weirs we take all kinds. Q. The boat tishermeu don't care to take the small herring ? — A. Not Ivbileitis netting time. Q. The herrings tbey generally put up for export are large ? — A. Yes, Ithosetliey barrel, unless they freeze some in the winter season. Q. The trade in barreling flsh is one you have not engaged in ! — A. ISO. Q. You have applied yourself solely to the trade in small herring put lupin boxes ! — A. Yes ; to tbe weir tish. Q, Tiien, in point of fact, you cannot speak from any experience I or knowledge regarding the trade in large herring? — A. 1 have bad no lei|ierieuce iu that. Q. Then the opinions of persons actually engaged in it would be worth Itoiir times as much as your opinion? — A. I suppose so. I should say Itbe man who had always been in the business would be the man who |ioiil(lbe the best judge. Q. Tnke Mr. McLaughlin, tbe ororaeer of fisheries there, is he not a I mil of great experience in all kinds of tishing ? — A. He may have eu- pged in tish trading, but be does not tish. I do not know that be ever Ifisbeil. I would not swear that he has not done so. Q. How far does be live from you ? — A. Fifteen or sixteen miles. (j. What he does you cannot have any credible knowledge of, unless Ijou always keep an eye on him ? — A. He has not attended to fishing since Ik got the light-house. Q. Do you undertake to say that he did not flsh before he took charge [oftiie light house ? — A. Before that time 1 do not know what he did. Q. Do you know whether be did or did not tish? — A. I cannot say. Q. He is the ofiicer who went round and got statistics of all the tish ■taught on the island ? — A. 1 think I recollect that he took some estimate lolthe H.sh. Q. He is fishery officer, and that is his business ? — A. He did that. Q. He went round to tiud out what your aunual catch was ? — A. I lliiiik so. Q. He went over tbe island ? — A. I think he did. Q. He is a man of good, strong common sense, a decent, practical |iiau*— A. I suppose so. Q. He is county couucilor for your county ? — A. I cannot recollect ; Iwasiiot at any town meeting. Q. You live on the island and you cannot tell who your county coun- Iflloris?— A. I have not inquired this season. I was not able to go to p ttieetiugs. Q. Don't you take sufficient interest in j^)ur public affairs, even though Ijoudid not attend the meetings, to know who was elected? — A. I do |iot think 1 have seen Mr. McLaughlin since. Q' Do you not kuow that the county of Charlotte has ceased to be Toverued by justices, and has become a nmnicipality, governed by coun- lilors?— A. i have heard it talked of. I heard Mr. Newton and Mr. .1 ..■ ' 1952 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. McLaughlin were the two men elected. I was not able to go to the! meetingt;. I never made incjuirios, and I have not seen Mi'. McLaiighliQ since. Q. Are yonr dealings chiefly with the Americans, and do you take morel interest in their atlairs! — A. My dealings with theui aie hiivaW- tb«i amount depends on what I catch. ' Q. You know more what is going on at Eastport than at St. Andrew's your own county town. Do you ever send any of your tish to St. AudieB'sl for sale f — A. Sometimes we sell some there. [ Q. Did you ever sell any of your own there ? — A. I probably sold a twi quintals some years ago ; I don't recollect. Q. You sell your tish altogether at home ? — A. >| Q. Have you any idea at all ? — A. I have not. ^WARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1953 Q. Can you give the population of Toronto or Ottawa f — A. No ; I jever was i» those parts. Q. Will you tell me why it was, in answer to Mr. Foster, that you I andertook, on your oath, to say the catch of tlsh ia so great on your shoKS that it* excluded from the American market there would be no I gurket for them in the Dominion, when you did not know the popula- Itionof the Dominion cities? — A. We have tried to sell our fish in the Dominion; we sent some up to Canada — to Quebec; some did not pay forthe freight. The fish were smoked herring. We have tried to sell them in tbe ])ominion, but found they failed to fetch as much in our harkets as in the American markets. If they could not be sold to pay lis. they wonld not pay people to buy them from us at high prices. Q. When was this notable year when you sent some smoked herring ItoQiiebec!— A. Some years ago. Q, Cannot you give the year f — A. I sent the fish by Mr. Wilson, of |CaniiK)bello. I suppose it was 15 or IG years ago. Q. Can you state whether, at that time, there was not a duty levied liiQnebec against New Brunswick fish, for that was before coufedera- on!-A. I don't know, and cannot say as to the duties. They were 0, 1 herring, and did not pay expenses. Q. When you said you sent them by Mr. Wilson, did you mean the lite John Wilson, esq.? — A. I meant Mr. Edward Wilson, who was Idroi^ned. Q. Was he an island man ! — A. He was a Campobello man. Q. That is the only venture you made in sending fish into Canada. jlou sent smoked herring, some so small you could not string them ? — , Tiie herring I sent there were not small. The herring put in boxes ^Dst be big enough to string and cure. Q, Were they not so small you could barely string them ? — A. The^ lerring were large enough to string and cure. What 1 before said was lat many herring came into tbe weirs which arc too small to go on t rods. I Q, That shipment was made 15 years ago, and you have never tried leexperiinent since confederation ? — A. Not myself personally. |v. And yet, notwithstanding that you made only one experiment in mding fish to Canada, and that 15 years ago, before confederation, you (stitied, in answer to Mr. Foster, that you could not find a market in eDominion if you were shut out of the American market? — A. When (sell herring at St. John we do not sell them to so good an advantage. IQ. When have you sent herring to St. John ? — A. I have not sent Vy personally. IQ. Who did ? — A. The people of Grand Manan take some up. IQ. Tell me a single man wiio has done it. — A. Mr. Morse, of White- M Island. Me took up one or two lots of herring during the past jinter. |Q. What liinil of herring? — A. Smoked No. 1 herring. ij You were asked by Mr. Foster how, if the American market was ', you would go on, and so forth. Do you know anything about tish can go into the United States free under the Washington Ut' Did you ever hear of the Treaty of Washington at all? — A. |i;l(lou't know I ever did. Did you ever hear of the Kectprocity Treaty ? — A. I have heard ft- Did you ever hear of the Treaty of Wa.shingtou ? — A. It is what 1 spoke of, I suppose. Before I spoke of it, did you ever hear of the Treaty of Washing- 123 F 1964 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISHION. l! it meant? — A. I Hiippose tbo treaty Wduld betbi that would bo the ohl KeciiHocity Tivatv ton or know what Keciproiilty Treaty. Q. Do you suppose apoke of? — A. Yes. Q. You heard many years ago of the Reciprocity Troaty ;'-— A. beard of it. Q. Do I understand you to say that is tlie treaty wliicjj yon .s is the Treaty of Washinuton ? — A. Not at present. Q. Do you say tlie Reciprocity Treaty and tin* Wiisliinjrtnii Wa.sliinytoii ,Vi)ll| I have iiilipusej Tivatj i'at.v are the same, or are tliey ditJerent? — A. Tlie what we are now under. Q. Do you believe or understand that the Reciprocity Tnafy was i different treaty from the Treaty of Washington, or the same treaty f— j The Reciprocity Treaty I suppose to be different from our free trade. Q. Do you understand that the Reciprocity Treaty was a separati treaty from the Washington Treaty f — A. Yes. Q. Did you ever hear of the VVashington Treaty until voii enterei this room ? — A. I cannot say I knew the real rules of the WasLiugto Treaty. Q. Did you ever hear of the Washington Treaty itself until you can. into this room — J don't ask you about the rules? — A. Yes; 1 have beaij the treaty spoken of— the Treaty of Washington. Q. Do you know what any of its provisions are ? — A. Ko. Q. Do you know as to whether your frozen fish from the island into the United States free by the Treaty of Washington or under son other treaty? — A. By the Washington Treaty, I suppose. Q. Do you ever do any cod-fishing around the island ?— A. I ba^ done Bome, which I have spoken of, on a small scale. Q. Do you catch the cod close inshore or far off"? — A. We catch the from in 15 to 35 fathoms of water. We catch them inshore at certa times from half a mile of the shore to 4 or 5 miles occasionally. Q. Do you catch them from half a mile to 4 or 5 miles of the sbore!| A. It depends on where we find the fish. Q. Where do you find most of them ? — A. That is uncertain; 8o^ days we find them on one ground and some days on another. Q. They are all taken, you say, from half a mile to five miles of I shore ? — A. I say those I fish. Q. What do you say about the others? — A. Of course, vessels a^ large boats go further out, and vessels even go to Grand Mauau Ban which is nearly out of sight of Grand Manau. Q. How far from the shore? — A. It is 25 miles to the soutLwstl Grand Manan. You can just see Grand Manan from it on a clear d^ There is about as good fishing there as as anywhere for our vessels! year. Q. IIow do you know that? — A. People tell me* so, and uiy owu i tions tell me so. Q. Do 1 understand that the boat-fishing is conducted from abalf| 4 or 5 miles off? — A. Yes ; the principal boat-fishing. Q. Can you state whether the greater part of the catch is obtaii within 2 miles of the shore or 5 miles out ? — A. It varies with differr seasons. In summer the greater part is caught out. In early spd the fish come inshore. In the fall and cold weather the lish folloirj weir herring and we catch them inshore again. Q. Then the best fishing, taking all the year round, is iusbore.'-j !No doubt. Q. That is for cod?— A. Yes. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COUMISSION. 1955 0. Are the berriug which are tf ton verv close inshore t — A. No taken in weirs and boats at the ishmd I taken very Close uiHiiore 3 — a. Not far out. There are phices with 10 or 11 teet of water between islands, and the tlsh are all inside of some island (). They are all inshore? — A. Inshore Hsh wo call them. {}, For what purpose do the Americans buy your frozen fish ? — A. To I pdldle tiieui ; retail them out and dispose of them for consumption by ibe|)eo|)le. I undcrstaiul they sell them in large quantities if they can, 111(1 it not in small quantities. I Q. Do you know if any Gloucester vessels comedown for herring- Lit witlnvliich to go cod-Hshing on the Hanks? — ^' ^'^^' ^ have known Itbeni coiuc there. Last May 1 saw two American vessels there, and one |of our small vessels go out to them. I was told that Judson Uichardsou liold one 20 barrels of bait, and the other 25 barrels. Q. Those vessels were going out to fish cod f — A. Yes. They went [direct away. I saw the vessels. Q. Do American vessels come down and flsh along the shore for her- iog, to your knowledge ? — A. They occasionally have nets ; they would likely do so. Q.' Do they do so as a fact ? — A. I do not go on board to know whether Ithey fish for herring or not. Q. Do you see them lying at anchor close to the island with nets? — |A, Xot with nets out. Q. Do you mean to say yon have never seen any American vessel for the last seven or eight, or three or four years, fishing for bait close by |tbe inland f— A. They set a net occasionally, but they generally buy ifir bait ; they would rather buy it. Q. Do they often come to buy bait ? — A. Yes. There have been half f dozen during the summer. Q. What is the average size of vessels which come in for bait? — A. |fe.essel would run over to St. John. i Q. Wher the fishermen could not get the prices they wanted at East^ port, they would go to St. John and do better?— A. They would prob ably not do better, but they would go and try. Q. They could not sell at Eastport ?— A. The people there bare a rulj that when they find plenty of fish coming in, they don't care to pay wlia| they would if the fish were scarce. Q. Then they do better, if instead of selling at Eastport, they go tl St. John ?— A. They come l)ack and say they have not done so well as^ they had sold at Eastport. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1959 Q, Sometimes they do better? — A. Sometimes. They trade i a salt jometimes for fish. Q. Do you know anythini; about pickled fish? — A. No. Q, Do you know anythini;: about the markets for fresh fish ? — A. I ilon't make inquiries in regard to that matter. By Mr. Foster : il How deep is 15 fathoms ? — A. There are 6 feet to a fathom. Q. Some inquiries were put to you about taking herring in the close season; who does the most of that ? — A. Probably I would get blamed (or saying anything about that, because I was not there to see. It is aot a tiling a man can speak about. I might get blamed if I was to say \H three -fourths of the herring netted in those three months were taken bv our own people. I would not say it was so. Q. If Americans come in vessels and large boats, then your people, I joiipose, sell them herring ? — A. Yes. Q, How long do you understand cured fish has been going into the States free of dutyf — A. Five or six years. Q. Dill the people pay any duty on it before that ? — A. They had been paying a iluty. Q. About how many years before had there been a duty? — A. I never gave my raind to think what year it was ; I never booked it, and for tiiat reason my memory fails me. Q. Was there any period when cured fish went in free of duty before tills last time ? — A. I think there was. Q. Dovou remember what was called the Reciproeitv Treaty ? — A. 1 Yes, ■^1 ^m^ ear. The last timel No. 4. Wedne^jday, Septemler 19, 1877. The Conference met. I David Ingersoll, of Gloucester, Mass., mariner and fisherman, Icalleil on behalf of the Government of the Uo'ted States, sworn and I examineil. By Mr. Foster: Question. You live in Gloucester, Itf ass.! — Answer. Yes. Q. What is your age ? — A. Fifty five. Q. You have been a fisherman all your life, I believe ? — A. Yes ; ever [ancel was nine years old. Q. At what age and in what year did you first go fishing in the Gulf |of St. Lawrence ? — A.. I was thirteen years old the first time ever I came. Q. That was in what year ? — A. I am now fifty five years old. Q. Well, you were in the gulf-fishing as a boy for the first years ? — |A. Yes, sir; I was three or four years in the bay right off at that time. I Q. What was the first year you came here as the skipper of a schooner? — |A. The lirst year was 1847. Q. You fished for mackerel altogether ? — A. Yes. Q. During the early years you were here, before you got to be skip- Ip^r, where were you in the habit of fishing for mackerel ? — A. Mostly at IBradleyanrt Orphan at those times, abroad off Gaspe and about there. I Q- Begin now with 1847, when you were first here as skipper, what has the name of the schooner and what the tonnage ? — A. The schooner 1% Eliza. She was, I think, 54 tons. ,-^* hJ ;^^:;^:r .r€.f^. .P^H- % 1960 AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. be, in 1847, old tonnage f— A. Yes, that was before where were ^Ve caught got, Q. That would the new tonnage. Q. How many mackerel did you catch that year aud they caught ? — A. That year we got 180 barrels, I think. them at the Magdalens. Q. All of them ? — A. Yes ; all of them at the Magdalens that .\ ear. Q. Come to 1848 ; what vessel were you in then ? — A. The .schooner Gape Ann. Q. How many mackerel did you take and where?— A. We think, 220 barrels. Q. In the year 1847 you took how many barrels, did vou sav'— \ 180. ^ Q. Was that your full catch ? — A. Well, we were fitted out for about 200. Q. Then in 1848 you were in the Cape Ann ? — A. Yes. Q. How many barrels did you take f — A. 220, 1 think. Q. Was that a full fare ? — A. Xo, we were fitted out for 300. Q. Where did you take them ? — A. We caught them at Magdaleus and Bradley and around in that direction ; mostly at the Magdalens. Q. Did you take any of the first two years' catches within three miles. except at the Magdalens? — A. No; not those ycirs. Q. Now in 1849 and 1850, were you in the Gulf of St. LawrcMjce ?— A. No. I was not there. Q. Where were you then ? — A. I was away to sea. Q. In 1851, were you in the gulf f — A. 1 was in the schooner Dolphin. Q. As skipper ? — A. Yes, sir. Q, Well, how many barrels of mackerel did you get ? — A. I think it was 180. Q. And was that a full fare ? — A. No, sir. We fitted for, I think it was, 280. Q. Where did you take those 180 ? — A. We caught them, as near as I can recollect, most of them off what we call Pigeon Hill. Q. How many miles from land? — A. Well, I should say we were) twelve or fifteen miles off, and sometimes more than that. Sometimes i we would just see the land, aud then again we would see quite plainly. Q. Was any portion of that year's catch taken within three miles?! Was any portion taken within three miles of shore in 1851 ? — A. I doat think there was. I don't recollect. I didn't get over five barrels within I the three-mile limit, I don't think. Five miles we might, because we| used sometimes to stand inshore aud heave to aud see if there was any- thing. Another thing, that year the Canadian cutters where we lishedj were running backward and forward across the Bay Chaleurs. and wherej we fished she took no notice of us where we were fishing, aud tliereforej we must have been over three miles off. Q. Point out where Pigeon Hill is ? — A. (Witness points on the niapj to Pigeon Hill, near Shippegan, about the mouth of Bay Chaleuis. There is high land there, an. Q. In 1874, what were you in ? — A. In the Phieiiix, the same vpssil. Q. Where did you lish and how much did yon catch l—X. Well, wei fished — I could not tell you — we fished about all over the bay. Q. How many did you get in your first trip 1 — A. We got liJO bar.els,j I think it was. Q. This was your second year in the Carlton ? — A. Yes. Q. You say you got 150 barrels the first trip ? — A. I think it was froml 150 to 170 barrels, somewhere along there. We got them, and went toj Canso and landed 100 barrels, and bought 100 empty barrels in Causo,j and refitted and went into the bay again, where we got another 10(r barrels, and then we went-into Canso and took them all aboard and weul? home. Q. Now, of the first 160, where were those caught ? — A. The first ]5(| we caught at the Magdalens, most of them. We caught some few oi East Point. We got one little spurt of mackerel off what we call GeorgeJ town Bank, 15 or 20 barrels. Q. Show where Georgetown Bank is. Is that the same one called Fisherman's Bank ? — A. I think so. (Points to the map, southeast of Georgetown, P. E. Island.) Q. Those you caught at Georgetown Bank — how far from shore is tha^ bank? — A. Well, we reckon it twelve or fifteen miles off. Q. From where? — A. Why, from any land. Q. What is the nearest land ? — A. Georgetown. Q. Now, of your second trip in 1874, which was 100 barrels, wba proportion were taken at the Magdalens and what proportion weretake^ in the Ticinity of Georgetown Bank? — A. Well, of the second trip 100 barrels we caught some off Georgetown Bank, some off East Poiiil some at Margaree, and some we caught at Magdalens. We only gof 100 barrels, anyway ; we could not get many in any one place. Q. Can you estimate what proportion, if any, of this last trip weii taken within three miles ? — A. I should say, to be candid about it, i near as I could judge, about one-eighth part inshore— that is, witlii| three miles of land. Q. Then we come to 1875, the next year, where were yon then ?-i In 1875, 1 was in the B. D..IIaskin8. Q. What vessel were you in in 1875 ?— A. I was in the same vess«j the Carlton. Q. Where were you then, and how many barrels did you get?-J We fished all over the bay, and got 120 barrels, I believe. Q. When you say all over the bay, what do you mean ^— A. N AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1963 Point, the ]\ragdalens, Marjjaree, up on the West shore, and we flsbed jnvffliere we could get mackerel. Q, How long were you taking 120 barrels ? — A. We came tVoni home theStliday of July, and got home, I think it was— I would not say — after the 2()th of October. Q. That, I suppose, must have been a losing voyage? — A. Well, we Jidu't make much on that. y. What did you i..ake yourself as captain — about what? — A. Well, r, I made, 1 think it was, $110, my i)ercentage and all. Q. Did the vessel make anything? — A. No; the vessel could not make anything. Q. In 1870, last year, what were you in ? — A. I was in the B, D. laskins. Q, How many barrels did you get ? — A. 120 barrels. Q, Where did you get them ? — A. Wu got them at the Magdalens, 1 all but 20 barrels. Q. Where were those caught ? — A. The 20 barrels we got abroad off I East Point. There is a shoal off East Point, between there and Port 1 Hood. There is a shoal about south or south-southeast from East Point. When it is rough it breaks there. We caught most of them about there, I jbont 20 barrels. Q. How far from land is that ? — A. We reckon it seven miles off, six I or seven miles; but I don't know whether it is laid down so on the 1 tbart or not. Q. Now, you have fished, by your account, a good many successive Iseasons at Magdalen Islands; can you tell the Commission whether it [Ba dangerous or a safe place to fish, and give your reasons ? — A. Well, , as far as I know, I always fished there because 1 thought it was a lafer place toflsh. We had a better chance to make lee, we could do it ho quick. It was just like running around this table. If we were liDchored one place we could hoist our jib and go arotmd to another ; wffc could go round and round as we required. We always thought |itwasasafer place to fish. Another thing, we always caught a great 1 better mackerel. They were always larger and better than they here over at the island. When I have been catching mackerel at the island, it was none but a i)arcel of poor trash any way. (i. You have always brought all your bait from home ? — A. Always [toaght it from home or else sent home ; telegraphed and had it come ioifii. Q, What has it been f — A. Pogies and clams. Q. How many times have yo .i telegraphed to have it brought down ? — lAYear before last, 1873, we telegraphed for 20 barrels of bait and they IMtitdown. Q. Eighteen hundred and seventy-three is not year before last ? — A. |lsayiu 1873 we had it sent down. Q. Have you ever had it sent down any other year? — A. Xo. Q. Have you ever bought any ? — A. No. Q. Then it has all been brought with you except that year when j'ou |lail20 barrels sent?— A. Yes. Q. Havej'ouflshed in company with other American vessels usually? — |A Yes; I always fished where most of the vessels fished. Sometimes perewould be, where we were fishing, 150 sail. Then again not more jtliaiioo. Then again 250. We used to count them sometimes; when |»'t| w^Am i'^i ■;'-'-^'r^(...r*3kv « m ■ r- , .^' lEs' ..1* n ^^ 4!fi:^i'.' -H ^r^& *,':. :Ht*«t.='« li! |1; w^riijiftt.v .;■«■. :?3 1970 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Do you tliiuk it is likely you would, or not? — A. I think it is lijifid I sliould. 1 Q. Well, then, wlmt ma«le you say you could rocollect from one ininj ute to another, but not thirty years ago ? — A. Because I could rocolleol irom one minute to another better than thirty years iXffo. Q. I asked you how you recollected the number of burn'Is, aiul voij said you could recollect from one minute to another, but couiil not n'ooU lect thirty years. What was the point of that ? — A. You just aslieil luj and I said I could recollect it. Q. J)o you say you can or that you cannot recollect what huppeue thirty years a^o? — A. I can recollect some things. (j. But as a rule you cannot ? — A. Other things I could not lecollcc i^. What things? — A. I can't tell you what things. Q. Could you recollect the number of barrels you took thirty yeaij ago! — Well, no, I could not. That is too long ago to recollect the imn ber of barrels. Q. Could you recollect the number you took twenty years ago !-J Well, yes, I think I could. Q. You might recollect the number twenty years ago, but the niiml: thirty years ago is out of the question. You could not recollect tlit Is that so ? — A. I could not recollect. I can't recollect everything tweui or thirty years ago. [ Q. Would you be able to recollect rightly the number of barrels yJ took in a vessel twenty years ago? — A. Y'es; I should be likely to,] course. Q. Could you twenty-five years ago? — A. I dou't know. Q. Thirty years ago, you say you could not ? — A. I did not s.iy th^ I said I might, or I might not. Q. Did you not tell me you could not ? — A. I did not tell you so. Q. Did not I ask you, among other things, whether you could reo lect the number of barrels you took thirty years ago, and did not say no, you could not ? — A. I say there are some things I could re lect and some things I could not. Q. You say now there are some things you could not recollect. not you tell me you could not recollect the number of barrels you thirty years ago ! If you are wrong, say so. — A. I say I cannot re lect. Q. Now, you say you can't recollect what took place thirty years i and you have some doubts whether you can recollect what took plj twenty years ago. Among other things, yoa have stated that you I 180 barrels in 1847, which happens to be thirty year.s ago, just period as to which you swear now that you cannot recollect. Youi that is very curious. — A. Well, I told you there might be some tbin^ could recollect and some I could not. Q. You have outrun your memory ten years. In point of fact, j must have been 1857 you refer to, as your memory does not luu beyond twenty years. You still stick to the statement that iu 1| thirty years ago the very time as to which you say you canuotra lect, you got 180 barrels ?— A. Yes. Well, there are a good ffll things, as I told you, that happened thirty years ago that I couldj recollect. Q. I asked you distinctly to tell me whether you could remerabe^ number of barrels you took thirty years ago, and to correct yourr you were wrong, and you persisted in saying that you could not ( lect how many barrels you took thirty years ago, although you " AWARD OF THE FIUHERY COMMISSION. 1971 Lew as to ^^■''*' ^^^^ \^\(ice twenty years ago. You still stick to the Lwinent that you got tliese 180 barrelH ? — A. Of course. il When ilitl you recollect it f Where did you get the figures from 1 Llyoii b«ar it in your memory nil the tiuie, or has your memory been Ljrfshed!— A. 1 know what vesHol I was in, and what mackerel I I taogbt. Q. You just remember it all along ? Had you any idea that 1847 was liirtv years ago! — A. I don't mind of noticing anything about it. Q, You say you got them at Alagdalcu Islands, and your full faro lioalJbave been 21i(), if I understood yoii right. Is that so ? — A. Yes ; limifwlieres about that. g, What was the tonnage of the Mary Eliza ? — A. Fifty-odd tons. I), Would not a fifty-ton vessel take a good deal more than 220 bar- liliil Would she not take nearer 4U0; would not she take 300, at any Bid-A. No, because there was not room enough. n Two hundred and twenty, then, would be pretty nearly a full ite!-A. No ; about 21,'0 to 250. 1 (), Now, you got these 180 barrels at Magdalen Islands ?— A. Yes. l|, Aud you tished nowhere else ?— A. No. I), Tbat is a curious thing. It is an expensive thing to run a vessel Gloucester, is it not i You went straight to the Magdalen Isl- Js!-A. Yes. h Through the Gut of Canseau, of course ? — A. Yes. Q. You did not attempt to fish anywhere else, and came home with U little better than half a cargo ? — A. Y'es. [(j. You did not attempt to lisU anywhere else? — A. There was no Uerel anywhere else. h You did not try anywhere else ?— A. 1 did not say we did not try Vfbere else ; we might liave tried in running across to Magdalen nils. |l), I am not asking you whether you might have tried, but whether iilidtry. -A. We did try in running across to Magdalen Islands. Did you not say you ran straight to Magdalen Islands, and that (lid not try because it would be no use ? — A. I say now we ran linlit to Magdalen Islands. id you not say you did not try because it would be no use ? — A. Itdid not tisL anywhere else. |l). You are positive you did not tish anywhere else ? — A. We did not Uiiywhere else than at Magdalen Islands. We might have hove to )n if there was any mackerel, and if we did not raise any we kept ; alv/ng. We ran straight to Magdalen Islands, but we hove to ningand night. |l). Did you try anywhere else? — A. We tried on running across; we Mvlieu we hove to at night. |(). Why did you say you did not try? — A. We did not catch mack- iaiiywhere else except at Magdalen Islands. |Ufyou say that throwing a line overboard when going across the Jiitrying, what did you mean by saying you did not try because it Ibeno use? — A. We were scudding; we hove to night and morn- Mnd we tried for tish. Us it true or not that you did try elsewhere than at the Magdalen ulst-A. We caught our mackerel at the Magdalen Islands. l My question is this : Did you try to catch tish anywhere else than |fe Magdalen Islands, on that occasion ? — A. We tried only when liig across; we might have hove to once. i You ran straight from Gloucester, through Canso, across to Mag- :^;'.« «* '**"*"»»!- !'i.i ym:Yl fcfti^V'is^^ '■nil' i'V'>W11h'^^6\1i--,^ 1972 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. dalen Islands, never trying to fish anywhere except at the Matrdalenl Islands, unless when you hove to once or twice crossing the bay ?— aJ That is what I have stated. 1 Q. Why did you not try down on the coast of Prince Edward Island] instead of running home with a partial cargo ?— A. Because there were no mackerel there. Q. You did not go to try? — A. We saw vessels which did try. Wa did not want to go there because vessels coming from there to the Magi dalen Islands said there were no mackerel. ^ ' ^ Q. Can you give the names of the vessels?— A. No; I cannot tell yon the names. Q. Tell me ' ae name of any one of the vessels which gave you thai information.— A. I cannot tell you. I Q. Where did the vessels come and give you that information ?— a| They came to the Magdalen Islands. Q. They told you there were no flsh oflf Prince Edward Island ?— AJ Certainly. When we saw a vessel which came from Prince Edwar Island we asked if there were any mackerel there, and they told u^ whether there were or not. ] Q. Did all the vessels which you spoke with come from Prince Ed| ward Island? — A. I don't mean ail. Q. Did all which gave you that information ? — A. I cannot tell wher they had been Ashing, because I did not see them fishing. Q. Did they tell you where they had been fishing ?— A. I asked thea if there were any mackerel at Prince Edward Island, and they said uc Q. Did you not inquire if they had been fishing there? — A. Of cours not, because I supposed they had been fishing there if they came froii there. Q. How did you know they had come from there ? — A. Because the^ said they came from there. Q. My question is: Did all the vessels which came there and gav yon that information say they had come from Prince Edward Islaud?- A. They did not all come from Prince Edward Island. Q. From where else did they come ? — A. Some from Margaree, son from North Cape, the West Shore, and all round the bay. They don all come to one place or stay in one place. Q. And there were no mackerel at any of these places ? — A. Theil might have been at times. Q. Did they say so? — A. When they came to the Magdalen Island they did not find any elsewhere, or they would not have come. Q. Did you ask if there were any mackerel at Prince Edward Island !- A. I asked "Have you got aay mackerel over there at the island T and they answered "No." If I saw a vessel come from the nor'ar I asked if there was any mackerel there, and they said no. If uiacl erel had been therf I would have gone. Q. Why did you not go to Gaspe and Bay Chaleurs and try, instead i going back without a full fare? — A. Did I say I did not go there an try? I said we caught our mackerel at Magdalen Islands. Q. You stated you tried at no places, except, when going across tlj bay, you hove to, but you can alter the statement if you wish.— A. am not going to alter the statement. Q. What did you mean by putting to me the question, "Did I saj did not go into Bay Chaleurs?" Did you mean the Commissioa understand that you had gone into Bay Chaleurs ?— A. I was not Bay Chaleurs that year. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1973 Q, Then why did you say, "Did I say I did not go into Bay Cha- Ijore!"— A.. I did not pot it to yon. Q. Tasked you why you did not try Bay Cbaleurs, and you put the iiaestion, "Did I say I did not go into Bay Chaleurs?" — A. I did not uiderstand you said Bay Cbaleurs. Q, I said Bay Cbaleurs. — A. I never was in Bay Chaleurs except Q, Why did you put the question to me ? — A. I never was in Bay (baieurs bat once. Q. Will you not answer that question ? — A. I do not know what yon lean. I cannot answer if I do not know what you mean. Q, You did not go into Bay Chaleurs that year? — A. No. Q. Why did you not ? — A. Because I found mackerel enough without niog there. Q, Yon are sure about that ? — A. Of course, I am sure about that. Q, You think you won't deviate from that statement ? I have asked m why you did not go into Bay Chaleurs when you only got 180 kmls at Magdalen Islands, which is not a full fare, and you have preutome the extraordinary answer that it was because you bad mack- (ffl enough where you were. — A. We got enough. Q, How do yon reconcile that with the fact that you did not get a fill fare f— A. I don't know what you mean. Q. I asked you why, instead of going ho'nd with 180 barrels, which, yoasay, was not a full fare, you did not go to Bay Chaleurs, and you pve as a reason that you got plenty of mackerel where you were? — A. Did I not tell yon we spoke vessels which came from there, and they aid there was no mackerel. Q. So far from that, you gave as a reason for not trying there, that jwihad plenty of mackerel where you were? — A. If I did not, I am listaken. I told you we spoke vessels coming from Prince Edward tod and uor'ard. Q, Then some of the vessels came from Bay Chaleurs ? — A. I told you tkfycame from all over the bay. Q, Did they come from Bay Chaleurs ? — A. I don't say from Bay Cialeurs, but from the nor'ard. Vessels seldom go to Bay Chaleurs. Q. As you were going to Magdalen Islands you would pass Prince [Edward TnUmd, after going through the Gut of Canso ? — A. We ran |il)ont half-way from Prince Kdward Island and Cape Breton. Q. After you went through Canso, you ran right by Prince Edward Island f— A. Yes ; by the island, but a good way oflf. Q. As you were going by, why did you not try Prince Edward Island Wore you went toMagdaien Islands? — A. Because there are better fish [itMagdaieu Islands. I would not take the mackerel at Prince Edward Island, because they are poor, nasty trash you get. I never saw any N mackerel caught there in my life. t). Then, really, the reason why you did not try at Prince Edward Ifendwas that you were well acquainted with the fish caught there, lad tliey were poor trash ? — A. I am well acquainted with the flsh iMgiit there. I have seen them and caught them. % You are sure you would not catch Prince Edward Island mackerel |it»ll!_A. I would not if I could get any anywhere else. Q' They are poor, miserable trash! — A. They are generally poor trash [iwget there — small, poor mackerel. Q' How often have you fished in Prince Edward Island waters within ^ miles of the shore ? — A. I have not fished there much. % Then you were talking about something you know nothing about. I : • 1 :'i ':m ^\ „^«*Ji ^*:. ":n'-t\,;i./ 1974 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Why do you slander the poor fish if yoa have not gone and made tbeii acquaintance? — A. I guess the fish don't know what I am saying. Q. Unless you were down and saw them why should you slander thJ fish ? — A. As a general thing the mackerel caught oft" Prince Edward Island are hardly worth carrying home. Another thing is, that tW boat fishermen which catch the mackerel there did not know whal mackerel was before we went there. Q. Was it because they did not know what mackerel was that a pooJ class of fish came in there? — A. They did not know what mackerel wa when I first went into the bay, or whether they should take them bi the head or tail. Q. They were such a poor class of fish ?— A. They did not knoi mackerel from cod when I first fished there. Q. Did you stay sufllciently long to instruct theui in the diflfereni methods of taking fish ? — A. I did not; but our people have iustrncte them how to catch the fish and dress them. Q. Consequently a better class of fish are now on the shores .'— i There has been a poor class of fish there. Q. What has the intelligence of the islanders to do with the chara ter of the fish ? — A. They did not know anything about fishing betoij we went there. That has nothing to do, of course, with the cbaract^ of the fish. Q. Has the character of the fish improved as the people bave in proved in knowledge ? — A. They don't know whether they are catcbinj poor or fat fish. Q. Are no good macicerel taken at the island at all ?— A. I dou't sa there never were any gjod mackerel taken there, but that as a gener thing the mackerel are poor, miserable trash. That is the idea about i Q. Are the mackerel taken at Prince Edward Island as late as Sei tember and October poor trash also ? — A. They are not so bad as iu t( summer time. Q. Are they poor or good mackerel ? — A. Not generally so poor, cause they come from the north and strike there, and those whicb con from the north are better mackerel. Q. Spring mackerel are poorer than foil mackerel ?— A. I am talkid about summer mackerel. One mackerel caught at Magdalen Islaii^ is worth three of those caught at Prince Edward Island. Q. You say that mackerel caught in September and October off tS coast of Prince Edward Island are poor trash ?— A. I say not alwafl not every year. Some years they are poor trash and some years tli| are not so. Q. Is that not the case on all coasts ? — A. No. Q. Are Magdalen Island mackerel never poor trash ?— A. Macke have been poor in the bay for the last five or six years— all over the Q. They are poor mackerel ?— A. Poor to what they were a uiium ot years ago. Q. Do you mean poor in quality or few in number !— A. l oor quality. . „ i s Q. I understand you that spring mackerel coming mto Magaai Islands are equal to October mackerel at Prince Edward Islaud .- No, I don't say any such thing. i r i f Q. I asked you if spring mackerel were always poor, and I nmiersD you to say that the mackerel at Magdalen Islands were not.— A. spr mackerel are poor everywhere. Q. Are not the fall mackerel at Prince Edward Island just as go the fall mackerel at Magdalen Islands f— A. They are not. Ilfs; we ran from AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1975 Q. Do yon know that of your own knowledge ?— A. Yes. q. From having fished I — A. Yes. They are better and bigger mack- (ffl at Magdalen Islands. Q. Where did you fish in Prince Edward Island waters t— A. I fished ^romul the island. (. Close inshore ? — A. No. ,). You don't know anything about the inshore fishery ? — A. I never af inv mackerel inshore. Q. Uiive you gone in and tried T — A. Yes. y. Wben'did you try ? — A. I tried the last year I was in the bay; I jidd close inshore and everywhere. Q. That was in 1876 f— A. Yes. Q. Daring any other year did you fish inshore at Prince Edward I i^jod ;_A. I would have taken them anywhere, because we could not Ijrtthem. Q. In 1876 you did go inshore and try? — A. Yes; we were inshore I ud tried. Q. At what part of the island f — A. We tried on the south side and lorth side of the island. Q. Tell me the places. — A. One place we tried was off Souris Head. Q. That is near the north of the island ? — A. It is at the south part I tt the island. Q. How far from the shore ? — A. Perhaps a couple of miles out. Q. Aud you could not get any f — A. We never caught any. Q. Did you try round the bight of the island ? — A. We did not. Q. Did you ever try there ? — A. Yes. V. v,"u..l year ? — A. I cannot tell you what year; I tried a number I if times. I never got any to speak of. Q. Did you see boats fishing there? — A. Yes. (J. Were they catching fish when you could not get any ? — A. Some- sues they would be catching a few, and sometimes not. Q. Off Souris Head last year, did you see many boats fishing ? — A. lies; we ran from East Point to Malpeque, and we saw boats all the jiaynpand down the shore, from three to ten miles out. Q. Were they catching any fish ? — A. Some were catching a few and |»inewere not catching any. Q. As a rule, the fishing was a failure ? — A. As a rule, they were not htehing many. We hove to, but caught none, and we went on to Mal- \m. Q. Was that the time you were told there had been plenty there the |liyl)efore? — A. They told me that one year. That was on the south 8Je of the island. % But when you went there you could not get any ? — A. We could I w get any. Q. You did not hear that last year there were great numbers of mack- iBflroand Prince Edward Island coast? — A. We did not hear it, nor |«thera anywhere. Q. Did yon get any out in the gulf beyond three miles from shore last '«r!— A. What we got were got at Magdalen Islands, all but 20 bar- Q. Where did you get those 20 barrels ?— A. Off East Point. % Close inshore ? — A. No ; they were taken on a shallow place, which jfcall 6 or 8 miles out. ^Q. Within three miles of the shore did you get any last year ? — A. ; to speak ot ; one or two barrels altogether. •in ..3^'* « f 1976 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. (lid you get inshore last Q. About how much of the whole catch year?— A. I should say one-eighth part. Q. Don't you think that is too high an average ".—A. I tbiuk it fully high enough. Q. Did you catch your fish inshore at Magdalen Islands ?— A. Some inshore and some out. Q. How many inshore? — A. Perhaps one third we caiigbt insborej within three miles. Q. Of the 20 barrels what proportion did you catch inshore ?— A. 0| the 20 barrels we caught the whole of them at a shallow place, which w« call 6 or 8 miles out. Whether it is so I don't know. Q. You did not catch one barrel of those 20 barrels within three mile of the shore ?— A. l^o. Q. You caught one-third of the 120 barrels inshore at the Magdalen Islands?— A. About one-eighth. 1 Q. You said one-third? — A. I might have said one third— 1 mean! one-eighth. Q. Were you correct in saying you caught one-third inshore ?— A. I said one-third let it go so. It does not make any diflereuce whethe we got one-third, one-half, or the whole inshore there. Q. How many of the 120 barrels did you catch inshore at the Majjda len Islands ? — A. If I told you one-third it is all right. Q. Although you said just now it was a mistake, and it was oneeight| and not one-third. Don't you think you caught more than one-third ii| shore? — A. I don't think anything about it. Q. Why ? — A. Because I don't care whether I caught tbeni inshore ( out. At the Magdalen Islands it does not make any ditt'erence wbethe I got one-third inshore or one third offshore. Q. But it may make a good deal of difference in regard to telling tli truth ? — A. I am telling the truth as near as I can. Q. Which is the truth, one-eighth or one-third ? — A. You may call i one-third. Q. Do you say one-eighth or one-third ? — A. I tell you one third. Q. Is that correct? — A. It is correct. Q. Why did you say one-third was a mistake? — A. I thought I sa^ one-eighth at the time ; but you said that I said one-third. Q. Because you said one-third you are going to stick to it ?— A. Y( Q. Hpeaking of one-eighth, will you tell me, suppose you got 100 ba rels of fish, how many barrels one-eighth would be ?— A. It would ' one-eighth of 100 barrels. Q. How many would that be ? — A. Eight barrels out of 100, of cour^ Q. When you went down to Prince Edward Island, once in a wliij you gave them some bait out of pure philanthropy. At all events yq gave away bait?— A. Yes; I gave away all I had to them; I never so| any. Q. You kept clear of the inshore because the cutters were there times ? — A. While I was a skipper I never saw any cutters except ( year. Q. What year was that?— A. The year I was on the Phcenix, 18C5| 1866. Tbey were Canadian cutters. That was the only time 1 saw th oil ' '>w ho V the licenses were taken out?— A. I do not. Q. T>> ;\,.. .. jow how much was paid per ton? — A. No. It issorai thing I had nothing to do with. Q. ¥ I "ever took out a license at all? — A. No. I never took out I license. Q. During 1860 auc, iSb ", when in the bay, as you had no license, yd would take care that you did not go within the three-mile limit?— i We could fish as well as ever we could if there were any fisb to catcbj Q. You were not afraid ? — A. We were not afraid of the cutters. Q. Why did you not take out a license ? — A. Because I did not wa to take one out. I went to fish at Magdalen Islands. Q. You did not intend to fish around Prince Edward Island ?— A.J did not see any cutters. 1 could not say positively whether there wt cutters in the bay that year or not. I don't recollect seeing any. Q. You swear positively that no license was taken out by you ?— ^ No license was taken out by me. Q. You swear positively that in 1867 you were not in the bay at and you were on the Georges f — A. Yes. Q. About that you cannot be mistaken. You recollect being in gulf in 1865 and taking 120 barrels. You swear positively that the ne two years you were on the Georges ? — A. Yes ; I was on the Georgea Q. You swear positively you were not in the gulf at all those yearsl A. Yes. Q. Can you be mistaken about that ? — A. I don't think I can. Q. How do you account for swearing, in answer to Mr. Foster, tl you were in the gulf in 1867, and that you took, I think, 120 barrelsf A. I don't think I did say that. Q. Now, that I tell you you did, are you going to stick to it?— ^ think I was on the Georges those two years. Q. Have you any doubt about it ?— A. I have no doubt but that I Q. If there is any mistake about that, your memory is all goiie?- My memory is not all gone yet; I guess I can stand it a little n longer. Q. I understand you that in 1865 you are sure you were in the I AAVARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1979 jiidjjotl20 or 170 barrels, and the next two years, when commnuding llifjlartba A. Porter, you were on the Georpjes? — A. Yes. q! Were you more than two years on the Georges Banks in the Mar- lliaA. Porter ?— A. When in the Martha A. Porter, in 1865, I was on tie Georges, because I did not go to the bay until July. I was on lie Georges in 1860 and 1807. Q You were not in the bay at all in 1806 ? — A. No. Q. Nor in 1867?— No. Q. You are sure about that ? — A. Yes. Q, Theu there were three years, one after the other, you were on the I Georges in the Martha A. Porter, that is the early part of 1805 and 1866 I and 1867 1— A. Yes. Q. It is then an entire blunder if you told Mr. Foster you were in the lliayiD 1867 in the Martha A. Porter f — A. It is a mistake if I told him JO. Q, In 18G9 you were on the Georges. In 1870 you were on the Phce- liiiiu the gulf, and got 120 barrels. Is that right ? — A. Yes. Q. How (lid it happen that you said, when Mr. Foster was examining |joa,tliat in 1865 you caught 180 barrels, and then you put it at 170, |iii(iuoff in answer to me you swear positively you caught 120 barrels ? — jilgot mixed. I knew there were 120 barrels somewhere. Q. Nobody mixed you about 1865 ; it was your own deliberate state- IwDt.— A. Well, I know; I was thinking of the Phoenix when you were jiskiDg me about the Martha A. Porter. Q. In 1865 how many barrels did you catch ? — A. 170 barrels. 0, Of that you are quite sure ? — A. That I am sure of. Q, Why was it you told me the quantity was 120 barrels ? — A. I tell ItoqI gotmixed up about the Phoenix and the Martha A. Porter because |tbe year afterward I was in the Phoenix. I was in the Martha A. Porter ) years and in the Phoenix three years. I took the Phoenix trip for |«eof the Martha A. Porter trips. Q. There is a difference of ideas ? — A. I know that. % Have you any explanation to otter as to your swearing at one time Itein 1867 you were in the gulf and now swearing you were not f — A. Ibid I was not. Q. You have no explanation to offer for swearing you were ? — A. I iliiiik I was two years at the Georges. Q, You have no explanation to offer ! — A. No. (j. In 1870, when you took 120 barrels or 170 barrels off Magdalen |Us,did you fish anywhere else *, and if so, where ? That was in the iPtenix.— A. Yes; we tished up West Cape, I mean on the west shore, [iltBonaventure and Gasp^. Q. What did you get there ? — A. We got mackerel there — part of iw. Q. How many did you get ? — A. At the time we fished there, I think |i barrels. % Was that in 1870 ?— A. I think it was. i Q. Yon got those up at Gasp6 and Bonaventure ? — A. Gasp6, Bona- pnre, Pigoon Hill, and along on that coast. I don't say we caught Ifciiiallott'Gasp^. " Pigeon Hill is on the New Brunswick shore, on the southern shore JayChaleurs? — A. It is on the southern shore of Bay Chaleurs on |«we8tern side. It is a few miles this side of Point Miscou. \% That would be on the shore of New Brunswick, not in the bay ? — jUns not in Bay Chaleurs except once in my life. ^:']S m Sfe-Hi!»v ^ IWm^BB^M it % ' .J 1 if , '^'iiii! ■H^f^^ if-' ■«-^^ 1980 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Off Gaspd, how near the shore did you get them J— A. From 1" to 15 miles off. Q. Not inshore at all ! — A. We did not catch any mackerel insbor^ that year. The Canadian cutters were round there and were cniisiiit up and down at the time, and if there had been any mackerel there wa could not have gone inshore. Q. That is the reason why you did not try inshore ?— A. Of coursej it was one reason, because the cutters were cruising up and dowu aud we could not try. Q. In fact, you did not attempt to go inshore to rtsh tbat year?- A. We did not catch any inshore. Q. Did you try I—A. I don't think we did. We might have hove td inshore and tried. I cannot be positive that we did not beave to inshor^ and try for mackerel, but we never caught any inshore. Tlie mackere were off shore that year. Q. Do you mean that was unusual? — A. I don't mean it is unusual] The mackerel were off shore and went out of the bay early. None wer caught there after Ist October. Q. Do mackerel ever go inshore there ?— A. I suppose they do, and go up Bay Chaleurs sometimes. Q. Do they ever go within three miles of land if — A. Yes. Q. Is there good fishing as a rule within three miles of shore. ?— A. don't know. I think it is likely that there is sometimes good fisbioj within three miles of the shore. Q. Are you sure what vessel you commanded in 1870 ?— A. It was tli^ Carleton. Q. You are sure of that ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you not state that you commanded the Phoenix in 1870?— i I mean the Phoenix. Q. Now, will you swear positively that in 1870 you commanded th Phoenix ? — A. Yes, sir, I will. Q. Will you swear positively that you got 180 barrels of mackerel i Bonaventure, as you call it? — A. Yes. Q. Did you say that you sailed from the Strait of Canso to Bouave^ ture ? — A. We ran up the island and tried there. Q. And you did not go to the Magdalen Islands ?— A. 0, yes ; did. Q. Did you go to the Magdalen Islands, and fail, and then go on i Bonaventure ? — A. We tried off the island and North Cape, and tbfl ran across to the Magdalen Islands. We did not find mackerel thai and we then rau across to Bonaventure from the Magdalen Islands. Q. And did you get the fish there ?— A. The most of them we did.] Q. Did you not, in answer to Mr. Foster, state that on tbat trip y< got either 120 barrels or 170 barrels off the Magdalen Islands ? Ai now you swear positively that you caught about 180 barrels, and th you did not get any at the Magdalen Islands, but that you got tbij somewhere oft" Bonaventure. — A. No ; I do not think that I did. (Statement of witness on this point during examiuatiouincbief \t here read.) Q. How do you reconcile those two statements ?— A. I told bim tli we caught some at the Magdalen Islands and some at Bonaventure. Q. So that the statement which you made to Mr. Foster, accordingj your present statement, is utterly untrue ; and, instead of catcbing or 170 barrels at the Magdalen Islands, as you told Mr. Foster,; caught absolutely none at the Magdalen Islands, but all at Bonaveutu By Mr. Fosti AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1981 loo are all astray about this evidence, are you not f Did you ever hear ((tlieKeciprocity Treaty ? — A. What is that ! Q. Did you ever hear of that treaty ?— A. I do not know as I under- pd what you mean. (|. Did you ever hear of the Washington Treaty ? You have no idea I a to when the Reciprocity Treaty began or ended, or of anything of •Jut sort f— A. No ; 1 have not. By Mr. Foster : Q, Daring how many years were you in the Gulf of St. Lawrence Iq ommaiid ot the Martha A. Porter ? — A. Three. Q, Do you mean in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ? — A. No. It was one ifurtbat 1 was in the gulf in her. r Q. You were only one year in command of the Martha A. Porter pre- liioustothe years when you went cod-ftshing J — A. Yes. No. 5. Capt. Nathaniel E. Atwood, manufacturer of cod-liver oil, and llraierlj a fisherman, of Provincetown, Mass., was called on behalf of liheGovernment of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster : Qnestioii. You told me, 1 think, that you were 70 years old last Satur- |jtTl-Au8wer. This was the case last Thursday. Q, Have you been for a large part of your life a fisherman? — A. Yes. \. And also a naturalist ; you have studied the habits of fishes ? — A. Ibave to some extent; I hoped to do something for the advantage of IneDce in that direction. 1 Q, You have been a member of the house of representatives of Massa- nsettsf-A. Yes; in 1857 and 1858. % And also a member of the senate of the same State ! — A. Yes ; in IP, 1870, and 1871. "q, Itbink that you gave a course of lectures, 12 in number, before eLowell Institute in Boston, some years ago, on the habits of fishes? — . Yes. I Q, When did you first come to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to fish ? — A. pmetotbis gulf in 1824, in the schooner Independence, for the pur- (ofcatcbing codfish. [(|. And for what purpose did you then catch mackerel ? — A. Wholly ibait. During what years were you cod-fishing in the Gulf of St. Law- et-A. I went there again in 1825 in the schooner Independence, diDl828 1 was there in the schooner Missouri. [| When did the mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence begin, ras you know? — A. I have no knowledge of any vessel having wtothe gulf for mackerel, although I have been told that probably aeilidcome previously, until 1834, when I was fishing for mackerel poorown coast. Three vessels then went from our place, and three also lanother place in the States, I am informed, to the gulf for mack- They met with good success, got full cargoes, and returned in a [short time. [^ When did you first fish for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence .' — >Ihe next year, 1835. And during how many years have you been fishing for mackerel ftlieGulf of St. Lawrence ?~A. I made six trips during as many sea- ■3 :.*« 1982 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ! I I . I Q. What years were these ? — A. I was there in 1835 auil 1836 aaJ again in 1838, 1841, 1842, and 1851. ' Q. When did you go there first as captain ? — A. I was captain— tha is, my name was so mentioned in the papers — first in ISli'. My brotbe acted as captain other years. We were together, and together we owne the vessel. Q. You and your brother were the owners ? — A. Yes ; sometimes au(l sometimes I was master. Q. During the years when you fished for mackerel in the gulf, wbeij did you flsh for them ?— A. In 1842 I was first master, and in 1835 1 first came to the gulf for maciterel. When we arrived there wecoulj hear of no mackerel anywhere. We went toward the Magdalen Island and about eight miles o£f from them to the southwest we got a larg number of mackerel the first day we were there. This induced us fish in that vicinity, and we fished between that and the West Head i the Islands, as we call it, or Deadman's Island, as it is sometim^ called. Q. Is that part of the Magdalen Islands ?— A. Yes ; it is the west eo of them. We fished there all that trip, and the result was that wej about 180 barrels, speaking in round numbers. The crew received! large share, and did much better than those who fished to the westwaij that season. Q. Where did you flsh during the remainder of the six years ?-^ The next year, 1836, was my second year there at the Magdalen Islaud I having done so well there the years previous. I want it to be unde stood that I was in a small vessel with a small crew. Q. Perhaps you will give the tonnage and the number of the crewf^ A. Her tonnage was 59, with the then reckoning, but now it would I called less than 40. W^e went direct that year to the Magdalen Island and we found that there had been some mackerel caught there, but nod within a few days of that period ; and as we had heard that mackei[ were sometimes taken at Newfoundland, we bore up and went ov there. The next day after our arrival we tried near Cape St. Geor(| but though we tried all day, we never saw one, and so we returned tot Magdalen Islands, and remained there during the fishing term uutil ' obtained a full cargo — 225 barrels. We afterward proceeded westwaij and found that vessels which had been fishing about Prince Edwa Island, and further up on Bradley Bank and elsewhere, had done bettj than that ; but we were satisfied ; our voyage suited us, and we had | all we wanted. Q. What did you do the next year ?— A. The next year uiy broth and I bought a little vessel and fished around home, and we finally i eluded to go to the Bay of St. Lawrence. We did so, and stopped thej some six weeks. Q. When was that f— A. lu 1838. We stopped only six weeiis, we got only about twenty barrels. Q. Where?— A. W^e were at the Magdalen Islands all the time. had poor sails and a poor vessel, and we found it much safer about i Magdalen Islands. We always considered it safer than in the bight Prince Edward Island. Q. And twenty barrels were all that you got that year ?— A. We came home about the 20th of September. We went to the bay| August, and we remained there, I think, about six weeks. Q. What did you do the next year?— A. The next year, when I ^ to the bay, was in 1841. Q. Where were you during the intervening years?— A. lo 18 It the Azores, I \» AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1983 jtiQiuy own vessel, the Lucy Mary — which was the one in which I Ij^twent to the bay — to the Grand Bank. Mackerel were scarce, and Itie prospect was discourajo^ing, so I went codtliihing, curing tlie tlsh Kfjelt. I then hauled tiie vessel up and did not go tor mackerel until pi, I (lid "Ot then go to the Grand Bank, and having no fish to cure jtogo mackereling somewhere. There was at the time no encour- liKiueut to tish for mackerel, either on our coast or in the Gulf of St. jlifrence, and as people had told me stories about mackerel being found Htbe Azores, I was induced to fit out and go there. Q, Did you get any mackerel at the Azores? — A. No. (J, What did you do the next year? — A. I went again to the Gulf of LavrcDce in 1841, wlieu we fished ott' the Magdalen islands. We : about 100 barrels of very excellent mackerel. They were about all jmberones, I think; there were very few number twos. The next year filsowent in the same Lucy Mary, to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, fishing ftke Magdalen Islands. I was in the bay in 1841 and 1842. We staid lere uutil the end of the season, but secured only 60 barrels. I was itn master — that is, my brother was not with me, and I was master of I. I went home with 60 barrels. This was ray experience in ! Gait of iSt. Lawrence up to 1842. I was there since in 1851, when liasin a schooner called the William Gray, 58 tons. She was a small iil'.dull sailing vessel. I thought we would be much safer off the Mag- leu Islands, and so I went there as I had done during previous years. (aid there until the middle of September, but was not very success- ^gettiiigonly 90 barrels ; so I concluded to go over to Prince Edward liiid and try there. I did so, and the next diy after my arrival I found ittlvasiu more danger at this place than at the Magdalen Islands, I «a8 that day cast away^, and I lost my vessel. I Q. When was this? — A. In 1851. I was cast away on Fish Island, ! entrance to Malpeque Harbor. [Q. Was this in the great gale, or previously? — A. It was two weeks (lore the great gale. I cleared up my wreck, saved what I could, took (mackerel out and shipped for home, going on board of another ves- I was olf the mouth of St. Peter's Harbor when the great gale aeon, and we were then cast away again. So I was cast away twice ^ifortniglit. This seemed to prove, to my mind, that Prince Edward ud was more dangerous than the Magdalen Islands. [Q. You speak of fishing at the Magdalen Islands being safer than at iice Edward Island; explain why it is that you think so. — A. Sup- ewe were at the Magdalen Islands and it looks stormy. If the wind is jwingon shore where we are, we just run round to the other side of '(islands and anchor under the lee. If the wind blows up and it be- i stormy, we are there very comfortable, and night or day we hold ielves in readiness to get under way and get to the other side again, |iase the wind should happen to change. Thus I have been round iroandthe islands, time and time again. IQ. Are the Magdalen Islands regarded by the American mackerel pennen as a safe place? — A. Yes, I think so. [^ And as safe as any in the gulf? — A. I think so; to a person well Waiuted with them, they are considered as safe as any part of the ^isnd I consider them, for my part, safer. I do not know that every- ■dyisof the same opinion, but 1 think this would be the ciise if they Kthoroughly acquainted with the matter. IH'Did you ever catch mackerel, and, if so, how many, within three 1 of the shore in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, elsewhere than ^d the Magdalen Islands?— A. Yes. tjt#''»^ ■,m:i^-- ■■1 TJr-- l\l H ''^i/ 1?}M> .-i^ :' -; Wftu f-'.Hl ::i?i ;f;l s^ mW 1 tf*' '■'mi 1984 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMFSSiON. did 80 catch ? — A. Du> Q. now many Ultl you so catch :— -A. JJuviiig my (irst voar in tl Gulf of St. Lawrence, when we Rot 180 barrels, w« IIsImmI at tlio wc end of the Ma{;dalen Islands, and when we set out to go liome the win freshened from the southward, and we struck in somfiwlicre near Si Peter's Sandhills, as we called the place, and while reeling the forosafl we hove the vessel to, and 1 threw out a few shovels full oi bait. Mac! erel came up, and seemed to be very abundant, but we only caugl about half a barrel. Night came on Just as soon as the foresail wg reefed, and hoisting it up, we hauled in the handlinoH instead of choring there, and went about along shore, hove to and let the ves drift off. Next day we got back to Pleasant Bay, Magdalen Isl That was all we got there that voyage, and we never fished anjw or caught any mackerel on the Prince Edward Island side, or anywhe within the restricted limits, until 1842. During that year I was pai ing Port Hood late in the afternoon — it was just nightfall— when I hoi to and tried the school, and I do not think that I was at the time thr. miles offshore. I did not fish there over a day, and we obtained a f^ mackerel, perhaps six or seven barrels. VVhen I came to talk with tl crew, some said we were six miles offshore, and some four miles, and i on; but I will tell you what I thought about it: This was, tiiat if a en ter came along he would take me, so I considered that I did not ne to stay there. Soon after dark I discovered a vessel running down parenty towards the Strait of Canso, and hauling up for us. 1 \»i afraid she was a cutter, and I was then very sorry that I had obtair any mackerel there. She happened, however, not to bo a cutter, and got away the next day. This was all the mackerel I ever caught with the three-mile line. Q. Since you ceased fishing for mackerel in the Gulf of St. Iawvc have you fished for mackerel anywhere ? — A. O, yes ; some, tliou; a great deal. I fished some on our coast. Q. Before I make any general inquiries on that subject, I wish you make a statement, if you have prepared such a one, as to the wl number of mackerel-fishing vessels which have gone from Proving town, where you reside, to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and their ca^ since 1870. — A. Going back to 1870, we had that year 41 vessels gaged in mackerel-fishing, not one of which went into the gulf. Til all fished on our coast. The aggregate quantity of mackerel which th all packed was 37,552 barrels. In 1871, we had still 41 vessels, whi still continued to fish on our coast, having done pretty well there r year before. None went to the gulf. The aggregate catch which tli vessels packed amounted to 24,918 barrels. In 1872 we had 30 vess of which 3 went to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, leaving 33 fishing on i own coast. These 36 vessels packed out 16,303 bbls., and the 3 ves which went to the gulf packed out 785 barrels, making an average, i vessel, of 261 f barrels. In 1873, when the Washington Treaty went into effect, as we intend going to the bay, having now no fear of the cutters, we enlarged f bay fleet, and so 6 went there that year instead of 3. Two of thes or one-third of them, were lost in the gale in which so many ve8 were lost. The vessels lost were the schooner Helen M. Wooilwanlj the Magdalen Islands — the vessel was a total loss — and the Carii^ Rich, off North Uape, Prince Edward Island, vessel and crew total 1 The latter went to the bay early in the year, and she had shif some mackerel home before the gale took place. She was lost witl she had on board. The whole catch of these six vessels that year] 845 barrels. In 1873 we had 38 vessels, and their total catch AWARD OF THE FISHEKY COMMISSION 1986 U;'2 barrels, including the S4.'> barrels mentioned. lu 1874 we had ;re!tsel»*'i*Kng«)d i" the niaclnt«$H|M|||.'^ 1986 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. By Hod. Mr. Kellogg : Q. When waa that t— A. lu 1856, I think. By Mr. Foster : Q. Has there been good mackerel flshiuff at various noiiits ott' tli coast of the United States, say during the last ten years ?— A. Ob, ve It has been twenty years, however, since I participated in the inacker fishery. During the last ten years the mode of tishing has chaufe being entirely different from that formerly pursued. The inotle of catc ing mackerel has changed more than once since I first went tishiug. Q. Explain. — A. In my boyhood when I caught my first mackerel u body thought of jigging thera. We then took them in the same way bin fish are caught. My first experience in mackerel fishing took place whJ 1 was a little boy. I went out with two old men. One of tbem fish] in the stern of the boat, and when ic did not sail fast enough the otl and myself— I was eight years old at the time — had to row, in order, I the more rapid motion of the boat, to induce the fish to bite. Tlij would not bite unless the line was towed. Two great long poles we run out, one just forward in such a manner that our vessel bad tbei pearance of a long armed spider. The poles were straight and one was fastened at one part and another line on the end of the pole, in ord to have them separated. This style of fishing continued until about i time when I began to go to sea. Jigging for mackerel then commeuc bait being thrown overboard and the fish being thus attracted alod side of the vessels, and it came into general use. The first year thai fished for mackerel on this coast was in 1826, and having changed fn the laborious and exposed business of cod-fishing on the Labrador coa I took a good deal of notice of what passed, and consequently I still j member a good deal about the voyage. We sailed from Provinceto on the 28th of June, and went down to a point some twenty leagues uo^ east of Cape Cod. On the day following we saw one school of mackerel, and, gettiugjj it, we threw out bait, And caught, well, some three or four barrels. was the first school which we met with; and this happened on tlte29tl| June. It was the last school we saw until the 13th of September, uiybii day ; this was a very large school. In five weeks we caught 238 barrel mackerel, and, although it was early in the season, still they pac very well. After they were packed we went out again and secured^ barrels where we saw the school of mackerel on the 13th of Septeuilj Q. What is the present mode of catching mackerel f — A. Now i carry a large seine, worth $1,000 or more, and have very large cr Men go out from the seining-vessel in a boat, and shoot the seine— tlj seines are from 200 to 300 fathoms in length and from 20 to 25 fatb in depth — around the school, and thus catch from 100 to 150 barre^ a time; this is the present mode of fishing. We have 30 niacli fishing vessels which left Proviucetown this year, being two less i last year, and one of them went to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Al them carry seines. Q. Do you know what success the one which came to the gulf j had ?— A. No. I have not heard from her, though I called on owners. I obtain my statistics personally from the owners aud ag of the vessels. Q. With purse-seines, of course it makes no ditterenee whetbe mackerel will take the bait or not? — A. No Q. A good many opinions have been expressed with regard M throwing overboard of gurry, or the oflfal of mackerel. Does to AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Ib87 joaropinioii, injure the fishing-grounds ?— A. We now use menhaden {iitbait, bttt when I first went fishing we did not do so. Our practice [ikenwas to grind up small mackerel for tlie purpose. Any quantity of Use maciierel were at that time to be found along the coast, and plenty Uiim nre there to be met with now. These fish were of no great iMoaDttheii, and so we ground them up for bait; and when we could Lohtain any of them, we ground up for bait what you call gurry, the liiardsof fish with the gills attached ; we did not like to use large fish |f» the purpose. It is my opinion that the throwing overboard of the |A1 vrhich comes from mackerel, and which, in the aggregate, is com- lintively small in quantity, does no damage whatever to the fishing- IgoaDdg. This may not be the case, but I fail to discover that this prac- lnwdoes any such damage whatever. Q, When any substance of that sort goes to the bottom of the sea, what nfjsion of nature is there for getting rid of it ? — A. I know of places ithesea where you can put down any animal matter, and it will be KDupby marine animals, which we call sea-fleas. £ have seen this ippeuoii the Banks of Newfoundland. I was carrying menhaden for iattbe time, and, having cut off a piece, I lowered it on a hook, and liremarkably short space of time I hauled it up and found nolhiug I »ve the skeleton. Every particle ot flesh was eaten off. Clams, lever, were not touched. Iq. Wbatbait do the American fishermen almost exclusively use for Kkerelt— A. Menhaden, when they fish with hooks. The superiority lithisbait over other kinds is such that when the fish can get menha- itbey won't take any other. At first mackerel fishermen were afraid Ktbis bait. It is a very bony fish, and they then thought that if it was tap for bait the mackerel would soon get sick of it, owing to the num- lofthe bones. There is a species of fish belonging to this family found |ioQrcoast which is exceedingly fat, we call them blue-backed herrings, lijome preferred this fish for bait, as it was not so bony as the men- b; bat when the poorer mackerel got to be worth having, about (tvtwdy adopted menhaden for bait. l(j."\Vhen did bait-mills begin to be used ?— A. About 1824 or 1825, 1 pL Iq 182G, when I first fished on this coast, we had bait-mills ; ' tbey cut up bait with hatchets. Sometimes a double watch iset, and two men chopped bait all night. |i). Those who fish now with bait use these bait-mills? — A. Yes; and ladeu if they can get them. This is the cheai^st bait, and it is con- ed a good bait. [I). What has been the effect of seining for mackerel in reference to the Ming of the quantity of fish, in your opinion f — A. I think, though DDot know that I am right, that fishing in any locality with seines >i tendency, to a large extent, to increase the diminution and to (the flsb scarcer. It disarranges them and drives them away prob- ^tosome extent. I think that, on the whole, seining is in a measure lioas to the fisheries, which will be better and stand better if prose- Iwith the hook and by jigging in the old way, without seining, (isa diminution in the number of mackerel in certain places, though •not seining that has made them scarce in the gulf. » Why do you say that it is not seining which has made them scarce P Gulf of St. Lawrence I — A. I understood that I had a right to fBiDicate information that comes from others, and people who go to Nf of St. Lawrence to fish tell me that they cannot make their T« work there. ►,Whyt—A. Because the water is too shallow and the bottom too I never found a man who was successful with seines in the gulf. # 'Ml limi f?rit '.tfi.: Uiu to catch the mackerel about the 20th of May, and b^' the 1st of ivefoaiul that some of them were depositing spawn, and about the fiolJaue, I think, the spawn was coming freely from them. I then ispecimens and put them in alcohol, and fished until the season was By the 10th of June they had all deposited their spawn, and they iproceeded to the grounds where they expected to meet with better Unorder to fatten and recruit. iJiOver how manj' days does the spawning season for a particular 1 of mackerel extend ? — A. With the school that comes there, I do fWleve that on the expiration of ten «lays from the time when they pWgiii to spawn a spawning mackerel is left. K. Then you call the spawning period, for a parti-^iular school, about l%sl— A. Yes. I had previous experience with regard to this Ktt. K How soon, after they have ceased to spawn, do they begin to get iMOQgh to catch ! — A. We catch them as soon as we can. We do Wtbetime they are spawning and afterwards. Cape Cod mackerel V however, by the l(»th or middle of June. Then along about the pofJaiywetake mackerel with considerable fat on them. Some 'they become fat earlier than other years, and they increase in fat- 'i[itilSe|)teml)er,*and pretty well into October, but when the water "••scold they begin to get poor again and go off the coast. I have 1 the last school which has gone olf the coast to be quite poor; ij,";M| m ;'■*« i-^i -'"' ! TT 1990 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. although packed as number ones, they n evertheleps did not Lave moc fat on them. Q. When are mackerel in the finest oondition oft' the coast of tt United States — say from Cape Cod down ?— A. I should say, takiii one year with another — years differ a little— say from the middle l September to the middle of October, 1 could get as nice mackerel as couj be procured at any time during the year, and then good mackerel, son years, can be obtained as early as the middle of August. Q. Is it your opinion that some of the schools of mackerel found the coast of the United States remain there during the entire seaao or do they all go north of the coast of Maine ? — A. 1 think that tj mackerel which come in south of us, and then strike into Cape Cod an Massachusetts Bay, and north of that, and some of them farther eai ward, come in from the deep water, where they have wintered, aq strike on and back of George's Bank. This is my opinion. I consid that they come from their winter quarters all along the coast, fro away down as far as Chincoteague Shoals to Newfoundland. I ba| no idea that the mackerel which are on our coast in the region of Ca, Cod and south of that, or anywhere u^ar that, ever come down the coil here and pass Halifax. I have never thought that they did so ; then I cannot bring evidence to prove that they did. I never mackerel between Cape Sable and Cape Canso, though I have some at Louisburg, on the south shore of Cape Breton Island, wbe^ was there ouce. 1 never saw these mackerel, but I fully believe tl( mackerel do come in the spring northward by Halifax, and again this way in the fall. But then I think that after the mackerel whl pass Halifax get to Cape Sable they pass off the coast. Q. I wish you to state how late in the season you have successfi^ fished at the Magdalen Islands. — A. I could not remember the exactly ; but I should think that we never staid at these islands la than about the 1st of October, though it may have been the lUthof 1 month ; but that is about the latest period. Q. Have 3'ou found mackerel good in quantity and quality at Magdalen Islands as late as the 1st of October? — A. I think that is j case. I believe that it was October before we left these islands the i year I was there ; and we caught mackerel just before we left them.] Q. How young are mackerel good for anything to eat, aud how ' does it take them to attain maturity ? — A. Permit me to go back to] time when I put the spawn I mentioned in alcohol, when I was ex]] ing a commission to arrive from the government. Q. It came after a while, did it not t — A. Yes ; and just when fishing was done. We had succeeded very well, aud it worked ' nice as could be. I was then investigating the mackerel spawning tl and the growth and development of their young, as far as this was f sible for me to do. And 25 days afterward I went out into the bay! found any quantity of schools of little mackerel, which, I should th| were about two inches long, though their length might have be little less. However, I know that they were very small, aud I put! of them in alcohol, marking the dates. Twenty-five days atten^ when I went out again, I procured a quantity of them which had gl double that size. I do not mean to imply that they were twice as 11 but twice as heavy. I took some of them out and marked the date J the first time I subsequently went to Boston I called on Vtofi Agassiz, as I had been with him for a considerable time, and gave these several specimens. He said that he had never been previoiislyj to ascertain these facts so clearly and so well, and was very much pie AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1991 think tliey might have been seven Utbem. I Nvatched the growth of these young mackerel all along, Ljisawtliem grow considerably from mouth to mouth, so much so ^ttbi*8!*nie tall, in the latter part of October, I caught some of them ^„v(>ry small meshed net on shore and split them. Mackerel were iHi very ncarce and very high in price, and I sold them for as much as Ki barrel. We do not find them to be very good food, but, in the ilKDce of otiier and better mackerel, and in consequence of their very Itjjj price, souie people will buy them. By Mr. Davies : Iq, How loug were they?— A. I ki loug. By Mr. Foster : U, What do you call them? — A. They are sometimes called spikes, itldo not know their proper name. I consider that they were hatched ^tlie previous spring. By Mr. Dana : |l).They were about four mouths old ? — A. Yes ; four or five months. By Mr. Foster : |().How old is a tinker? — A. Two years. These were the little ones ^icbgo off with the big ones to their winter home. The first mack- jtbatcome in are always large, and spawuers; and the last that go ) coast are also large ; but these do not bite at the hook, and you jiDOt catch tliem with the seine, because they do not show themselves. |nvou1(1 uot know of their presence if you did not set nets for them ; JTlien they are taken in nets set anywhere along the coast, at Prov- KtovD, &c., a good many people imagine that they are the remnant |the mackerel which were there the year before, and which have been (Ided in the mud, and when they taste these fish they fancy that r taste mud. |lj.Thenind taste is all due to their imaginations? — A. Yes; they |itakeu iu ucts all along the shore, and they do not bite the hook any- Wheu the next school arrives there appears a mixture of kM of different sizes, which take the hook, and are being caught JKliools now. They are carried to Boston market, where they are and denominated " large ones," " second size," " tinkers," and ks." Any man who is well acquainted wMth them will make the ecolling, as there seems to be a line of demarkation drawn between lidiifereut kinds, and it stands out prominently. Admitting this to ptact, those that come on as blinks are from the spawn of the year ,wbile those which are called tinkers are from the blinks of the ipreviou8, being then two years old, and those that are called sec- isiie are from the tinkers of the year before; when they grow up bixwith the bigger ones I do not know how they live or much mtthein ; this is my opinion about these matters. You will find fish- Mwho will tell you they think that mackerel are six or seven j^ears |(Mtiiig their growth. [I! Will you give us your opinion about mess-mackerel, and number iitffos, and threes? — A. The law of Massachusetts, which compels piospectlou and packing of mackerel, defines them. The largest and I'Wtistof the mackerel, provided that they are 13 inches long from pterior portion of the head to the fork of the tail or caudal fin, are Teiioiigh for number ones ; also, all mackerel fnJm 13 to 17 and 18 •iu length, and the very largest mackerel, are number ones nder :*:t:" .4'.'.' mfm. lym mm 1982 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the Massachnsetts inspection law. In regard to meesuiackerel th« is a peculiar way of dressing them. ' If I have an order for mess- mackerel I take number ones and cut i their heads and the tails or caudal fins and put them into kits. Th{ are then sent off as mess mackerel. The very largest and fattest numl] ones which are more than 13 inches long are selected for mess macker Now, when you come to number twos you still want mackerel which somewhat fat, and mackerel may be longer than 13 inches and still l. be good enough for number ones — because ttiese would be number twos that is, their size will make them reckon pretty well, while the little 1 on them will bring them in as twos, but these fish must be, I think inches long from the nose to the foot of the tail. If the fish are small tban this they cannot be considered number twos. Now, whun yl come to number threes, if the mackerel are poor and snch as I have be telling you of as having been caught in nets at their spawning tic they are all number threes according to our inspection law. Being pq they cannot be -called anything but number tlirees, but if they are ; inches long, like number ones, they will pack for long threes. This li has been altered in Massachusetts several times, and at one time q big ones which were large enough for threes were branded threes soul while those which were shorter than 13 inches, and yet poor, were brand threes north, but such mackerel cannot be threes if less than 10 inolj long. If poor and 10 inches long, and fat but less tban 11 inches loi they can be twos, and if poor and 10 inches long they may be thre Avhile if they are smaller than this they are classed as number foq This is the Massachusetts inspection law, which I think is now in fo^ Q. Are the inspection laws of Maine in substance like those of Ma chusetts ? — A. I think that tbey are very much the same. I may remi that some change may have taken place in these laws, in view off fact that we tinker at and modify our laws every year. Q. Are mackerel which are not inspected in the United States to any considerable extent for consumption in the United States mark| Do the mackerel which come from the Canadian provinces, and wl are branded here, not being repacked and inspected in the States, a market in the United States 1 — A. I think that most of the mack| which comes ft"om Nova Scotia or other British provinces is reinspefl when it arrives in the States. A good many fish dealers are appoii deputy inspectors, under the general inspection act, and when mackerel comes in tbey repack it. Tbey buy the mackerel in large 1 rels, and if large and fat they take these mackerel out and make of tl mess-mackerel, putting them into kits and placing their own braud^ them. Q. Is there a well known distinction made among fish-dealers and ( Burners between what is called bay mackerel and shore mackerel ?- O, yes. Q. When a United States vessel comes up here and catches macli off British waters, are these mackerel termed bay or shore mackerel A. Tbey are called bay mackerel, but those caught on our coasti called shore mackerel. f Q. Which, for a series of years, has commanded the highest price Tj Our shore mackerel has commanded a good deal the highest price forq" a number of years ; but when I first went to the Gulf of St. Lawre in 1835. and obtained good trips of mackerel, bay mackerel brought most; i should think that there was then more tban $1 a barrel dl ence in favor of the latter. | Q. And what has been the difference between the best shore andJ AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1993 kf mackerel during the past few years ? — A. The bay maokerel were !« large when I first went to the bay to fish, and that was their recom- lipdatioD ; tbey were also in gond condition physically, that is, fat ; lilt of late years, the bay mackerel which oar vessels have caught there Ifcrebeen very poor. The sixteen voyages I mentioned as having been lude to the Gulf of St. Lawrence from Frovincetown have all been fail- L on account of the inferiority of the mackerel, and the small quan- Vtbat has been taken by these vessels. IQ. I notice that the collector at Port Mulgrave, David Murray, says itnostof the mackerel caught about Prince Edward Island are small, jthatthe best and largest mackerel are taken about the Magdalen this was in 1874. — A. The catch was biggest at the Magdalen I^This corresnonds with your statement ? — A. Yes ; I think that liter mackerel are taken around the Magdalen Islands than to the (tvard of them. Up to the present time we always find a vast nam- {of small mackerel, tinkers and blinks, on the fishing grounds ; but kD I first went to the gulf, in 1835, and during the three years when |iaii cod-fishing there, in 1821, 1825, and 1828, we depended wholly on Kkerel for bait, and I never at that time saw a small mackerel ; they eall large, and this was afterward the case. , How large is mackerel spawn I — A. They are about as large as the iof a common pin. |l). Did you ever happen to know of Canadian vessels coming into irican waters to fish ? — A. Yes ; I saw a vessel in Provincetowu Har- ifliich I was told belonged to some place in the British provinces, (Ididnot go to her. ^, When was that ? — A. I could not tell. I dare not go as far as that. i I have your statement made in 1873 with which I can refresh your Dorr. You then stated, " In the autumn of 1871 aCanadian schooner |ioiiie70 tons anchored in this port several times in company with the lerican fleet. She is the only instance of a colonial fishing-vessel ot ieli I have any knowledge here." — A. That is my statement. I had for- tenthe fact of having made it. I still remember that people told me tthe schooner, and I made inquiry about her. Il|. You and Mr. Giflford, the collector, made a joint stateirteii t in 1873 ? — [Iremember it, and I have no doubt but what there was a schooner el)(!longing to the provinces. II We find that mackerel are in abundance at a given place one year I very scarce there the next year; I want to know whether I attribute such appearance and disappearance to overfishing or jtlie migratory habits of the fish. — A. O, fish. do not always come psame place every year. Some years you may get them plentifully |ilocality, while they may not come there another year. It is impos- kforme to know the cause of their not coming to any place, but I Winies attribute it to the fact that their bait may have taken a dif- itcourae. The mackerel come to Provincetowu every year at spawn- Jtiine, but they do not want any bait then ; and the fishermen then 'just where to go to catch them, though they do not know where I are during other parts of the year ; but when they are round a Uliey go there for bait. "^^kf'-l^ .£#1^ t -. in-* ^0m 1994 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Thursday, Septcmhi'r 20, 1871 The Gommission met. The examiuation of Mr. Attwood was resumed. By Mr. Foster : Question. Have you been engaged in the cod fishery ?_ Answer. Yd Q. How early and how extensively was this the case?— A. My fle voyage was made when I went to sea in 1820. I then proceeded to i Labrador coast. I have been there a good many years since— I niij say from year to year. In 1820 and 1821 1 fished on that coast ; in \i I made a trip in the North Atlantic ; in 1823 I was again on the La, rador coast ; in 1824 I was iu the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and I was aq there iu 1825 and 1828. I suppose I might go on in this manner un 1806. Q. Have you been cod-fishing on the Newfoundland Bunks?—! Yes ; I was during four seasons on the Grand Banks. Q. When was this ? — A. I do not know as I could tell you that jt now, but I think that I first went there iu 1833. Q. How extensively is the cod-fishing business carried on from in the neighborhood of Provincetown ! — A. We have a fleet of vesa 48 in number this year from Provincetown on the Grand Banks, and! the Gulf of St. Lawrence we have 17 vesseKs, which numbers togetf will give the total number so employed coming from Provincetown year. Q. Whereabouts in the Gulf of St. Lawrence do your cod fishern fish ? — A. Now, I am told they go to the Magdalen islands for the pose of procuring herring on their first coming into the bay, and afl ward they go to Bank Bradley, fishiug mostly there and also sometin over toward the west shore. They go down sometimes to Bank Orpb but they depend more particularly on Bank Bradley for their catch. I Q. Is there any cod-fishing, to your knowledge, pursued by Ameri^ vessels anywhere within three miles of the shore? — A. Not in the < of St. Lawrence ; but on the coast of Labrador, of course, all the are taken inshore. Q. How is that done'? — A. My first voyages were made to that co The vessels adchor in a harbor, and when the caplin come iu the j come in after them, and boats are sent out from the vessels to catchj cod. » Q. They are also caught there now by seining? — A. Yes; soraei ing for cod was done when I was there, but I went iu vessels w^ caught the fish with the hook. Q. Thatwasnorthof Mouutjoly?— A. North of Mount Joly we fls early in the spring, in a few harbors, to the westward of Blanc Sab Every year we went there we passed through the Strait of Bell« and by Cape Charles, going up to what we call Grosse Water, altho I do not now find that name on the chart. Q. Excepting up there, do American vessels fish for cod auyw| within three miles of the shore, to your knowledge?— A. No. Q. Is fresh bait essential to the prosecution of the cod flsheryJ what bait was in former years used in cod-fishing 1— A. We have f extensively engaged in cod-fishing for a good many years in Provl town ; I suppose that this has been the case ever since it was a 8e| place. About 1819 or 1820, we had no vessels on the Grand Ba and when I first went to sea in 1820, 1822, and 1823, my first threej ages were made to the Labrador coast, bcQause we did not then hJf single vessel on the Grand Bank; but afterward we began to sencr AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1995 jithere. In 1852 we had 63 voHsels which prosecuted the cod fishery LiiifGiaiul Bank; in 1853, we had 81 vessels; in 1854,87 vessels, and il(i55,»3 vessels, and so it went along for years; but in 1866 we had (IirgeHt fleet of which I have any retneiubrance, for we then had 91 j^liiiii all, of which li) were fishing with trawliDg-lines in the Gulf LsUiXwrence, and the rest were on the Grand Banks. These vessels liUcbweiit (;od-fishiug that year carried with them 4,098 barrels of salt iis,anil brought home 93,663 quintals of fish. ByMr. Davies.- llj.Tbisrelates to Provincetown? — A. Yes; to our town alone. That ^tiras siitticient to catch 93,6(>3 quintals in 1866. We had 87 cod- ling vest-els ten years before. The year when I went on the Banks licarried and used clams altogether. Sometimes when vessels would isbortof hait, or their clams would not prove very good, one vessel icid help another; some would secure their cargoes before they had ilall their bait, and if there was any prospect of bait getting short monkl caicti what birds we could, and sometimes cut bait out of the ijtcbsof the fish, this being a species of what we call bank clams; fare mussels of considerable size, and they made very good bait on UD grounds. By Mr. Foster : |l}, You, then, had no fresh bait except that which was obtained on (Banks iliemselves ? — A. if o. From year to year we carried clams )liait. |lj,l8tbere an abundant supply of clams to be found about Massa* letts?— A. Along our New England coast there are any quantity of A great many are found from the State of Maine down the coast ; ) are a great many about Portland and Cape Cod, and on Essex nity coast. iTheu there is an ample supply of clams on the American coast ? — tea; provided that our hanking fieet want clams for bait another (they can get just as many as they desire. lljWhat other bait do the cod-fishers take from home ; are any squid id on our coast? — A. Squid are very uncertain on our coast; say Ht Barnstable County, or north of Cape Cod, where I reside, some ithey are quite plentiful. In the days of my boyhood, for a good ^j years, they were so plentiful that they ran ashore in such vast wlance that they became a perfect nuisance. It was impossible, !8o large an area of flats, to bury and take care of them, and so we [Itoimt up with the inconvenience; but when the blue fish in 1847 ' their appearance on the coast the squid became scarcer and Kr. lu 1807 1 spent the summer investigating our fisheries along N8t,and I remember very well that I did not see a single squid pgthe whole summer in or about Provincetown Harbor or Bay. : five or six years ago, however, the squid came there in great milaiice, and they were as plentiful as I ever knew them to be. There ^wt quantities of them on the coast ; but since then they have me scarcer and scarcer until this year, when there are not many of •there. I am told that one vessel which went from our port to the IBaiiksthis year obtained some ten barrels of squid on the south [•iifniiiuear Chatham, and, putting them in ice, took them to the Td Banks ; but the squid are scarce on our side. IThat took place on the south side of Cape Cod ? — A. Yes ; they 'iRood many there in weirs. I Ate squid to be found on the Grand Banks ?— A. Well, about five ./. follow that plan from year to year? — A. It is not tbeHame isitls which 80 follow it up. Tlie vessel which went to the gulf this so because the Hsh were scarce ; last year two vessels went to llit^gulf, Aod I was interested in one of tbeni. (j. Yon are now, of course, speukini; of yonr own place, Province- inl—A. Ye^ ; I know that (lloucester sends out more vessels, because ly own a great many more there, jiarticularly as concerns tlie mack- jSshini? business, than in Provincetown. IJ. Uiid the Gloucester vessels faileil in the same way, in their trips iihf giilt'f — A. 1 suppose so. I am not now engaged in this tisbery. I), Von talk of the pains you took in collecting statistics before you here, in Provincetown ; and you conclude tliat your Provincetown Is failed to make any money mackerel tishiug ? — A. Yes — in the f^. But (lid you not take any pains to ascertain whether your Glou- wrbrethren were in the same predicament? — A. I intended to in- Hitter all the vessels, but being unwell at the time, and fully believ- jthat some one as capable as myself would be able to give the ((lirediuformation respecting other places, and Gloucester itj particu- did uot go there ; but I collected all possible local information ou fsabjecl. |(j, Doyou mean to imply that since the Treaty of Washinton, the itLerel fishery has failed, and not been a mone^'-making business, on If offu coast as well as in British waters? — A. The mackerel fishery ibt-fii a failure since 1873. My object in collecting statistics with itioDto the mackerel fishery was to show bow many vessels were em- nedinit on our own coast, and bow many in the Gulf of St. Law- ice, from our place, back to 1870, inclusive; this covers the ground !tbe Washington Treaty came into force. Did the mackerel fishers make money in our waters during the riprocity Treaty ? — A. Well, I should not like to express an opinion |that|K)iut. I bad nothing to do with it, and did not go there during t Reciprocity Treaty. Ilj. And none of your statistics will enable you to tell that ? — A. No. \i 11(1 1 understand you to say that your statistics which regard the itkerel fishing from Provincetown since 1873, imply that your people |tefailed to profitably prosecute the mackerel fishery ? — A. Yes, in jipilf; and this fishery has not been very profitable on our coast. t mackerel-fishing fieet has diminished in number; and I think tif tbey could get out of the business without loss, the fleet would Hess in number a year from now. I'll voii include your own mackerel fishery.in that statement ? — A. I do not know that any of our mackerel fishermen will make any i*f this year. There is no jirospect, unless a good school comes in, i^r making anything like fair voyages. 'n your own cpast ? — A. Yes. Jv During the last four or five years, have not very few mackerel been jbton your coast? — A. Well, yes, and during the years before, com- >tively few also. The catch, 1 think, was larger in 1870 than it has since. Tf my memory serves me right, over 300,000 barrels 'then packed ,i the State of Massachusetts, and that quantity of il) nor anything near it, has never; been packed in this State with fKceptioD. £ ** ii;i**- m^ ",-: .1 H»»s;,t?rt ■ 2000 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. By Mr. Dana : '- Q. What is the exception f— A. This occurred in 1831, when 383 5oSi barrels of mackerel were inspected in the State of Massachusetts. ' By Mr. Thomson : Q. Is packing and inspection the same thing ? — A. Yes. They werj chiefly the catch of our vessels. Another matter deserves remark : A mackerel imported from the British provinces fall into the hands of oui inspectors, and they reinspect them, they put the American braud oa them ; and such fish would be included in the number of the catcli This, I think, is an important fact. Q. I was going to ask you whether or not these flsh were branded irrespective of the nationality of the bottoms in which tliey wer taken ? — A. "Xes. I think that the flsh which are now being sent fron Halifax to Boston will be inspected. We have general inspectors. Q. Would not these fish, so inspected, appear in your returns American-caught flsh 1 — A. I think that would be the case; they woull appear in the whole product of tlie State. Q. Then the finest fish that would come there from British waterl would be inspected and marked either number one or mess mackerel, i coming from American waters? — A. Yes; if they were fat aud bif enough. Q. And thej would appear to be Ameiican-canght when in fact th^ were British caught ? — A. I do not think that any distinction would made when- mackerel are sold in large quantities; they are sold iuo| particularly by their quality than by their brand. Q. It is not the brand that then sells them ? — A. The braud does nj determine tlie quality of the fish when they first change hands. Mac erel coming from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, when 13 inches long, aij fat, are put in as number ones ; and the fish caught on our own coast '. inches long or over, are similarly branded. Mackerel that run betwe 13 and 14 inches in length, afccordiug to the Massachusetts iuspecti^ law, are number ones ; and mackerel which are from 16 to 17 iach long are also branded as number ones, this being the highest brand. when a purchaser comes along, the heads of the barrels are taken i and the quality of the fish is examined without regard to the brand Q. But, in every case, fish that come down from British waters wod appear as American-caught fish ? — A. This would be the case, I tbiij after they were packed. Q. This being so, your returns would not be at all conclusive as to | quantity of the British catch which comes into your jmrts?— A. Ij not think that they would. Q. Boston, I think, is your great shipping center ? — A. Yes; iti great shipping market. Q. Does not the fish trade of New England center there ?--A^ Q. And it is one of the largest centers ot the fish trade in tlie Unij States?— A. Yes. Q. Is there any larger fish-trade center anywhere ? — A. I do notk^ so much about New York as Boston, but I think that the latter is i greatest fish-trade center in the United States. Q. This is one of the most importancelemeutsof the trade of Hosioo A. It is an important element in it. Q. What oHice did you hold as a commissioner under the goverui of Massachusetts ? — A. I was appointed a commissioner to iuvestijj into the o'lestion relating to the .rtiflcial propagatiou of lisb, ai| find out whether such propagation was pr AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2001 (OoniiHsioQ terminated in the course of six months, and subsequently a State commission was appointed in the same connection. This was jone,Ithink, in 1864. My appointment took phice in 1850. Q, Some, at all events, of the duties of that commission were to fill lithfish rivers which had been depleted of them ? — A. That is the ob- I jfctof these commissioners. Q, Are they succeeding ? — A. It is said that they are. When first Lpointed, the chairman wanted me to go to the Merrimac and Connec- IWliivera in our States and collect what information I could on the pbiect. I spent a month at this work and I then made my report. Q, Are they really increasing the number of the fish ? — A. I have no UrsoDal knowledge as to this being the case. I do not know so much liliotttour inland as about our sea fisheries. Q, Have your inland fisheries, in your judgment, no effect on your jjffshore fisheries ? — A. Well, they have a little efiect on the latter. Q, Do not bait-fishes come down from the rivers?— A. Some do — sich as shad and alewives. They are used to some extent as bait for wl. I), Have not the States of Maine and Massachusetts of late years en- Ikavored to protect, as much as possible, the shad-fishery? — A. Yes; IibI their artificial propagation has been attempted. Q. Are they succeeding in this respect in the State of Massachu- Lusi— . The commissioners report favorably, and say that they are liakiDg headway ; but I have no personal knowledge regarding this I natter. (|. Has this commission no power over the sea fisheries along the Iwist!— A. No such power has l>een delegate*! to them to my knowledge. liliw passed the legislature last year, 1 believe, instructing the com- liBsioii to issue circulars to those who had poiinds, weirs, traps, purse- \m. nets, and gill-nets along the coast inshore. These were required ! a daily count of the different kinds of fish which were thus pro- ItoI. These circulars were issued this year, and some were sent to me (Proviiicetown, where I distributed them. So that the object which the commission had in view was tolpre- |«t the destruction of fish in these traps, pounds, purse-seines,' and iiuets, &cJ— A. So much had been said about them that the com- piouers wished to ascertain as nearly as possible the quantity of the tent kinds of fish taken from year to year in their traps, nets, &o. [I^. So much had been said, I presume, against this mode of fishing ! — iSoiiie were against it and some were in its favor. People are not fliUotiilk in favor of a different mode of fishing if it makes others suc- m\. 1 But there had been a good deal of talk against this way of flsh- i'-k. Yes. [^ Aud tiie attention of the commission was directed to it ? — A. Yes ; 'tliev desired to discover what its effect was. • Have tliey made their report ou this matter ' — A. No ; not to my Nedge. 1; Have they made any report with regard to the evil effects of purse- *!i!;?-A. No. They have not investigated this question to my ^'iedge. • Have they done so with respect to traps ? — A. Yes. *f 111 your judgment are these traps injurious to your shore fisher- '■■■A, I think that they are. I'i How long have they been in operation ? — A. O, for quite a number 1::6f #;^.- 11 ,- • * *« III i^-if ^"^1 ].i'M ft ^ gifl /Km i ,,*r^% 'i"-"i ip HU .jj.;^:,. ..■4,^|«»ii.t?^r-'-^- 2002 AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. of years to some extent ; I could not exactly say how long. Id a ron guess, I would say, for twenty-five or thirty years. Q. During this time if they are really so injurious, they have ample opportunity for doing a great deal of damage ?— A. Tliev n somewhat few in number at first, but their number has been iiicreaa Q. And in other words, the evil they do has been increased ?— A think so. I will tell you what I think the evil is more particiilarli those who are able to build weirs, do so, and the hook fisherineu haiis, will not then do so well as has been the case with them viously. Q. In your judgment, they injure the fishing?— A. I thiuk that til do, along the coast. Q. Has this not had the effect of making your insbore fisheries, i during the last ten years, very much worse than tbey were toraieriy' A. Well, our inshore fisheries are not so good as they have been in so times past; but again, when you look at the fish, you will find tbatti have changed their course from time to time. Tbey may be abundi in one place one year, and the year following tbey may not be loa there. Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand that these traps not injure the inshore fisheries at all ? — A. 1 thiuk tbat tbey do iujj these fisheries. Q. Then this iujurious procoso has been in operation for twenty! years? — A. Yes; to some extent. There were only a few of then first. Q. And are your fisheries not getting worse every year, owing to \ bad and destructive mode of fishing ? — A. If we admit tbat it isi structive mode of fishing, certainly, that would be tbe efi'ect from to year ; but I may fish for a certain kind of fish this year, and year I may do better in the same fishery, owing to the greater abuudij of the fish. • Q. Do you wish tlie Commission to understand that a destructive i of fishing does in reality no injury to the catch of fish? — A. 1 did] say so. Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand tbat if a destriw mode of fishing is pursued this year, the chances are tbat tbere wifi a superabundant supply of fish next year? — A. Tbere is a possibili^ this being the case. Q. I want to deal with facts. Is it not probable tbat tbis kiii^ fishing will destroy the fisheries entirely ? — A. I do not believe tli will do so entirely ; but I think that it does injure tbe fisheries. Q, But would it not destroy the fishery, as a fishery, and so far profitable fishing business is concerned? — A. (), I do not linovv that ; but I wish to be understood to say that, so far as pounds nets are concerned, they certainly diminish the supply of lisb alou^ shore. Q. And if this is done from year to jear the supply will become j and more diminished ? — A. Well, that is a fair way of statinj it vided the fish came in from year to year in the same (juantitics. Q. You have no guarantee that they will come in from year to yj greater quantities ? — A. But we know that this is tbe case somef Q. But this would be out of the ordinary run of tbingsf— A. Q. And you would not attribute it to the destruction of the fis year previous? — A. No. Q. During the last four or five years has not the greater qiiaii^ the mackerel caught on the American shore been taken from 5 to 01 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2003 -U miles, or even more than that, out from jour shore ? — A. I think .;lbare not been lishing of late jears, nor have I seen the fishermen kjiDg, bnt I have an impression that they take the mackerel with iZse-seines, and that they take them off shore — 10 miles ofl' sometimes, 111 sometimes a great deal more. I (J. Practically, your mackerel fishery within 3 miles of the shore, for liiamber of years back, has not been of much value ? — A. Our inshore Vrv has been of very little value, so far as I know. ki'oa stated yesterday, if I understood you rightly, that you had Unsome pains in watcliing the spawning of mackerel ? — A. Yes. Hj, And that 30 days after spawning you found the little fishes f — A. p;they were then two iuches long, more or less; and 25 days after- iagaiQ they had doubled in size. h Do you think it possible that in this period the eggs would develop jyouug: fish of the size you speak of? — A. I had no idea that this lid iiccur so quickly ; but 1 found that it was the case, and then I ■IdDOt help believing it. U, You would not undertake to say positively that these little fish It from the eggs deposited some thirty days previously ? — A. I think Htl saw was proof positive to that effect for me. It was satisfactory kBvmind. I found the eggs coming from the adult fish on a certain .and then I saw the young fish in schools, two inches long, more kks thirty days afterwards ; they were as thick as they could be. (tken siiid tbat these fish had come from those eggs, which were de- 8ted there a mo it i previous. I know that they did not proceed from [K^wawiied tl' i year previous. Xow when I came to watch these i 25 days afterwards, I found that the fish had doubled in size, ithis wasl another proof of the circumstance of which I speak. I latthe time interested in this matter, not only because I expected to |»p|K)inted on the commission mentioned, but also because I wanted |avestigate this question ; this had been the case for years, and I put lytliing possible in this relation into the hands of Professor Agassiz, riii«[to do what I could in the cause of . oience. .Hoff long ago was this? — A. It was in 185G. |lj.Ha\e you ever observed such a phenomenon since ? — A. Xo; but Joccurs every year. These fish yearly deposit their spawn there. R. In what depth of water have you found this mackerel spawn?— jiDall the way from 15 to, I should think, 5 fathoms of water. |i|. The eggs were deposited on the bottom? — A. Yes. The fish go linthe day-time, when we see nothing of them. One would not 'tliatthey were there ; but at night they come up. We suppose ithtseeggs are cast over the area of the bottom. li There isouly one year when you recollect of having seen this pe- my!— A. 1 saw enough to convince me that this was a sample of tvears. I had never before watched them so minutely. is it not a rule known to scientists, in this regard, that fish which 11011 a particular shore, return to it from their deep-sea haunts ? — [Itielieve that this is a well-established fact with regard to fresh- 'tish, shad, salmon, and alewives, &c. 1^ That is a fair inference to draw with regard to sea-fish from the !and habits of river-fish ? — A. Well, perhaps that may be so. Itltieu it would follow that the mackerel which spawn on your "^^ould return there again, and not frequent other waters ? — A. »»ould follow if that is a fact. Und as far as theory is worth anything, the weight of opinion "^rin favor of this view ? — A. I think so. m '•■-fPff^Ml 2004 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Suppose a school of mackerel appeared on your shore at a partic- ular time, aud that a day or two afterwards, a large school should ap- pear on the Nova Scotian shore, or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then these must be different schools ? — A. Yes, certaiuly. Q. Are there not among mackerel not only different schools, bat also different species ? — A. What I understand by species is the same kind of fish. Q. Yes ; but still different species, or varieties, if you will ?— a. There are a great many species whicii belong to the mackerel family, but tUey are not mackerel. We say that fish are divided into two grand depart- ments, and then into orders, families, and genera, and lastly into species- and besides these there are varieties of fish. ' Q. Are there not different varieties of mackerel ? — A. Yes. The mackerel found iu the Gulf of St. Lawrence are different from the mack- erel on our coast. You can tell them a()art. Q. Do you say that there is any difference in the mackerel cangbt off the- American coast, and the mackerel caught, say, off' Prince Edward Island or elsewhere in the Gulf of St. Lavrence? — A. I think tbat these fish are of one species ; but they do ♦ m to be the same with regard to their size and condition. The ^^u i.iackerel are not iu as good condition as ours. I have, however, i'jown the time when the mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence would sell higher by $2 a barrel than those caught on our own coast. This was in 1835, when I went into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. When we came home our mackerel fetched the highest price, and a higher price than the mackerel caught off our own coast. Q. Why ? — A. Becaase they were larger, and fat. They were caught oft" the Magdalen Islands; but now the gulf mackerel are not as large as those which are taken on our own coast, while they are dark colored and not in so good condition physically as ours. Q. Then they are of a different variety ? — A. You may call it so. Q. When iu the Gulf of St. Lawrence did you not fish oif Prince | Edward Island ? — A. I went there once, but while there, during a fort j night, I was cast away twice. Q. That was in 1851 ? — A. That was my experience with regard to j fishing iu the Bight of Prince Edward Island. I considered that the part between East Point and North Cape was a dangerous place foraj vessel ; and therefore, I kept away from there. Q. And this was the only experience you had with respect to the fish- ing off Prince Edward Island I — A. One night while reefing a foresail, I fished over there and caught h"lf a barrel or so of mackerel ; we were! on our way home and not full ; ai the time I was within three miles orj one mile of the shore, but I would have caught them if the weather hn been favorable. Q. But mackerel were there ? — A. Yes ; and the weather was bad. Q. What were the size and quality of these mackerel ? — A. They werej large and of good quality. Q. Some American witnesses have vr^rn that Prince Edward Island j mackerel were trash ? — A. I have seen good mackerel caught iu the| Gulf of St. Lawrence. Q. Have you ever known any American fishermen to have beea wrecked off Prince Edward Island since the great gale of 1851, betweioj 1851 and 1870 ?— A. O, yes ; the schooner Carrie P. Kich was lost neaj North Cape, Prince Edward Island, in 1873, in the great gale of tba^ year. This was the year when the fishery clause of the Wasliiiigtoi^ Treaty went into effect. Another of our vessels — we sent to the b;ij| AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2005 that year— was wrecked in 1873 off the Magdalen Islands, in Pleasant Bay. Q. 1 thought you said that the Magdalen Islands was a very safe place for vessels 1 — A. I can clear that up. Pleasant Bay is a risky place to anchor in when an easterly or northeast wind is blowing. I made it a point when there not to do so under such circumstances. It is then a sort of traip ; but if the wind is coining from any other quarter, Pleasant Bay is a good harbor. With an easterly wind, however, ves- sels are very much exposed there. I did not mean in anything I said regarding the safety of the Magdalen Islands to convey the idea that a vessel could not be cast away there. Q. Is the sea not very tempestuous around the Magdalen Islands ? — A. The sea is tempestuous anywhere at sea when it blows. Q. Does it not blow harder around the Magdalen Islands than it does anywhere else ? — A. I do not know about that. I could not be at the same time in two places. Q. Are gales not more frequent around these places than elsewhere? — A. I believe that the weather in the gulf generally is much the same. I have beard it said, I will acknowledge, that it is more squally down about tbe east end of the Magdalen Islands, and Gape North, and St. Paul's Island than at other places in the gulf. Q. Is it not a fact that vessels leave the Magdalen Islands as early ia the season as possible? — A. I know that they go there as early as possible. Q. And do they not go away as early as possible ? — A. I suppose that the reason why some vessels leave there so quickly is that they go there for ice. Our cod-flshers go there for that purpose. Q. Do not mackereliishers leave these islands at an early date ? Is it not a fact that they do not like to remain on this coast later than September, or the middle of September at the farthest? — A. I believe that I never staid there later than the 5th or 6th or the 10th of October. Q. Is it not a rule for vessels to leave there in the middle of Septem- ber?—A. I left there in 1851 about the 15th of September; but if I had staid there I would have probably saved my vessel. Q. Is it not a fact that the American vessels, as a body, and the British vessels which go there to tish, get away by the middle of Sep- tember at the latest? — A. I do not think the vessels remain there as late as tliey do at Margaree, on the Cape Breton shore. Q. And along Prince Edward Island ? — A. There are Malpeqae, Cas- cuiupeque and some other harbors about this place; and consequently some tliink tliat it is a safer fishing place, owing to that fact. Q. And yet you think that the Magdalen Islands is the safest place ? — A. I cannot help saying that now. If you were to go into Cascumire- qiie harbor and stay there all the time, it would be a safe place. Q, Is it a good harbor ? — A. Yes. Q. And is it not a great benefit to those who fish around the island ? — A, Malpeqiie is not so reliable. The water of Oascuinpeqne is shoal, I and tile entrance is not very broad ; a bar is tliere besides, and we tliought some danger was to be feared in going in there, although in clear weather, and with very smooth water, you can go in there safely I enough, Q. Is it or is it not a good harbor of refuge ? — A. It is a good one I for the small class of vessels. Q. How many vessels may be there in safety ? — A. I was never there Mtonce, but I should think that along in the spring it might accom- ii ^.'■i i 2006 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. modate 50 or 100 vessels. I do not know bat that a whole fleet conld lie there. Q. You would be surprised to hear a man swear that there was not room enough in it for five or ten vessels? — A. O, Lord, tliat won't do. There were more than ten in it when I was there. Q. Is Sonris Harbor also a good one? — A. I did not think much of it when I was there. I have heard, however, that a breakwater has been built there since. I do not know how secure they have now made it. Q. Do you recollect that 8 American vessels were lost at the Magda- len Islands so recently as in 1874 ? — A. No. I was not aware of that. We had no vessels there in 1874 from Proviucetown. Q. During the last 26 years — since the great American gale of 1851— has there been any American vessel lost at Prince Edward Island, the Carrie P. Rich excepted ? — A. Well, I do not think or know of any other having been lost there. Several Cape Ann vessels might, however, have been lost there and I know nothing of it. Q. But you are unaware of this having been the case ? — A. I am not. I could not place any other vessel as having been lost there. Still I do not know but what a great many were lost there during this period. I know that a great many Cape Ann vessels were lost that year. Q. What earthly reason have you for supposing that the mackerel go far from the coast at all ? — A. All I want to say positively on this sub- ject is that they do go away. When the cold weather comes on, and the water becomes so cold that they begin to grow poor, they go off to parts unknown, and we can only conjecture as to the places where they do go. One opinion is as good as another in this respect. Q. Is there anything incredible in the theory that they only go out a few miles from the coast iu deep water and stay there? — A. I have uo idea that they make very long migrations. Q. Did you not say yesterday that mackerel caught in the spring are sometimes supposed to have a muddy taste ? — A. I said that iu former years we used to catch large mackerel in gill-nets very early in the season, and that at no other place except Proviucetown ; men whose business it was to take them could not then catch any elsewhere along the coast or with hooks, and people conceived the idea that these were the remnant of the mackerel which had visited the coast the year pre- vious, and which had remained during the winter imbedded in the mud. Q. Did not that look very much as if the theory I mention is true I— A. It did ; but since then we find that, by putting nets outside, we can catch them anywhere along the coast south of that as well as in Trov- incetown Harbor. Q. Have you never heard propounded the theory that mackerel go out into water deep enough to preserve them from the action of storms, and there hybernate all winter in the mud ? — A. I do not know about that. People tell me that they have seen mackerel a little north of the Gulf Stream, and we all know where that is; but I believe that tbey go off into deep water which is of i he temperature they require, and remain there ; but I do not know what they do during the winter. I only kuow that they go off in the fall and return in the spring. Q. They could come back poor even if they remained a few miles oft shore? — A. Certainly; but they are gone beyond our reach, and we do not know where they go for the winter. Q. This is pure matter of conjecture, and the theory that they keep in their native w'aters all the year round would be just as plausible as AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2007 kerel go storms, w aboat h of tbe they go remain |ly kuovi liles oft' we do By keep Isible 89 vonr theory f — A. We know where they are taken in the summer, and Ve see them go away. Q. But you do not go down to the bottom to see this ?— A. I am quite sore that they do so, and that the mackerel off Proviucetown and the coast of Massachusetts and along other parts of our coast go south, and head off somewhere near Nantucket. We know, at all events, that they are gone, and we do not see them again until early in the following spring. Q. I want to obtain from you a distinct answer with reference to ti'nwl- ing; is it not a most destructive mode of fishing ? — A. The first trawling we knew of on our coast was done by an Irish crew, who came in a little schooner from Boston, and afterward our people began to practice it one after another until about the whole fishery was so carried on. They abolished hand-line fishing and began to trawl all along our bay, it being the most expeditious mode of fishing ; owing to this practice fish began to be scarcer and scarcer around our shores. Even in Barnstable Bay, and at Proviucetown, where I live, we used to catch fish during the winter ; but now, owing to trawling, no fish are to be found there during the winter, as formerly was the case. Thus trawling has injured that fisbing-ground. Q. Then I understand you to say that this mode of fishing with trawls is iDJiirions ? — A. Yes; to the inshore fisheries. Q. And is it not injurious to the fisheries at large, and are not the mother fish, which will not bite under ordinary circumstances, thus taken ?— A. Well, I suppose that trawls do catch the mother fish — fish with as well as fish without spawn. If the mother fish were not taken, this would increase the number of fish, but we cannot fish in any possi- ble way successfully without diminishing their number; and when we look at the fecundity of the fish and see how wonderful it is Q. If they were not wonderfully plenty, they would not be caught on yonr coast at all. Is it not a very injurious mode of fishing, in your judgment ? — A. Trawls take up the fish from the ground more readily and more rapidly than is the case with hand-lines. Q. Do you really say that, in your judgment, trawling is a proper mode of iishiug ? Speaking as a practical man and as one acquainted with these fisheries, would you recommend the United States Government to permit it ! — A. Well, I do not say but what it would be best to abandon j trawl fishing all round the shore, and i)urseseining, and go back to the I liookand-line business again. I think that this would be the better I plan, on the whole. Q. You say that squid in former years were very plentiful on your oast ?— A. Yes ; they were scarce and afterward plentiful agaiu. I I thiuk that about 1872 or 1873, for two or three years, the squid were very abundant in our waters, and more plentiful than I ever knew them to be at any previous time. In 1807 1 investigated into the habits more particularly of fishes, to prepare myself for the delivery of a course of lectures at the Lowell Institute; but during the whole of that season I jcoiild not see a single squid anywhere about Cape Cod. Q. Did they ever come back again ? — A. Yes ; in 1873 they were more I abundant than I ever knew them to be. Q. Then did they disappear ? — A. Now they have got scarce again. Q. Have you afty idea what has driven them away 1 — A. No, I can- I not form any idea. Q. Haven't you got a fish there that they call the bluefish, which is [very destructive? — A. Yes; they came north of Cape Cod in 1847 and lisarranged our fisheries. Q. And they have come every year since ? — A. Yes. ESI m P^^ 2008 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. You never knew them before 1847? — A. Never north of Cape Cod. Q. Don't they destroy the squid ? — A. They were very destructive to the squid. They depopulated the bay of almost all the fish tlierewas there. Not only that, but they drove the people off away from the vil- lages and from their homes, if I may say so. I was living at Long Pojut Fovincetown, engaged in the mackerel fisheries, as I stated yesterday! We prosecuted that fishery and supported our families, and we lived In what was considered comfortable circumstances, according to a fisher- man's idea, but in 1847 this bluefish made its appearance. I went out one night with a boy and got 1,000 mackerel, which was considered a very good night's work. Next night when I came to haul in the nets I sup- posed I was going to get a good haul, and to my suprise and disappoiut- ment I found two great, long, savage-looking bluefish and some dozen or so of mackerel. Now, the mackerel all went away, and that drove them off. We had 270 of a population on that point, and we moved away family after family. Q. That was the result of the destruction of the fishery. Now they have come there every year since ? — A. Yes. The squid have gradually disappeared year after year. Q. Is it not your opinion A. I was going on to say that the squid diminished and became less and less year after year until 18C7. I did not see a single specimen for the whole summer that I investigated more particularly than any other year. Q. And the squid have come back? — A. Yes ; but they '^re now goiug away again. Q. Have the bluefish not driven them away agf.ia? — A. I do not know about driving them away. The bluefish eat them as quick as they can get hold of them. They will probably drive them away. Q. Is it not likely that the squid would be very plentiful ? — A. They would be more so than they are if there were no bluefish ; there was always squid in my boyhood. Q. In your opinion it necessarily follows that the bluefish have driveu them away ? — A. They have had a great effect upon them. Q. Haven't you stated so in some of your lectures or in addresses in the Massachusetts legislature ? — A. Probably I did. It was true. Q. You used these words — I am now quoting from some remarks I think you made in relation to this matter in the senate chamber on the 19th April, 1870. l^ou say this: But tbe great change tliat has taken place in onr fisheries has been caused by the return of the bluefish. This species was abundant on our coast many years ago, We are informed that in a journal of the first settlement of the island of Nantucket, writtea by Zacheus Macy, 171)5, and contained in the Massachusetts Historical Collectiouje says a great ])estilence attacked the Indians of that island in 170:} and 1705, aud tliat of 358, the whole number, !i22 died. In that year, he says, the bluefish disappeared, and I have no knowledge of a specimen being seen here for more than 70 years. We are informed that they are found in other h)calities. They are said to occui' on the western coast of Africa, around the island of Madagascar, and also at Australia, If 80, they are fonnd over a wider geographical range than any other species witli which I am acquainted, inhabiting the waters in both the torrid and temperate zoues. After an absence of so many years they returned, as appeared in evidence before tlio com- mittee, about 1832, along the shores south of Cape Cod. They did not come north ol the cape 'so as to afi'ect our fisheries until 1847, when they appeared in vast abnmlance i and drove away from onr bay nearly all other sjjecies. I w.as at that time eiifjaged in i fishing for mackerel with nets. This was the last of our catch ; and every year since, when our fishermen are engaged in this fishery, they appear. I have known them to I appear as early as the second day of June, but usually they do not come until a fef | days later — from the 5th to the 15th. When they first appeared in our bay I was liv- ing at Long Point, Provincetown, in a little village containing some 270 population, engaged in the net fishery. The bluefish affected our fishery so much that tlie people were obliged to leave the place. Family after family moved away, until every one left, leaving that locality, which is now a desolate, barren, and sandy waste. )N. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2009 jrth of Cape Cod. jry destructive to ;he fish tliere \Tas tway from the vil- ag at Long Poiut, stated yesterday. 3, and we lived in )rdiDg to a flsUer- le. I went out one considered a very in the nets I sup- se and disappoint- and some dozen or id that drove tbem i we moved away ishery. Now tliey iiid have gradually » say that the squid until 18G7. I did . investigated more they five now going •ill'?— A. I do not sm as quiclc as they m away. ientiful ?— A. They )lue&sh ; there was ueflsh have driveu )hem. or in addresses ia _t was true. in some remarks I ;e chamber on the las been caused by tk many years ago. \Vfl . of Nantucket, wntteu istorical CoUectiou, he •(53 and ITfir), and that bluefish disappeared, )re than 70 years, \Ve said to occur on the . also at Australia. It I her species with whiili emporate zoues. After donee before the corn- did not come north ot vred in vast abundance that time ongased in ; and every year smce, I havekuowu them to | uot come until a m d in our bay I was m- g some 270 population, ^ rmnch that the people | away, until every c sandy waste. I suppose you still indorse this ?— A. That is what I said, and I indorse it word for word. Q. That exists to the present day ? — A. To some extent. The blue- fish are not so plenty of late as in former years. Q. Well, the bluefish is a flsh that preys uot merely upon the squid and other fish used for bait, but upon the mackerel also 1 — A. Yes ; the maderel, menhaden, and others. Q. Talking of menhaden, that is carried on at a very considerable distance from shore at your place ? — A. Yes. Q. How far oflf ? — A. I don't know. They say it is carried on wide off shore, but how far that means I don't know. I should think six, eight, or ten miles they might go. But this is guess-work. Q. Menhaden is an inshore fishery, is it not ? — A. They don't come onshore, as a general thing. They used to come into Provincetowu and stay all summer before the bluefish appeared. Now they drive them off, and we only have them when they are passing in and out. Q. Then, so far as menhaden is a valuable fishery, it is really a high- sea fishery at present ? — A. Well, they have gone up into the mouth of the rivers — they have always been in the habit of doing that — going up where the sea- water is impregnated with fresh water, to some extent. This year they have gone into the Merrimac, at Newburyport. They have gone up the river, and a Newburyport man asked me yesterday what was the cause of so many dying there. It became a perfect nui- sance at Salisbury Point, which is opposite Newburyport. Vessels after vessels have been there to get bait — Cape Ann vessels. The fish have (lied and drifted off along to Salisbury Point. Q. That is something very unusual ? — A. My impression is that they were driven up by the bluefish. I asked him what there was following them, lie said there were bluefish off the coast. Besides that there is a horse-mackerel, which is a great enemy of the menhaden. Thoy kept the menhaden in, and the fresh water killed them. Q. Your own opinion was that this was an extraordinary incursion of menhaden in consequence of their being pressed by the bluefish ? — A. I say they were kept up by the bluefish and horse-mackerel, and so they have been kept up in other places in the same way. I think the reason they died was because the water was fresh. Q. All I want to know is, whether the menhaden has not become a deep-sea fishery apparently, and whether the fish are not driven away from their proper haunt by the bluefish into waters where they cannot live?— A. It has been the case this summer. Q. Otherwise you agree that this is a deep-sea fishery ? — A. That is, i outside of three miles. Q. And it has been so for some years 1 — A. They have been going farther off. Q. Don't the fishermen allege that the purse-seine destroys the men- [hadeutoo? — A. It is just the same as the maclierel fishery. They use these purse-seines, and have steamers, and carry on the business to au I enormous extent. Q. It is used as well for oil as for bait? — A. Yes. Q. Have you au oil-mill ? — A. Xo ; not of tiiat kind. Mine is cod- I liver-oil. Q. All tlie fish I think have very much decreased along the coast of jMassaehu-setts of late years ? — A. I do not think the fish taken, on the j^hole, are so plentiful as t'>ey used to be. I think there has been a I diminution within eight years in almost every kind. Q. You delivered an address, didn't you, before the senate of the 2010 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Bhode Island legislature in the January session of 1872 ?— A. Yes, I think so. Q. You used this lanpiage, I think — I read from an "Abstract of an address by Capt. Nathaniel E. Atwood in opposition to legislation, be- fore the senate committee of Hhode Island legislature, January .session 1872:" We find upon examination that changes take place in a series of years in tlie great category of tislies fur which we can assign no reason. In Massaohnsetls Bay ami alun|r the coast of our State the kinds of tlsh are not the same to-day that they wore in tlio days of our boyhood. Those that were most abundant then have sutlered great dimi- nution and sometimes have totally disappeared perhaps never to return ; while otljer varieties have perhaps after gradually diminishing mure and mure fur a series of yoais, increased again and become as abundant as before. Other 8i)ecio8 have coiiu' aiiioii;' us that were utterly unknown in our youthful years. Q. These statements you still indorse ? — A. I think so. Yes. Chanj[c,s are constantly taking place. Q. When you fished in the Bay St. Lawrence for mackerel it was an inshore fishery, was it not ? — A. The Bay St. Lawrence ? Some tislied inshore, I think. We fished within three miles at Magdalen Islaiuls- the greatest part of our fishing. il. You don't wish ns to understand that Magdalen Islands is the only place where they came within three miles? — A. No. Q. I suppose the habits that fish exhibit there they exhibit elsewhere as well? — A. I suppose so. I think the mackerel come inshore at I'rincc Edward Island and down the northern part of Cape Breton Island, and in the Strait of Canso — they pass through that in migrating off the coast — that is, part of them do. (J. At Sydney is not that an inshore fishery too? — A. I suppose they come inshore there. The other side of Scatarie, at Loulsbnrg, I have harbored there. They had some nets, the people that belonged there, and they caught some very fine mackerel in September. ' Q. Did you ever pursue the mackerel fishing at any time in your life on the American coast in boats ? — A. No, not to any great extent besides netting. Q. Did you take them within three miles ? — A. Yes, some, and some farther oft". We have a bay from our town to Barnstable and Plymoutli, twenty one miles broad. If we are half way across we are ten miles oil. Well, we fish very close to the shore there, and we drift anywhere and everywhere that we can catch mackerel. Q. In those days it was an inshore fishery ? — A. It was so far as that netting was concerned, and then around in Provincetown Harbor. Q. Those that were taken with hook and line were taken withiu three miles in those days ? — A. We used to catch some also outside, and most of our mackerel-fishing in vessels we caught outside of three miles. Q. That is of late years ? — A. O ! it used to be so too. Sometimes we would go very close inshore, or sometimes we would be half way off to Cape Ann ; that is twenty-five miles, and we would fish away out to Mount Desert and Cashes Ledges. I have been for mackerel one sum- mer in a small vessel, and we took where we could not see the land even on a clear day. I did see Mount Desert, that was very high, and you could see it a good way off. Q. Y'^ou are aware, of course, of the years over which the Reciprocity | Treaty run ? — A. I am pretty well aware of it ; I know when it termi- nated, and I think it lasted eleven years ; it terminated in 186G. I ms | sent as a delegate to Washington when it was abrogated. Q. To get it renewed again ? — A. No ; I went there because we were | a fishing place, and they thought it their duty to send a delegate there. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2011 Q. Did the fishermen consider the Reciprocity Treaty a benefit at jlH— A. Well, I do not know bat they did at that time. Different rjews are entertained of these things. Q. What did they say about it in Boston ?— A. I do not know. We (lidu't participate very much in the bay fishery. All that we had unl': 'W''., 2014 AWAltD OP TIIK FISIIEUY COMMISSION. Q. Tl'on, I iindoi'Htiind yon inu your last voyaso, with dio ox. ccption of your own inuntMli«.(»i locality, in 1851 if — A. I liavo iicvim' hfioD in tin' waters oast of (lapo Hablo m\M\ that. 1 lout uiy vosncI tlicn and wii wtMit homo and built a n«i\v vossol, in wliicli I took part and went halibut llsliin^' in tho spring, and for niackorel in (ho tirst .siniuniM' JSoxt soastvn we wont for halibut wo woro all tho spring and all MioHiim uior on tho Nantuckot HhoaKs and Ooor^o's, and ono t iino wo oiiiiio ddwn and tlshod olV Woal iHhuul fjround, just vvostward of Sind Islnnd, und got two trips, thai wo carried to Nt>w York. On that occasion wo saw tho tow or of tho lifjht-houso of iSoal Island, but, if I roinonibor rif,'lit, I cor.id iu>t SCO tho lij;lit whon it wiis lit. Thou 1 wont on our own coast i>\?r since. Q. All I want to know is this, whothor you had any pracMiial cxin'- rionco or knowlodfjo in rol'oronco to tfio llshorios, except in your iiiwiic. diato neijfhborhood, sint-o IS."»1 ; that is a siinplo «piostion. In otlior wortls, have yon carried »tn llsliinf; yourself personally since! isr>l, <>xc,(>|)t in the iinnietliato noit;hborliooi', except in those two trips to Seal Island. Tho rest I have been on tliii coast of MassachnsottH. Kor ton years, from 185(5 to I8(!(>, I had » little snuick with a well in iutr, and my boys nmdo a crow, and wo iislud around Capo Cod and my own homo. I have (IsIumI and boujj;ht (i.sh. ij. 'i'hen all tho ovidonco you have boon {•'iviuf' relative to tiiccod tlshery and tho mackerel since 1851 has boon simply wiiat you liuvo heard from others? — A. What I have hoard and known from otliors. i). VVlmt you have heard from others; that in the case, is it iiot?- A. Well, when 1 relate anything;: Q. 1 certainly wish ;,ou to answer yea or no. — A. Well, wo say wo don't know anything unless wo soo it. Is that so? (,>. I Hhoidd say. — A. You say so. if you juoan to take it in that I'glit you understand that I don't know that the royal mail-steamors <;o to Kngliind. I luive novt»r boon there; but I have a desire to go, and 1 hope 1 may, for 1 want to see tho l<]astorn VVt)rld. But I considi^r I know just al)out as much of ivhat 1 ha\'0 stated about tho (irand Bank lisliory here as 1 know about tho royal nuiil. Q. I have no doubt you boliovo what you have stated ? — A. I do; and I have boon trying in my own humble way to do sonu>thing in the inter- est of tho tishorios in tho lectures 1 luivo given from tiujc to time. I have «'ollected statistics, and got a good deal together that I consider pertV^ctly rv'liable. Q. Y'oj have perfect eontidenco in what has been told yon ? — A. When I see a vessel lit out with 1*00 hogslioa. Well, in your day, when you went to the Banks, there wa.s uotliing but salt ciam bait used ? — A. That is all. (^). ^Vel!, is salt clam bait used now, or is it frozen bait ?-~A. Salt bait is still used. (^. Do you knov no bait except that used by your lisherinou ?— A, They use squid wi.en they go into Newfoundland. Q. Ihvvc you Seeti informed of any other bait they use?— A. They use all the bin'.o they can get, and Bank clams taken frmu the stounicli of fish. Q. Clauis, birds, and squid. Is there any other baio?— A. Well. I feel coi.tident our lisheiuieu don't use any other. When I wcottotue Bank the Marblebead tishermeu (that was the great fishing port then), AWARD OF THE FIHIIKUY COMMISSION. 2015 er baio?— A. WdU VVheii I wrnttotiie eat flsliiug port tben), they told mo they carriiMl (at nuuikor*'! No 1 for Imit ; but vn", didn't (.jury tliut. I don't think Ihcco in any um«kait UNcd by your llHiier- iiiOiM'.\<^<'|>t l)iith«,d to an (MKurnows extent. Q. Tlicso hcrrinjn aro taken (uit, I belicv*!, in the IVozi'-ii stafeand usod fitvsii. 'I'lu'.y aril not Nall,«dl? — A. No; they arc Iro/eu. In answering \ima while aj^'o that. I «ll(b»'t know of any otiier baits beiinars aj^o. Q. The lu^vt year yiuir peojile took less salt elanis, and they found ii\w\ on the IbiiikK ? — A. Yes. Q. The followiuff year tlu^y took no salt elauis and they foutnl no squid tlii'io. Can you account for that ? — A. 1 ean, in the same way that I .I'Tiiuiit hu' the increase and diminution of any kind of tish. TJie H(]uid wiiii'tinies increase anW»W| .1 >" ' i: ;^i 2016 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Did you see a paragraph in the paper that the American fleet was blocking up St. John Harbor? — A. I didn't see it. Q. They want considerable bait ? — A. Our vessels have clams aud do not want anything from Newfoundland. Q. The Grand Bank is a very short distance, I think, about 33 miles- is it not a very great convenience for them to run into Newfomulland and get thife bait? — A. Well, if they didn't have to lose too much time, I know there is an indncement wbeie a vessel is out on the Banks, ex- posed to the buffeting of the storms, to go into a snug harbor. I know it is very comfortable. Then again they all find things on shore that they don't carry in their vessels. They have all kinds of men in our vessels ; they are not all temperate men, though some of them are very good men. Q. Do you mean to say that the captains of all your vessels are dis- honest men ; that they would leave their lawful vocations aud go into harbor in the way you speak of? — A. No, sir; but their auxiliaries. There are a good many things that influence them. Where you have a vessel out on the Banks, exposed to fogs and storms, it is a great rest to them to come in. They can come ashore and go around. Q. Well, I put the question to you straightly on your oath. Mr. Dana remarks that the last expression is uncalled for. Mr. Whiteway. I put the question to you straightly. Is it not a v- great advantage for these vessels to get their bait upon tlie coast or I Newfoundland, the Grand Banks being in such close proximity .'—A. I think these vessels, if they took the other mode, would do better ontlie] whole than now. I think they have learned a lesson by which you wi have less vessels in there in future than you have now. Q. You mean that it is more advantageous for a vessel to go from tljel Grand Banks to the coast of the United States than to go to the coast of Newfoundland? — A. No; by no means. I mean to say thattliey will cairy bait with them sufficient to catch their cargo without going la | anywhere. Q. You think it would be better for them to take all the bait tbey re- quire?— A. Y'es. Q. To make their voyage and return ? — A. Our vessftls prove to have j done best that have done so. Q. That would be salted bait? — A. Salted clams. In going in tbevj lose their time, whereas the other way they get fish all the time. Q. Then you think the salt bait is preferable ? — A. No. Q. You think tho fresh is best? — A. I think the fresh squid is best,| but they lose a great deal of time going i?'. Q. Notwithstanding that the fresh bi'it is best, you think it would be) far better for them to use salt clams ? — A. I think if they would use t salt bait, and stay there and fish every day that the weather permits-l and it permits most every day — it would be better. Q. But if they were fishing with fresh bait, as that is better than I salt bait could not they make more trips during the season ? Tlieyl would catch fish quicker ? — A. Our folks only go for one trip. Q. Yoiu vessels only make one trip ? — A. Only one. Q. Have you ever heard of none that go a second time ? — A. I liavel known them going, but make a failure. The first vessel that couiej| back this season is laid alongside cf the wharf and not sent back. have kuown them go twice and make a good fair voyage on the secouilj trip, but 1 have knowti a good many bad voyages. Q. Have you ever known of three trips ? — A. I have never kuown a| third trip to be made since I arrived at manhood. v> ON. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2017 Linerican fleet was lave clams and do ik, about 35 miles; ito New foil lull and 3se too much time. on the Banks, ex- g harbor. I know ngs on shore tbat ids of men in oiir le of them are very lur vessels are dis- ations and go into r auxiliaries. There e you have a vessel i great rest to theui Four oath, jailed for. tly. Is it not a v* 1 1 ; upon the coast . e proximity .'—A . . uld do better on the n by which you will lOw. I ressel to go from tk \n to go to the coast! an to say thattbey ^rgo without goingitt all the bait they re- essftls prove to have j s. In goiiigintbey] all the time. k. No. , fresh squid is best. ou think it would be if they would use the e weather permit.<- at is better than thel the season ? Tbeyj >r one trip, me. , d time?— A. Iliavei it vessel that comesi ud not sent hack. I Oi age on the secoiulr have never known a Q. Do you think it impossible that, with the facility of obtaining fresb bait on the coast of NewfouJidland — do you think your bankers toiild not make three trips, considering the facility of getting tlie fresh bait, and the superiority of that to the salt bait '/—A. The fresh is bet- ter tlian the salt, but I think they could not make three trips, or even two, with any degree of assurance. Those V( s.sels that carried salt bait enough to get a full fare, anil staid there and got a full fare, would be siitisfled. I know a man, my own neighbor, who has two large vessels that he titted with hand lines, and the other he sent with trawls, de- pending upon going to Newfoundlanil for fresh bait. Q. Don't all those vessels on the Grantl Bank fish with trawls ' — A. lyo. We have forty-eight bankers engaged in that business this year. Thirty of them are engaged in trawl-ti.«shing, and eighteen are hand-line I tisbiug:. Q, You know that of your own knowledge ? — A. I know that. (). Do you know it of your own knowledge ? — A. I didn't watch them Ito.^ee that there were no trawls, but I am just as well .satisfied. Q. Well, it is ;i novelty to me to hear that there is a single vessel car- Irrni.""" fishing on the Grand Banks unless by trawLs. — A. Such is the alt eighteen of these vessels go without trawls. This man own- ir;; these vessels expects two large ones to come home with full fares. I He expects the tni wli ng-vessel that has been twice to Newfoundland fur bait to <'om< li< '• with a sliort tare. She was in at St. Peters on lltli August and the 27th August, and on the 27th he wrote home H iiailn't any squid yet, but hoped to have some. \), i)o I understand you to .say liiat when an owner sends his vessel Ito *he Grand Bank, with the privilege oi' going to the coast of New- Ifoiindland for ln.ii;. he h)oks forward to her coming back with a short Icatch?— A. ^Viij irawU (J. Well, that, as a matter of fact, when an owner sends hi.^ vessel to [the Banks, with the privilege of calling in at Newfoundland lor bnit, llie expects her to come back with a short catch? — A. No; I do not wish llobeso understood. I wish to say that this man expects his hand-line [vessels to do the best. il Well, tht'ij, hand-line fishing is the most productive? — A. Taking Itbem tojiether as a whole, from the whole effect this year and last year, lit has Iteeii the best. The hand-line has proved better thai; fl!c trawl average. Q. Well, how is it, then, that this trawling is .so generally adopted if Itlieiitber is more productive? — A. if you will ask me why these 30 ves- 'Isare engaged for trawl-tishing and why they do not altogether hook isb, I will tell jou the reason. I'lie ves.sel is owned by a certain man ^ra certain number of men. They ship a ciaptain 'o go in her. May be ibe i.s jjoing to run the whole voyage and hire liie crew, with, at the i)oi-S t^ 2018 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ips ie- siderable difference. 1 don't know what tbey pay the men. Perh some of them pay by the run. Q. I don't want " perhaps." — A. Then I will say I don't know. cause I don't know what they ^ive their men ; I never inquired. Q. Is it not extraonlinary that you will state positively th.it the cr.»ff.s of those ditferent vessels — one is cheaper than the other — when you really don't know what wages are paid ? — A. I don't know what waires are paid, but 1 know if you have men qualitied tor dories you will puy higher wages than when you can take a number of green hands. I know they take some green hands at a cheaper rate. Q. At all events you admit that trawl-fishing is very much ujore pro- ductive than hook and line fishing? — A. Well, it is productive Q. Is it, or is it not, more productive? Mr. liANA. Let the witness answer. Mr. Whiteway. Is it more productive generally than hook and line? — A. Well, I should say yes, in some localities. But I have been talking about our vessels going to I?ewfoun,| sir. Q. To ascertain as to the advantage of going to the coast of New- foundland to obtain bait ? — A. Well, 1 don't know that I can say just that, because 1 knew just as much about that before going to them. I went to the owners to see whether they i)referred their going in, and hoif chey felt about all these things. Q. When did you go ?— A. The date ? Q. About what date? — A. All along August. Xot every day, biit| several times. 1 went iu the month of August and interviewed the owners of our vessels. Q. Preparatory to coming here and giving evidence '■. — A. Yes Q. Vou saw them all ? — A. Every one. Q. Have you a list of the names of the vessels? — A. a list of the names of the vessels that can be produced. Q. Have you a list of the names of the owners ? — A. a list of the names of the owners. Q. (Jan you give it ? — A. You take tbe names of the vessels am will give you the names of the owners. Q. I want a list of the owners of the vessels. Would you favor n with it ' — A. I haven't it in luy possession. I have brouglii Xo : 1 have noil AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2019 le men. Peilmps questiou nowkfore Q. Can yon raako it np from memory ? — A. I could. Q. I should like to have the names of these owners. By Mr. Foster : Q. Haven't I a list of tlie vessels and captains ? — A. You haven't a list of tlie captains. You have a list of the vessels and their tonnage. All those tiiat went to Newfoundland that we know of up to Septem- ber!. By Mr. Whiteway : Q, I simply wanted to get a lis of the vessels from Provincetowa. jlliereare only, I think — how many on the Banks ? — A. There are forty- I eigbt. B.v Mr. Foster : Q. Those vessels are owned, some of them, in thirty-second parts ?^ [a. In sixteenths and eighths. Q. A good many men own them ? — A. In the first place, here is an loiitlitter. He keeps a store. By Mr. Whiteway : Q. Confine yourself to the simple facts. These vessels you say are loffued l»y several parti s. They vary between what numbers of owners ? \-L Many of those are owned in part by Boston owners. Q. Each of tho.se vessels is owned by a great number of parties ? — A. |Xi)t all of them ; some haven't many owners. Q. Otiiers have a great many! — A. Others quite a number. Q. Varying between how many? Between sixteen and thirty-two? — IXo: I won't say that. They vary between half a dozen and sixteen, and Isonie more than sixteen. Q. Well, now, have you been to all those owners ? You said you had llieeii to the owners of those vessels. Have you been to all those owners 'i l-A. 'So. Now I was careless when I maile that statement. I should have made that statement. I should have said the agents. There night be a hnndred and lifty owners, sonje in Boston and some in New JOiieaii.s. Jf you will have the kindness to pardon me, we get accus- poiiied to speaking of the agents as the owners. Q. Yon went down to the ships' husbands ? — A. Yes. Q. Give the names of the agents. — A. What ship shall I give you ? [It is agreed, to save time, witness shall furnish a list.) Q. Now, do I understand you to say this, that all these agents ex- jiressed themselves opposed to the Orand Hank fishing- vessels going to pe coast of Newfoundland for bait ? — A. I do not witih to be understood say that they all had conversation on that subject. Several of them Bid oppose it, and nobody, that 1 heard, approved of it as agents of the hssels. They appf^ared to think there was no advantage. They didn't k'xpress themselves; several did. They talked to me and said we had ather our vessels did not go in. <>'. How iiKiny agents arc there, in round numbers.' — A. I supi)ose, ttliaps, liulf as many agents as ves.sels. M How many is that? — A. 48; half of that would be 24 That is piewwoik. however. It mav not be more than 'J3. [','. Now, how many of these 21 agents expressed themselves as op- '^wl to the vessels going into Newfoundland for bait t — A. I do not glitly remember the number. I cannot say. *i You cannot answer. Caw sou tell approximately? I will ask you Pii" Can you name one individual who exi)ressed himself as opposed j::* :i-M^^ 2020 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION, to those Bank-flahing vessels going into Newt'oundUuul ? — A. Ilenrv Cook ; he was one. Q. How many vessels is he agent for ? — A. I think five. Q. You don't retneniber the name of any other? — A. Yes, I do; I'hiliii A. Waugh. Q. Who else ?— A. L. N. Payne. Q. Is he here? — A. No; his brother is. When I speak of (lirt'cront persons as agents, I refer to those who act as such, and who f^uve nie information. I do not know whose name may appear in the piipemt the customhouse. Mr. Payne is one of a firm who are agents. Q. Is he here ?— A. No. Q. Do you know of any other? — A. Francis Joseph. Q. He told you the same thing? — A. Yes. He is not here. Q. Is there, any other? — A. 1 don't think of any others — [ don't think of any others I had any long conversation with. Q. No, but I mean auy others who told you this? — A. Well, 1 won't state any other names. Q. You don't remember any other names than those four oiu oi tweiity-four ? — A. 1 don't know about the twenty-four. Q. WeH, you say twenty-three or twenty-four? — A. I don't want to contine myself to twenty three or twenty-four, and I guess at tliat. Q. Well, out of all the agents. Some have four or five vessels!— A, Some. Q. Those are the only ones you can remember as having so expressed | themselves? — A. I don't remember any others that I had conversation j with about that. Q. In your conversation with them, you being strongly impressed! with the objection to these vessels going into the coast of Newfound- land for bait, did you not, in the first instance, tell them that sucii was the case, and impress them that such was the case? — A. I was not op posed to their going into Newfoundland for bait at all ; not a bit of it. Q. But were you strongly impressed that going into the coast ofl Newfoundland was disadvantageous to them? — A. I thought it was, on] the whol'», with their mode of fishing. Q. And you were strongly of that opinion ? — A. That was my opiu ion ; I don't wish to deny it. Q. You are looked upon in Provincetowu as a very high autiioritviul regard to fisheries ? — A. I don't know about that. Q. You hold a high position there in connection with questions con- cerning the fisheries ? — A. 1 have had some experience in fishing, and l| don't know but that they give me a fair amount of respect. Q. You ai'e looked upon as a high authority there as regards tisli-j eries? — A. Well, I suppose so. Q. What yon state upon any point concerning the fisheries is aluiostj conclusive in the minds of those to whom you are speaking"? — A. FisliinjJ from an industrial and commercial point of view is one thing, andfromj a natural historj' point of view is another thing. Q. Has not your opinion great iufiuence among the common jjeoplel concerning the fisheries? — A. I guess I should have as much intiucmej in those matters as almost anybody. I don't hold myself up to be mor^ than other men. Men who own vessels and carry on fishing— I douV own vessels and don't carry on fishing — know more about the busiuess| commercially and practically than I uo. Q. What you say as regards questions concerning the fisheries i entitled to be received as the factf — A. You have asked me a questionj that I could not answer — I believe 1 did not answer it — as to how tarn AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2021 That was my opiu- ;rv high uuiiiorityiuj owners give their crews as wages. Now, there are men coming here who are owners of vessels at Provincotown, and who know how much they give the men. Q. I suppose you are not prepared to say that yonr opinion on any question connected with the tisheries is not looked upon in Province- town with great respect? — A. I don't want to give it out to the people that I know a great deal. Q. But as a fact you do ? — A. If they accord that to me I feel they have paid a compliment. Q, They do accord it to you, and you feel it a compliment ? — A. If they accord it to me they exalt me. Q. You are aware, from information, that a largo number of American vessels fishing on the Grand Banks do go into the coast of Newfound- laud to obtain bait? — A. Yes; I believe they do. I have had no per- sonal participation in it. Q. Did it never appear to you as singular that, if it was disadvan- t, jjeous to the conduct of the fishery for them to do so, they sliould do so, and go on increasing in numbers l — A. 1 know when tiiose vessels go away they leave with the hope of llnuiiig sijuid on the JJanks. In tL. event of their not finding them they necessarily go to Newfoundland for bait. It is only a few years since they began to go there. Q. But is it not singular that they should, in such large numbers, go there, if it is disadvantageous for them to go there if — A. They won't prosecute it very long if it is so. Q. You say the number has been increasing and the greatest number was there last year ; if it was disadvantageous, was it not singuhir tliat they should so go there? — A. Looked at in that way it would be; but Ihave given the reasons why they go. Q. You have given the reasons for forming your opinion ? — A. I have said that they get a chea[>er crew, and hope to tind bait on the Q. You have given reasons for your opinion ? — A. Yes. Q. But the practical effect is different from your <:Lieory or opinion. Is that the case ? — A. It would seem so in that respect. I have stated what I conscientiously believe to be the cause of their going to Newfound- land—a cheaper crew and hope of getting squid on the Ba:iks. Q. You state that as your candid belief? — A. It is mj candid belief hat there lies the inducement. Q. You have stated that you knew of only one man who had refitted I his vessels off the coast of the Dominion and carried on the Bank fish- ery from thence. You referred to a man at St. Peter's? — A. Yes, lo- 1 acted at St. Peter's. Q. Who made an arrangement to send five vessels to the Grand [ Banks ? Will you name the individual ? — A. Henry Cook. Q. la what year was that ? — A. In 1874:, 1 think. I am not posi- Itive. Q. Are you not aware of any others ? — A. I know of no others who [have attempted that locating to carry on the Bank fishery. Q. Have you heard of the American who has establislied a place of Ibusiness at St. Mary's, on the south coast of Newfouutlland, to carry on jtheBank fishery? — A. No; I don't know who lie is. Q. There may be a great many so established without your knowing |of them ?— A. There may be a great number. It is a large field. Q. Have you ever heard of three so established at Magdalen Islands? — jA. No; I don't know who they are. I know this much in regard to jMagdaleii Islands, that last year some persons went there and built a ^iMl ^.i.^l 2022 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. little shanty and set mackerel-nets, and are now prosecutiiifi tlic m^. fishing there. They went last year and did not do anything, and liav. ing the fishing-gear they went tliis year, but I don't kuow wiiat the result will be. 1 want to state this because they beloU'-f to my own toMn. Q. Is it not singular that they should follow an unprolitable IjiisiiiC'^s a second year ? — A. No ; not in lishing. Q. Would you do so ? — X. Here is the inducement: A man gotvs into the fishery business, and gets ai>paratus to work witli, wiiich co.sts iiioikm, and he i)rosecutes the lishery, but makes a failure that year. He has all the gear left on which he spent hundreds of dollars, and ojily hoimIs to spend a little to replace some articles, so he tries again and hoid'sfor better luck. That is the way with fishermen. Q. Would they go three, four, five, or six years if unsuccessful ?— A, If they don't do anything this year they may wind up. Half a dozen went last year and have gone again this year. What the future will be with them I don't know. Q. Is it not a fair conclusion to arrive at, that their business was profitable last year, as they have gone again this year? — A. Xo. I know it was not profitable last year from the quantity of fish they caught and brought in ; they would hardly pay their expenses. Q. Is it in accord with the American acuteneas and keenness in busi- ness to follow up a business that is unprofitable ? — A. Men are iiotac customed to follow a business that is unprofitable, but a second year might be tried. These men went with good faith last year, and they said mackerel did not come. I will give you the reason why the mack- erel did not come. The ice remained in the gulf last year very late. hence the water was colder than it would have been under ordinary cir- cumstances. When the ice went away the mackerel did not come in, as was expected. The ice went away earlier this season, and men have done better. Q. That is another result from what you have heard ? — A. I heard all about that. I did not go there. Q. Did I understand you correctly that your people had not carried on mackerel-fishing profitably since i873 ; is that the case ? — A. On our coasts ? Q. In the gulf? — A. They have not made any profit in fishing in the gulf for mackerel since 1873. All the fishing there has been pour. Q. Nor on your own coasts ? — A. On our own coasts it has not been a successful and lucrative business. Our fleet has been gradually diniiu- ishing. Q. Do you consider it strange that from the commencement of the operation of the Washington Treaty the mackerel fishery should iiave been unsuccessful ? — A. I don't thiuk the mackerel know aiiytliiiig about the Washington Treaty, but those who went there years before] the Washington Treaty went into effect caught 201 barrels on an aver age — those were three vessels which went there — and since we have Lad the right to fish inshore they have not averageil anywhere near as many. That statement 1 gave in on paper in my remarks yesterday. By Mr. Thomson : Q. I was speaking to you about mackerel ; are you aware that in llie| opening of the year, as they come on the coast they are blind .'—A. 1 know tlie fishermen have got the notion that they are bliiul, tbattliey have scales over the eyes. Q. Do you agree witli that idea? — A. They compute it to ln^ because | they don't bite ; but I don't think that is the reason they don't bite, )N. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2023 *eciitiiig the net- lythius, iniil liav- I't know wiial ihc eloii3 to iiiv own rolitable bnsiiicvs A iniiii ji'oi^s into ■Inch (!Of>ls iii(»iH'\, lat year. lie lins s, and only iiei.'ds ^aiu and Im)[»i'.s tor unsuccessful '/—A. \\). Halt' a dozen t the future will be [leir bu-siness was year?— A. No. I ,ntity of tish they expenses. 1 keenness in busi- \.. Men are not ac- but a second year ist year, and tbey son why the mack- ist year very late. under ordinary cir- did not come in, as SOU, and men bare d ?— A. I heard all e had not carried case?— A. On our fit in fishing in the uis been poor, ts it has not beeu a i\ gradually dimiu- inenceinent of tlie ishery should liavt 1 know anytliiiig there years before barrels On an aver I since weliaveluul here near as many. ssterday. u aware that in tlie| y are blind ?— A. iiVe blind. Miattlu'y| ite it tob(' beoiiii^'M they don't bite. Q. Did you ever examine the flsh ?— A. I have examined the lish and seen a membrane partly over the eyes, but I did not think that was the reason why they did not bite. Q. I only want to know whether they are blind in that manner i — A. l.lon't believe they are Idind. Q. Would you undertake to swear th(>y are not blind :' — A. T would not swear so, but the evidence of what 1 have seen convinees me that they are not blind. If you will allow me to explain: We put nets out ami drift with tiiem in tlie bay. A vessel may try with hook and line and luny not catch any, and therefore say the mackerel are blind l)ecause of a membrane partially over their eyes. I have (!ast nets out, and by and by we have seen mackerel rise to the top of tlie water, and have not £:f>t any ; but after it begius to grow dark they run riglit into the nets. By Mr. Foster : Q. Is it a gill-net? — A. Yes. It looks to me as if at first they saw the net. By Mr. Tliomson : Q, Then you swear that the film does not blind the fish ? — A. I don't think it makes them blind. Q. It moves off in course of time ? — A.. It moves off some. I never nnticed how much. Q. If you have not examined them closely you would not put your opinion against the opinions of those who have examined them ? — A. Xo. If any one has examined them closely, anil I presum; soma have, and beeu convinced that such is the fact, that the membrane goes off, I would say nothing against it. Q, In speaking of the blueflsh before the .senate committee of the 'Rhode Island legislature, at its January session in 1872, ^ ou are reported to have said : 111 Proviiicetowii Harbor, from a vory oarly period until the liorio-maclvornl iiiado its appeiiiance, the fish called "whiting" wai iiniiieiisely .abuiidiiiit. Siiioo the horse- mackurel has appeared they have been gradnally driven out. and now a speoimeu is ki'illy ever seen. The horse-mackerel has driven out a s[reat many kinds of flsh, for itistlio avowed enemy of every siteoies it can master. These fish lirst appeared south of Cape Cod about the year iSWi. I was thirty years old before I saw a 8i)ecimon. Filially they found their way into our harbor, and oouiidetHly destroyed the mackerel feliery lor a time, and even now render it uearlj' nnprolitable. Q. Did you not make that statement? — A. I did not make any such statement. The flsh called blueflsh in L7G4 disappeared from there after the India,ns all died. We call it blueflsh at Provineetown ; it formerly had little or no marketable value. It is known by different local names in different places. It is called blueflsh in Massachusetts and along Connecticut shore. It is known as h()rseina(!kerel ou the shores of Rhode Island, and the blueflsh is horse-mackerel. Instead of reporting what I said they put instead of blueflsh horse-ma(tkerel. I never said horse-mackerel drove the whiting away. If yon go do^'n to Che.sapeake Bay you will And they call it tailor. Q. I am not asking you about the nature of rhe flsh, but whether you iiiaile use of the language reported. — A. I said blueflsh drove them I away, and they have reported me as saying horse mackerel, because j they call blueflsh horse-mackerel there; it is the same flsh precisely. Q. Then the only trouble is that the reporter lias put you down as Mayini; that horse-mackerel drove the whiting away, whereis you say you said it was blueflsh? — A. I said it was blueflsh, and blueflsh did it. :.''!"■ 'H'] .:''!;! '*-■ _. laaitoKfci.. . ; i' • '■ ' ■'■'^W- ■"■]\i ■■ J-'''**''R'^WiJl I ' P^i^'!\ji^t4i||l 'it^' i ' ''%^nli'if*^^%- -]n ' 'Pl^l^-»l'll^^ m JV' I « »^^ iL^ V ^5«tti^HH ' fr*'? ^^^'Siln^^W ' ■ t ^Ira^M ■' '*' ■ ( IpllMI -.m^!:y the whiting ami he iie fish away, Imt it siinie occasion— ,11111 into Proviiicetinvii [ hiive not Hccn a simi- fmh Ciune, anil lii'('(iii':t ijrlaiid waters. I think They are remly t(i tjt rive tilinost everytliiu;;. to be ponnitted to that I had made a meant fully-grown !OU»mon fuUygrowi; erei, but are called t has totally ilisap- of Boatoii and New my boyhood. It is, lerel very similar to! ue of Spanish mack- mackerel that orili- ish has disappeared 20 for a specimeu.- Spanish mackerel I a very choice food them New England . We have caught j species of tunny .'- it long, and I sLould I't make use of it for spoken of in New erel and referred to 5h) under the name ;n fresh?— xV. It is AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2025 -A. I don't Unow wliere tiiey went. Tliey canie back after a lonj? time. Q. That disajjpeared for a generation, for sixty years and more, from the New Enghmd shores f — A. Ves. Q. That is the bluetish which is now so voracious ? — A. Yes. Q. It attacks mackerel, menhaden, and any other lish of the kind '.— A. Yes. Q. Still it is a valuable lish when fresh ?— A. It sells pretty well. Q. Are not menhaden, mackerel, and squid taken in large quantities in weirs and pounds on the coast of Massachusetts ami ditl'erent places, siiy south of (Jape Cod ? — A. Ves; they catch a good many mackerel in piiiuds about Monomoy Point and some other places. I don't know to what amount. Q. They take menhaden in the same way f — A. Yes, Q. And squid in the same way ? — A. Yes. Q. When you have spoken of the increase or decreases «if lish, did you refer to the absolute quantity of lish in existence or only to the relative increase or decrease in i)articular localities? — A. In particular locali- ties; for over this immense area 1 don't know. Q. When you say the bluetish disapi)eared for sixty years from the Massachusetts coast, you don't mean us to understand that it had be- come less numerous in the world '!- Q. And they came back ? — A. Q, (lenerally the habits of Hsh are so uncertain you cannot ac«;()unt for their appearance in or disappearance from certain localities; is not that the case with mackerel and squid and all those varieties of ocean lish?— A. That is the case with all varieties of ocean Hsh. Q. Take this particular 8|)eech that has been quoteut water. At present not more than 11 feet can he cahuilated upon at H. W., spring-tides; Imi strong N. E. winds will sometimes raise the water a foot higher. The tides are verr irregular at curtain seasons. A stranger bound to this port must always take a pilot ; in flue weather ymi may j anchor outside, in 5 or G fathoms, in bottom sand. In easterly gales the bar U covcreil by a line of breakers. The channel, from one bar to the other, and between sands only covered by a ('•■» feet, is 100 fathoms wide, with anchorage in '2^ and 1)^ fathouts; the best berth is just outside the entrance, where the sands dry on each side. When inside the hurburtbi' vessels generally load at a wharf. Q. Those are the two best harbors on the north side of the island?- 1 A. Yes; there are several other smaller harbors like New Loudon and [ Tracadie. Q. So far as you have known, have there been more shipwrecks at Prince I Edward Island, or at Magdalen Islands i — A. Well, I think most of our AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2027 tisbing vessels, since I have known the gnlf, have been lost at Prince Edward Island. There were several lost in 1873 at the Magdalen Islands. Q, You were asked as to the efforts made by the ditl't^rent classes of DslierimMi in New England in regard to obtaining the Ueciprocity Treaty and petitioning for the remission of the duty on tish. Do yon happen to know the grounil taken by the fishermen of Massachusetts with refjiml to the Washington Treaty some years after?— A. No; I don't know. Q. The general ground you took, when you went as a delegate, on the question of the Ueciprocity Treaty was, that you were not willing to have the codfishernvm pay so much for so little good to the mack- ereleis? — A. We were largely cod-fisheriuen, and we did not want to pay for the mackerelnien tishing inshore; it seemed like paying another man's debts. Q. Are there any mackerel which go from the provinces to Province- town, which would be reinspected there f — A. I never knew but one cargo brought there, which was about four years ago. Q. With regard tc the comparative profitableness of a (;odfishing voyage with hatid-lines, aiul one with trawls to the Banks, do you ad- here to the opinion that the more profitable voyages on the average are those made with the hook and line T — A. I think they have done the best of liite. 1 think that taking the tonnage of the hand-line fisher- men, they will bring in more tisb than the tonnage of the trawl-fisher- men. By Mr. Whiteway : Q. In yonr speech made before the senate, before the Rhode Island senate (iommittee in 1870, you said, when speaking of squid, "It seems to be nearly exterminated in the waters north of Cape Cod, only a few being seen." Do you say that is the case now ! — A. That was the case then, in 1870. Q. Is it the case now ? — A. Well, then they increased two or three years and are now diminishing again. Q. It is the case now ? — A. They are scarce now. I have stated here, in the course of ray remarks, that in 1867 I never e,iv» one squid. What does it say there f Q. You said, "It seems to be nearly exterminated in the waters north of Cape Cod, only a few being seen." — A. That does not say that they had all gone. In some years there were nearly none. Q. .8 that the case as regards squid at the i>res»'nt time? — A. No. There are some squid there now. Squid are not very i>lentiful, they are scarce comparatively. Q. Are they as scarce as they were in 1870? — A. No; I don't think they are quite. Q. Do you say they are not? — A. I tliiiik not; I think there are more I this summer than in'l87(K Q. Tlu'y are still scarce? — A. Still scarce. r.y Mr. Da vies : Q. With regard to your opinion that there were more shipwrecks of lAiuericaii vessels at Prince Edward Island than at Magjlalen Islands I Kill repeat a question which was put to you by Mr. Tli!)inson. You we asked whether you ever knew any Anjerican tisliing \essels ship- Urecked on Prince Ellward Island except one, and yon m'\d you did not UuDwany American fishing-vessels being shipwrecked there since 18.51 2028 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. except the Carrie P. Rich. Do you say that now f — A. I ditl not mean to be so understood. I meant Provincetown vessels. Q. In answer to Mr. Thomson's question as to whether you know of any American vessel having been wrecked on the shores of Prince Ed. ward Island since 1851, except the Carrie P. Rich, you said no.— A. I don't know of any. Q. Have you heard of any t If so, give me the names. — A. I don't re- member; I don't know the name of any. Q. Wlaeu you said, in answer to Mr. Foster, that you helievod inoro American vessels were shipwrecked on Prince Edward Island than at Magdalen Islands, and you don't know of any American vessels except one having been wrecked at Prince Edward Island, how do you explain your statement ? — A. I suppose he went back indetlnitely. In IS51 a large number were lost at Prince Edward Island, and I took that into account. Q. You wish to embrace what we call the Yankee storm ? — A. Yes. Q. Are not the Magdalen Islands more in spectors and got t'roni their books where they landed. I made a mem orandum in this book. Friday, September L'l. The Conference met. The examination of Mr. Babzillai Kemp was continued. By Mr. Poster: Question. At the adjournment yesterday you were giving a rapid statement of your mackerel trips to the Gulf of St. Lawrence «Iuring successive years, and I think the last year you stated was 185ti!— Answer. Yes. Q. In 1857 what 'iid you do! — A. I made two trips in the gulf. Q. Go right on with your statement. — A. We caught them on Uradley and at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Where did you catch the first and where the second trip ? — A. The first trip on Bradley and the second at the Magdalen Islands. Q. How many barrels did you take each trip and how many in all !-. A. Two hundred and seventy-five barrels each trip. Q. You were still on the same schooner f — A. Yes ; the Sunbi'ain. Q. In 1858 what were you doing? — A. I was on the schooner Watcli man and took 38 barrels. Q. Where did you take them t — A. At Magdalen Islands. Q. How long were you in getting them i — A. I was six weeks in the bay. Q. What did yon do the rest of the year! — A. I went on oui- coast. It was a very hard year; it was a bad year for fishing everywhere. Q. What result did yon have after you left the bay and went on our coast? — A. Seventy-five barrels. Q. In the course of the season ? — A. After the trip to the bay. Q. All you succeeded in getting in 1858 were 3S barrels in the },'iilt ami 75 on the United States coast for the whole season ? — A. Yes. Q. In 1859? — A. I made two trips in the schooner John A. Swett. I was not master of that vessel. Q. How many barrels did you take each trip ? — A. One huudroil and seventy barrels each trip. She was a small vessel. Q. What tonnage? — A. A schooner of some 04 tons, old measurt; ment. Q. Where were the trips made ? — A. The first trip was cauglit ou Bradley and the next at Magdalen Islands. Q. In 1800 what did you do? — A. I was in the schooner Gamaliel; I was master. We got 40 barrels. Q. Where did you get them ? — A. I caught them at Magdsden Isl ands. Q. How long did you take to get them ? — A. I have made a mistake; I caught them on Bradley, not at Magdalen Islands. I was in the bay five or six weeks, and went out. Q. Where else did you try for mackerel ? — A. I went ou our coast. I got, as far as my memory serves me, 700 barrels after 1 went home. Q. After you left the bay you made a number of short trips ou our coast? — A. Yes. Q. They aggregated 700 barrels? — A. As nigh as I can judge. AWARD OV THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2031 Q, III l.SOl wliat vessel w«'ie you in ;*~A. Uutli L Atuvood. Q. Wliero were yim f— A. On our coast. Q. What qiuuitity did you get tliore ?— A. We vjunght about 500 bar rels, ill short trips. Q. Where were they taken ?— A. Mostly on the uoast of Maine ; trom Mount Desert up. {}. Ill 1.S62 what were you doiiijj ?— A. I was in the gulf one trip. Q. Ill the same schooner? — A. Yes. Q. With what result f — A. We caught 3U0 barrels. Q, Where were they takeu ? — A. At the Magdalen Islands. Q. lu 18C3 ! — A. I made two trips in the bay. il How many did you get ? — A. Eight hundred and seventy-five biirit'ls. Q, IIow many were taken on the first trip and where f — A. I caught thetlrst trip mostly on Bradley and at Magdalen Islands. Q. How luauj f — A. I think 40U barrels. » Q. The same vessel t — A. Yes. Q. The second trip, how many did you take and wHiere? — A. 475 barrels, at Magdalen Islands. Q. How late did you remain at Magdalen Islands that year ?— A. I us then.i as late as 10th October. Q. Fishing successfully? — A. Yes. Q. Where did you go in 1804 ? — A. I made two trips in the bay. (^. How many barrels did you get ? — A. 7r>0 barrels. Q. How many did you get the first tiip and where ? — A. 450 barrels oulhe first trip. They wer«i caught on Bradley. I shipped them home. Q. How V III you ship tlieni home? — A. I shipped them home by jdidoiier .Maria Theresa from Harbor an Douche. Q. Where is that ? — A. Northward of the Gut of Canso. (). How many barrels did you send off? — A. 450 barrels. (}. What did they cost you to send from whatever port you shipped Itheiii ?— A. 85 fH'iits currency a barrel. Q. Dill you name the port where you transshipped ? — A. I shipped [tlieiu to Boston trom Port Mulgrave. Q. The vsecoiid trip was taken w lure?— A. At Magdalen Islands; Ubiit we call the Magdaleiis is sometimes away off to the nor'ard, |iialofsij,'ht of shore, and sometimes inshore. il How late ditl you fish tiiat year at the Magdalens ? — A. I was there ill about 15th October. (^ Did you find good fishing ? — A. Good fishing. Q. Ill 1805 what were you doing? — A. I inaile one trip. (]. How many barrels did you get and where ? — A. 450 barrels ; I I caught them to the nor'ard of the Magdalens. Q. In 1806 ? — A. I went one trip ; we caught 123 barrels. Q. Where were they taken ? — A. 1 was all about the bay. y. Give the name of the schooner you were in that year i — A. Ruth |L. Attttood. Q. Had you any license that year ? — A. Yes ; I bought a license. (). What did you pay for it ? — A. 50 cents a ton. (^ What was the tonnage of the vessel f— A. 10!) tons. Q. Ill ISO" what were you doing? — A. 1 was in the bay one trip. Q How many barrels did you get ? — A. L*22 barrels. (I Did you have a license in 1807 ? — A. I did not require any. They litre caught at Magdalen Islands. I Q. In 1808 what were you doing ?— A. I went one trip to the bay. I^egot 112 barrels. m :^^^| ^0^ 2032 AWARD OF THE KI8HKRY COMMISSION. Q. Did you happoii to have a lioeiise in 1808 f — A. Ybh. Q. Wli«ro dill you catch the 112 barrelH ? — A. I caught thoiii all ovci the gulf; probably 1 ^ot 20 or.'tO barrels iuHliore otl' MIhcou. Q. What other llsliiiii; did you do iu 1808 f — A. I did not re you doing? — A. I uia'<)W 1 should like to in<|uire whether there is, or ever was, from the town ;»f Welltleet, smili a inaaus<^ we suppose our lish would fettdi $2 more per barrel. Q. Has the supply of mackerel on the American coast for the last few yt'iiis been good or poor? — A. Very good last year. Q. How it) it this year? — A. This year, so far as 1 have learned, it is nut 8u good ; lish are pretty scarce. By ^[r. Weatherbe : Q. The list you prepared you say you got from your account-books ? — A, Yes. (/. And from other sources ? — A. Yes ; and from other sources. (}. What were the other sources ? — A. Froui 1803 to 1801) 1 got from the iuspeooks. il What account couhl he give you ? I want to ascertain what you liave given from your books and what from memory ; you gave the years, number of trips names of vessels, tjuautity caught, and places whore caught from the book ? — A. Yes. (^ That is what you got from the book ? — A. In my other vessels I i'adied with different inspectors. q. Am 1 correct in stating that you got from the book the year, num- k\ of trips, names of vessels, quantities caught, and places where I caught ?— A. Y'es ; as nigh as 1 could judge. Q. Did you get that from the book ?-^A. I took it from the book. Q. Did you take all these things from this book ? — A. 1 did not take I tkeia all from the book. Q. The names of the vessels you got from the book ? — A. Y'es. Q. The whole of them t — A. The whole of the vessels 1 have stated. Q. You have given all the quautities you caught from the book ? — A. 1 Yes. 128 F 2034 AWARD OF TUB FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Yon obtained the inforinntion from 1352 to 1863 from yuur owq books and billa t — A. Yes. Q. From 18G.'i to 1800 the information you obtained from otiier sources f — A. Yes. Q. Did you obtain from your books, or from any otlior sources or doc. nments, the phices where you oauglit the Hsh f— A. No; 1 took tlmt as near ns I couhl recollect. I could recollect very near. Q. You did not obtain any of that information from any book or memoranda? — A. No. Q. You got that purely from your memory ; but before giving,' it you wrote it down in this book, so tiuit it might be correct t — A. 1 lullowed up from one trip to another. Q. You wrote it down in the book T — A. I wrote it down in the bonk. Q. The place where you caught the lish ; for instance, you wrote down, with regard to the schooner Franconia, that she got G:!() barrels : you got that from what source f — A. I got it from my old books. Q. What kind of books ? — A. My old account-books. Q. You kept an account ? — A. 1 kept an account. Q. What kiml ot an account? — A. It was like this: " I have caii<;lit so many mackerel this trip, and I caught them on Bradley." Tlii.s was entered in my books. Q. ^Vas it a «1 ay book or ledger? — A. A kind of day-book — perhaps ledger. Q. You entered the number of barrels you caught in jour book,.\ i say, on those occa.^ions, when you went homo f — A. When 1 went lioiui' I had the number of barrels entered in my book. Q. How ? — A. I got that from my old account-books, and from my bills where I packed. Q. Where did you get that number, 030 ? — A. I took it, as I have stated, from my old account-books which I had filed away in such a year, Q. The numbers were taken not from any bills, but from old books .' — A. Some from books and some from bills. Q. Then you cannot recollect whether they were taken from books or bills? — A. I don't recollect exactly that one particular. Q. With regard to the pLaces where the greatest number of fish were caught, how could you tell that from bills ; do you mean bills you made out where j'ou sold them? — A. Where I landed them. Q. What do you mean by bills? — A. When we have a bill made out I consider it a bill. Q. A bill of items? — A. Yes. Q. Then you got the number of barrels from the bills of parcels f- A. I don't think 1 recollect exactly. Q. I am not asking you to recollect any particular item, but to explain the matter to the Commission, for you have only mentioned two souree3 AWARD OP TiIB FISHERY COMMISSION. 2035 down to 1862— books and bills. You say you mean by bills bills of par- cels; is that correct?— A. Well, it is as I stated. I referred to my old bills and books that I took these accounts from. Q. You understand a bill of items and u bill of parcels to mean the game thinj; ? — A. I am not certain. Q. Where did you catch the fish you took in 1848 f— A. I caught them on Bradley, I think. Q. What makes you think so?— A. Because generally when I came in the bay I went right on Bradley. Q. Therefore you think you caught them on Bradly! — A. I uon't think; I am pretty certain I <;aught them on Brudleey. Q. U it a fact that a considerable number of Vinerican ilsliormen, when they hrst come in the bay, go to BiwUeyf— A. They u.setl to go to Brnilley. Q. That was the practice? — A. Yes. Q. Is it true or not, as has been stateil in evidence here, tliat for about one week or ten days, sometimes, you have been in the habit of finding plenty of fish there ?— A. Yes. Q. That is correct? — A. Y'es; plenty on Bradley; we caught them veiy fast. Q. After leaving Bradley where did you go next ? — A. Wo generally went to the Magdalens. if. That has l)een your practice ? — A. That has been my practice. (J. You go to Bradley first and then to the Magdalens; has that been the practice of others * — A. That has been the practice of quite a large part of the Heet. Q. or how many of the fleet ? — A. I could not say ; I don't know. (}. How is it that in some of your catch(\s there is no account of liratlley i Did yt)u sometimes fail to catch any there. You always went there first, ditl you not *. — A. Y'es. Q. And then you always went straight from there to the Magdalens? — A. From Bradley we perhaps crossed over the gully to the Magdalens; the gully is between the Magdalen Islands and Bradley. Q. I asked you where you went yext, and you said direct to the Mastlalens? — A. To the Magdalens. Y'es. Q. From Bradley ? — A. Yes ; but we would be fishing from there to the Magdalens. Q. You did tiot go direct ? — A. What we call r Hi«ie f — A. MuHt KtMiurully. I wtwt ut Itiiiik Uriiliau the luHt tinii* I wtMit to the l»iy. Q. I iiHk you it' yon on ev«*ry o<;«iiNion yon wt>nt northwitnl wt^nt to either one HJiore or otiier, or Itotli MJioreH of tlie iSt. Ijiiwrence tu li.^li!^ A. As ti ^euenil rnl to Madeleine Kiver. Q. On the other side of the river, how far have you been up almw Gaspe ? — A. I have been |K above Gaspe. Q. Did you ever flsh on the north shore of the gulf anywhere f— A. I tlshed some about Bonaventure, oil' Honaveuture Island. Q. You never tlshed on the north shore of the gulf at any place wliut everf — A. No. Q. You never tried to fish there .' — A. I never was there— not on tlii north shore. Q. You never fished anywhere in the river St. Lawrence ! — A. 1 don't know whether you call it the river St. Lawi'enceat Gasp6. 1 say 1 Luve been np about ten miles above Gas|>e. Q. Not farther than that ? — A. No. ii. You don't call that the river St. Lawrence ? — A. I suppose not. Q. Y'ou never heard that called the river St. Lawrence ? — A. I don't know how far down it comes. Q. Did you ever hear it called the river St. Lawrence t — A. What part i Q. At the place you have mentioned t — A. No ; I don't know that I ever did. Q. Y^ou stated that when you siK>ke of the Magdalen Islands you meant all round there f — A. ^Vhen we fish all round about those isltiuds we call it fishing at the Magdalens. If I caught a trip nor'ard of the Magdalens 10, 15, or 20 miles, and if I spoke a vessel, and they wtuited to know where I caught the fish, I would say at the Magdalens, uor'aid of the Magdalens. Q. When I first asked you the question if you had ever fished ou other shores at the mouth of the Saint Lawrence, except Gaspe, I uu derstood you to answer me that you generally went there and fished !- A. I think not. Q. That you not only fished at the Magdalens, but generally fisbedou AWARD OP THE FTSIIERY COMMISSION. 2037 tlio Nliorim ut re — not oil the both Hhort»Hof the river Saint Lnwreiieo, rtlM)ve <)un|)^! f — A. No, I don't tllillk HO. Q. Do you remenilter my nHkinu you anything to thut eflect f— A. I think HO. I Miiid I never tished there. Q, You never mentioned the phiee GnHpi't in direct exuminiitionf — A. ] Miid I had lished Home ott Honaventure. Voii anked me liow tar up J liiiit l>een, and I told you 10 ndleN above (laHp^*, aH ni^h m I could judge. g. Ih that the way you generally went f — A. What do you mean f <}. You eannot deny that you Htated in evidence Hince I first com* ineiM'cd the examination, that at Home other |ilaH ItcNideH the Mag- ihilch iHlandH, you had flHhed generally? — A. I Maid 1 had iished on Bradley. {). Alter you had left Hraerhap8 less. Q. You don't know how often you have been there ? — A. I could not tell the exact time. I know I have been there and fished there. Q. From 1852 down to the present hour, bow many times have you been there ? — A. I could not say, because I «lon't know. Q. Have you been there twice? — A. Yes; jirobably I have. Q. Have you been there three, four, five, seven, or ten times ? — A. I could not say. Q. Have you been there twenty times ? — A. I could not say, as my memory does not serve me. Q. llave you been there one hundred times ? — A. No. (l. Have you been there fifty times! — A. No. 2038 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Thirty times f — A. Perhaps I have been there a dozen or fifteen times, that is as nigh as I can recollect. Q. Have you been there twice in one year, or a dozen or fifteeu dif- ferent seasons ? — A. Less than that. Q. Have you been there ten seasons ? — A. I think not. Q. You are not able to say positively! — A. Is o, I am not. Q. That is off Bonaventure ? — A. Off Bonaventure. Q. Do you know what vessels you were in fishing there ten or fifteeu times. Mr. Foster said the witness had previously stated that he could answer the question if he had his book to look at. Mr. Weatherbe. Do you now say you wanted to look at the lueDi- orandnm to find out what vessels you fished in off Bonaventure i—A. I said I should like to have the book. Q. I ask you now, did you say you wished the book to find out iu what vessels you fished off Bonaventure ? — A. i don't know that you asked me the question then. Q. You don't know ? — A. I could tell, I said, by looking at ray book. Q. You could tell what vessels you fished in off Bonaventure ?— A. Yes; I think I can. Q. Do you say you wanted the book for that purpose ? — A. I don't know whether you said Bonaventure or not. You asked me where I caught the mackerel, and I said if you handed me the book 1 could tell you very nearly. Q. Was that in regard to Bonaventure If — A. I am not certaiu whether Bonaventure was in it or not. Q. Did you want the book to find out in what vessels you fished off Bonaventure? — A. Yes. Q. You asked for it for that purpose ? — A. I cannot say for certaiu that it was as to Bonaventure. Q. Are you able to say what you required the book for! — A. Well, I think you asked me about some certaiu place, and I said if I could refer to the book I could tell you. Q. Did yon not tell me yon put the names of the places where you caught fish into this book entirely from memory, and not from any other source? — A. No. Q. Have you not sworn that ? — A. No. Q. You have not sworn that the names of the places where you caught your fish in the gulf were not taken from any source except your mem- ory ? — A. I think not. Q. Is it not a fact that the names of the places where you caught flsli in the gulf, which have been entered in this book, were taken from your memory alone, and from no other source?— A. No; I said I took it from some of my account-books. Q. Do you now say that you took down in that memorandum the names of the places where you caught your fish from your old accouut books ? — A. 1 don't swear it. Q. What do you swear ? Do you say the names of the places entered in the book, as being the places where you caught your tish, were en tered from the account-books, or bills, or any other source? — A. I said some of them were taken from it. Q. You say now that you swore before that some of those names of places were taken from what?— A. From my account-books. Q. That is, some of the names of the places? — A. Where I caught my fish. AWARD OF THE FISHEUY COMMISSION. 2039 Q. Were takeu from your account-books. You say now you swore before that was the case f — A. I don't think that I swore it. Q. You said it since you came here? — A. 1 said it. Q, You understood that as swearing to it ! — A. I swore to speak as nW as my memory would allow me, and to the best of my ability. Q. What I understood you first to say was that you took the names of the places where your fish were caught, from your memory? — A. Kot altogether ; I took some from my account-books. Q. ^ome of the names of the places where the fish were caught? — A. Yes. Q. What kind of a book was it — what would you enter? — A. It was nothiug but a common account book. Q. Tell me what names of places where you caught fish were taken from the account-book and what were not. — A. 1846 and 1847, I recol- lect. Q. Some of the places entered in this book were taken from your ac- count-book? — A. Yes. Q. What in regard to the rest — were they takeu from memory ? — A. 1 said most were taken from my account book. Q. Are you able to tell me what places entered in that book as being places where you caught your fish were taken from your memory alone aud uot from any account-book? — A. I could not distinguish them. Q. Then with regard to the places where your fish were taken, en- tered in that book, they were entered partly from your memory aud partly from your account-book? Is that correct? — A. Yes. Q. There is no mistake about that ? — A. No. Q. Now, how many years did you find a record of the plsices where you caught your fish entered in your account-book? — A. I could not tell you exactly. Q. About half the time? — A. I think so, or more. Q. And the other half? — A. You understand, part of those I took from other sources. Q. Did you enter half the places from memory ? — A. I could not tell exactly. Q. When you caught fish did you enter the name of the place? — A. Yes, in a book which I had with me on my vessel. Q. You generally entered the name of the place where you caught your fish ? — A. Not always. Q. Did you sometimes ? — A. Yes. Q. How often did you do so ? — A. 1 could uot tell you exactly. Q. Can you give me any idea how often ? — A. Probably oUe-half or more. Q. Will you swear to one-half ? Are you able to say that you entered half the names of the places where you caught your fish ? — A. I think hlid. Q. Then how are you able to state with regard to other places which you did uot enter ? — A. I got that by following my years down — I recol- lected. Q. You got them from your memory alone ? — A. Some. Q I am speaking of the places not entered in your account-book, and vfbicii you got from your memory alone. Did you go aud ask somebody else about them ? — A. No. Q. Y^ou got them from your memory alone ? — A. I got them from my memory. Q. From memory alone ? — A. I think so. Q. From memory alone, is that correct ? — A. I think so. Sih !;«-. ^■'^-r>\ 2040 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. I will take the year 1855, where did yon catch yoar fisli in 1855 and where in 1856 f I am trying yonr memory now. I observe you are looking at the book. — A. I think I canght them on Bradley. Q. In 1855 and 1856 ?— A. I think ^o. Q. Do you state that from your memory alone, or do you And it in the book? — A. I get it from my memory alone. Q. Can you speak respecting 1856 from your memory alone ? — A. I do not know as I could. Q. Can you do so respecting 1857, 1858, 1859, and 1860 ? — A. In 18tJ0 I was at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Can you speak concerning the other years, between 1830 and 1860, from your memory alone ? — A. Well, we were some on Bradley Bank, and some at the Magdalen Islands ; these islands were geueralfr my fishing ground. Q. You said a moment ago that in 1860 you were at the Magdalen Islands ? — A. I think that I did say so. Q. And you state that from your memory alone ? — A. I think so. Q. I undcrstoojl you to say in direct examination that in 18G0 you caught your fish on Bank Bradley — not at the Magdalen Islands; bow do you account for that ? Can you state from your memory alone where, during any one year, you caught your fish ?— A. Yes. Q. Give one year. — A. 1869. Q. Where did you catch them then ? — A. On Bank Orphan. Q. Can you give me any other year ? — A. Yes. Q. Which?— A. 1845. Q. Where did you then catch them ? — A. On Bank Bradley. y. Had you that fact entered in your book? — A. In this book ? Q. Yes. — A. Yes, I think so. Q. Did youvhave it entered in your other book? — A. It might have been in some of the books. Q. Do you know whether it was so entered or not ? Are these the only two years you remember? — A. No. Q. Give one, another year. — A. 1862. Q. Where were you then ? — A. At the Magdalen Islands. Q. In direct examination, you said that in 1862 you caught yonr H.sli all over the bay ? — A. Perhaps I am wrong respecting all over the bay, but I do not think that I gave it so. Q. If you did, then you were wrong ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you so give it in from your book ? — A. I think I gave it in that we then caught our fish at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Yoii are giving that from the book ? — A. I gave it from the book at first. Q. And now also, are you not ? — A. Well, no. I did not give it from the book at first, but I have looked at it since. I told you the Magdit^ len Islands, when I looked at the book. Q. And when you first made your statement on the point to Mr. Fos- ter you did not give it Irom the book ; is that corrector not ?— A.. Yes- no, no. Q. When you gave it to Mr. Foster, did you give it from the book! j When you made your statement to Mr. Foster in direct examination as to where you caught your fish in 1872, Uid you give it from the book f I [ have taken your statement down, that you canght them all over the bay that year; am I incorrect? — A. I could not say for a certainty. Q. Whether you did so or not, where do you now say that you canght them ? — A. In 1862, 1 said, we caught them at the Magdalen Islands, Q. You are jiositive about that ? — A. I am not positive, but I think so. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2041 Q. Look at the book, and see what you have there respecting 1862 ! — A, In 1862, it says, we caught our fish at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Where did you get that statement — from your memory or from some other book ? — A. 1 told you that I could not tell just now. Per- haps I partly took it from my old books, and partly from my memory. Q. Y»)n do not know whether you took it from another book or from your memory ? — A. 1 think that 1 took it from another book. ' Q. Did you say a moment ago that you did not know whether you took it from another book f — A. I said, I am not certain about it. Q. Are you certain now ? Uan you recollect ? — A. I do not know that lean be positive about it. Q. How much of your fish would you estimate that you caught within three miles of the shore in British waters during the whole period in question ? — A. I do not know as I can make that out exactly to a frac- tional limit. part, because in some trips I have not caught any within this Q. Can you give me any idea as to how much you so caught ? — A. In all my ftshiug? Q. Yes. — A. Well, perhaps 150 barrels. I mean in the course of all these trips. Q. Did you ever hear of the practice of lee-bowing ? — A. I have ; and I have seen it. Q. Have you ever seen it done in the Bay of St. Lawrence? — A. Yes; hut very little. Q. But you have seen it ? — A. I have seen some of it there. Q. Where? — A. When fishing off Entry Island, at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Have you seen it anywhere else? — A. Yes; between Amherst Island, of the Magdalen Islands, and East Point, Prince Edward Island. Q. Have you seen it anywhere else save at the Magdalen Islands ? — A. I said I had seen lee-bowing off Entry Island and between Amherst Island and East Point. • Q. Where is Entry Island ? — A. On the south side of the Magdalen Islands. Q. Have you ever seen it anywhere else besides at the Magdalen Islands? — A. Yes; between Amherst Island and East Point, Ppcce Edward Island, when fishing just in the lay of the Magdalen Islands. Q. Out in the open sea ? — A. Y"es. Q. I do not refer to that ; I never heard of it myself; I allude to the j lee-bowing of boats ; did you ever hear of that being done inshore ? — A. No; I never heard of the lee-bowing of bouts. Q. Never in your life ? — A. I do not know as I ever did. Q. Tbe lee-bowi-ug of which you have ueard was the lee bowing of I vessels? — A. Yes ; of the lee-bowing of boats I know nothing. Q. Do mackerel fishing-vessels usually carry apparatus for catching I codfish ? — A. No ; with the exception of a line or two to catch fresh ones. I I speak now of my vessels and where I sailed from. Q. And you have been in about rttty-two vessels ? — A. Y'es ; I only I speak of those. Q. Do not mackerel fishing-vessels usually carry home some codfish ; Hm not the master of every mackerel fishing- vessel carry home some ? — I A. Not every one ; those I have been in have never carried home codfish. Q. Does not almost every such vessel do so? — A. I could not say. Q. Does the master of every mackerel fishing- vessel carry herring-nets I on board ?— No. A. I do not know of any that do so. 2042 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Do cod fishing- vessels do sof — A. I do not know anything about the cod-flsbery ; I never went cod-fishing. Q. You have no knowledge of the cod-fishing business at all ?— a No. Q. You have spent your life in the mackerel-fishing business !— a. Ko ; I have been in the marine service and in ditt'erent busiuessetj ■ i have been coasting. O,. You have been fishing a great many years ? — A. Yes. Q. From 1852 up to the present time ; first you fished, and tlieu you j owned vessels f — A. Yes ; I was fishing, and 1 have owned vessels. Q. From 1852 up to the present time, you have been engaged iu the mackerel fishery, either fishing yourself or owning vessels t — A. Yes. Q. And youhave no knowledge of cod fishing f — A. Cod-fishiu<^ I kuotv j nothing about. Q. Have not very great catches of mackerel been made in the Bay of I St. Lawrence ? — A. Some few years they have. Q. And during some years, the mackerel fishery has been bud ?— A. Yes. Q. And during the whole period in question, have there not been takeu j enormous catches of mackerel ¥ — A. I do not know that tishenneu hare done any better in the Gulf of St. Lawrence than on our own coast. I Vessels that have followed up our fishery have done so right along, Q. Has not the mackerel fishery on your own coast failed to a great] extent ? — A. It was very good last season. Q. I will just rcLf' a passage from Professor Baird's report, and see ill it is correct in your opinion. Do you krow Professor Baird t — A. I have| no acquaintance with him, but I have seen him here. Q. You are acquainted with him by reputation ? — A. Yes. Q. The passage is as follows : Bearing in mind that the present report has more particular reference to thn southl side of New England, and especially to that portion of it extending from Point Judith I on the west to Monomoy Point on the east, including Narragansett Bay, Viuejardl Sound, Buzzard's Bay, Martba's Vineyard, and Nantucket, I have no hesitation in stat-l ing tbat the fact of an alarming decrease of the shore fisheries has been tlioroughlyl established by my own investigations, as well as by evidence of those whose testimouyl was takeu upon the subject. Is that correct in your view ? — A. I should think so. Q. Here is another passage : We may also refer to the testimony of the Rhode Island committee, on page 104, iil reference to the increase of the cost of living on the co!tst of that State, iu cousequencel of the diminution of the fisheries. " One very intelligent man thought it made ^l'»| difference in the cost of living on the shore and in the small towns on the bay, aod,! from his own experience, he had no doubt that there are one thousand persons livinJ near the shore to whom it made this difterence, amounting to a loss to them of 81'J0,iJi«i each year, that of the high price of fish iu Providence market not being talieuiuto| account." Is that correct ? The report continues : Many persons are in the habit of considering that the fish supply of the sea is pracj tically inexhaustible; and, therefore, that a scarcity of any particular location istoM referred rather to the movements of the fish, in changing their feeding-grounds capnJ ciously, or else in following the migration, from place to place, of the food upon vliica they live. This may be true to a certain extent, as we shall hereafoer show, butiti^ diflicnlt to point out any locality where, near the shores iu the New England StaM at least, under the most favorable view of the case, the fish are quite as ])lentifuli they were some years ago ; and still more so where, by their overlapping the origioil colonists of the sea-bottom, they tend to render the abundance appreciably greate than usual. And, furthermore, if the scarcity of the fish be due to their going od'inK! the deep waters of the ocean, it is, of course, of very little moment to the iisberuiu that they are as abundant in the sea as ever, if they do not come upon such grouDiil as will permit their being taken by bis lines or nets. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2043 Is that correct? — A. The fish are going away oflf shore j but they cau be caught off shore as well as inshore. Q. He says : And furtliernioro, if the scarcity of fish be due to their uoinjj off into the deep waters of the ocean, it is, of course, of very little moment to tlio fisherman that they are as ibrnidant in the sea as ever, if they do uot come on such grounds as will permit their lieJDg taken by his Hues or nets. l8 that correct ? — A. I thinlc so. You can catch fish off shore as well 1 18 iushure. Q. Did you say that fish that cannot be caught are of no value to any Li,e;_A. 1 take it that fish which cannot be caught are of no value to I inr one. Q. Is the report I have read substantially correct ? — A. I do not know I as I understand it particularly. Q. The report also states : At the jiresent time this resource is cut off to a ji^reat degree from this class of people I Id many places on the Massachusetts coast, where, as on Nantucket, Martha's Vioe- tird, aud eUewhere, the deprivation from the loss of profits by li'ihing is being most Kriously felt. The result, of course, of the inability to make a living in this niiinuer i) to drive the line-fishermen to other occupations, and especially to indue 3 them to jkave the State for other fields of industry. Is that correct ? — A. I do uot understand this driving off of the tish. jlfauythiug drives the fish oft shore, it is the weirs aud pouuds, aud lot the fishermen. Q. You think that something does drive them off? — A. I think that |tlie weirs and pounds drive the fish off shore. Q, Has this decrease in shore fisheries driven fishermen to other oc- Icapatious, and do they leave the Stiite to seek other fields of industry ?— |i. I think so. Q. Is it a fact that they do leave the State for other fields of indus- |try !— A. Very few do so. Q. Is it the fact or uot? — A. I think not. Q. You think that they do not leave the Ptate ? — A. Yes. Q. The report further states : III consequence the population is reduced, and the community feels this drain of iKmeof its best material in many ways. Furthermore, property depreciates in value, pnnsand houses are abandoned, the average of taxation is increased, and many otiior levib, readily suggesting themselves, are developed. I Agaiu,au important stimulus to the building of ships and boats is lost in the de- |ti«t8iug demand for vessels of various grades; and, what is more important to the ■(ODDtry at large, the training of skilled seamen with which to supply our national aud nor merchant marine generally is stopped, or more or less interfered with. It is well Ihown that the line-fisheries, iu their different manifestations, have always, been llooked upon as of the utmost importance in a politico-economical point of view, for iThicb reason bounties were paid by the general government ^ and, although these %ve been lately withheld, it may be necessary to restore them in-order to regain our Kt grouud. Do you approve, generally, of these remarks which I have read from Professor Baird's report to Congress i — A. Well, my opinion about fish , that there are as many fish in the sea as ever there were. There are ^ears when they are very plentiful on our coast. Q. Have your fisheries so decreased as to produce any of the results neutioned in the extracts which I have read to you, or uot ? — A. Per- aps this is so in some cases. Our fishing was never better than it was |)D our coast last season at our place. Q. But that was an exceptional case ? — A. Well, it was the case the ►ear before. WM3 2044 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Were those two years exceptional ? — A. No, because we have ha good flsbing generally. Q. Is the mackerel fishery a fishery that may suddenly revive !~i Yes. There are years when the fish are scarce, and then years \rbe^ they will be very plentiiul. Q. You are porfectly certain of that in your own mind ?— A. Thati so, so far as my experience goes. Q. It is a fishery that may suddenly revive ? — A. Yea. Q. I will read a few extracts from the Fisherman's Memorial an Record Book, published at Gloucester by Proctor Brothers.— A. I kuoii the firm. Q. You are thoroughly acquainted with this book ; it is used ver much by mackerel fishermen ? — A. I have read it. Q. It is pretty reliable, is it not ? — A. Yea. Q. It is considered reliable in its statistics ? — A. I know iiotbinn [{ the contrary. I suppose so. Q. It states : The largest stock mnde in the Bay of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery was tbaf of thj schooner Col. Ellsworth, Capt. George Robinson, in 18()r>. She was absenn iil)unt Q months, her net stock amounting to $13,728. The high-Jiner's share was $bM ; cuukl share, $5b2. | Schooner Gen. Grant, Captain Coes, in mCA stockerl, in two trips to the Ray of 4 Lawrence, $11,254.94 clear of all expenses. The high-liners made $502.24 ; cookl share, $<):W.17. Schooner Norwester, Capt. Daniel Hillier, the same year stocked $9,721.74, net iaonj bay trip ; the high-liners making $308.60, and the cook $48(5.61. Schooner General Sherman, Capt. George W. Miner, in 1864, in a three-months' t to the bay, packed 612 barrels of mackerel, her net stock amounting tu $6,()*J<]. Higl liner's share, $575.06. Schooner Kit Carson, Capt. Horace Merry, in 1865 brought in .591 barrels of niackerc having been absent about ten weeks. Her net stock amounted to $6,542. Higb-liutH share, $260. You did as well as that in one case? — A. Yea — very nearly. Q. Did you do better? — A. What was the high-liner's share ? Q. $260 ? — A. I have done as well as t lat. Q. Have you not done better ? — A. W j sail our vessels a little ( ent from the way in which they do. Q. The take in question amounted to 591 barrels in ten weeks ?-i I know of vessels that have made a good deal larger stock on our coasi Q. Than those I mentioned last ? — A. Those were for Gloucester ag parently. Q. Yes. Have you known vesaela do better than the last did 1 1 named ? — A. I say I have known vessels fishing on our coast that I done so. Q. And better than the last one I read, or better than the first onel-j A. Better than the best one. Q. Will you name the vessel ? — A. She was the J. H. Orton, of ^el| fleet. Q. What did she do? — A. I think she stocked to the value i $10,000 odd. It was somewhere in that neighborhood, but I amnfll certain as to the exact amount. Q. How long was she fishing ? — A. From May to the last of Octobel Q. Who owned her? — A. Darius Newcombe, the captain, and otbet^ Q. This must be mentioned in this book? — A. No. She is owned i Wellfleet. By Mr. Foster : Q. Whereabonts is Wellfleet ? — A. It is between the east end i Cape Cod and Truro, which adjoins Provincetown. Isbes, were tli AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2045 By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. You say that the mackerel fishery is one which is very liiiely sud- lenly to revive ? — A. Yes. Q. You have heard of many large catches like this ia the bay ?— A. les. Q. You have ineiitioiied several years in which your vessels have not llouevcry well ; what years were these? — A. This was the case Uuriug lonie 3, 4, or o years. Q. On othur occasions previously, the catch in the mackerel fishery Irasdiminisiied ? — A. Yes. There have been ups and downs in it. Q, How long did this last? — A. Xot more than a year or so. Are I alluding to the fisheries on our coast ? Q. No ; but to the fisheries in the bay ? — A. The best I ever did iu Jie bay was during li or 3 years. Q. How long was the catch from year to year diminished on any pre- Hoiis occasion 1 — A. Take the period from 18lialim , S5. Ji)8<*|ili LimlMay .... 30. I'oniDiia iJ7. Allot) Kayniond . 98. Emma Mnwornl 80. AbliioH. IJrown ao. Haiti.' :n. Ella May 3-i. I,lz/,ie W. Matheson 3;». (it^rtrii.le 34. KaHt Win.l X>, Maiv Mathenon 30. AVillinm MathoHon . 37. Teresii I). Baker , 38. Spiinij Biril 39. Fred.lieW. Alton... 40. Lotta Bynm 41. Willie Ij. Swift , 4'j. C'liarl.>8 AllBtnim..., 43. Frt'ildie Walter 44. Elli.> F. Lon-j 4.5. Virgin K.ick , 40. John S. IIi|!j:ing 47. John Sinini.inH , 48. Mai'y E. Nason TonnaKe. 87, 61). HW. !)3. K). OH, 119. 69. 70. H7. (ill. 77 89. 70 .'44. 63. 6.5. .59. 60. 79. 84 7.5. m. 61). 64. 66. 6!». 73. 9.5. 80. '.Hi. 193. 79. 07. 114. 111. 87. HO. 86. 97. 100. 73. 89. 97. 52. 46. 70. 108. Ak.'IiIi*. Davi.l C.HIW.II. St4-|ih.'n C.Mik. Nathan V. I'lucuiuu Jl.>. J).i. IJ... Do. FraoclH •ToHoiih. 1>... llanKH A. LewiH. l).i. iHaao F. Mayii 1)0. I'hllln A. Whai I Do. Do. Th.inias R. Wliaif. F. T. Diijjui'lt. lleury Cook. 1)<». Do. AnguH Mclntire. Do. E. K. Cook. Samuel KIrh. Davi.l ConwcU. Do. L. X. I'liine. Tli.iniaH llillianl. Charl.>H Nioki'isMU. K. K. C.M.k. Henrv Cook. bo David Coiiwrll. Angnn Mcliitiii.'. Do. Honry (^ook. F. T. DoKKolt. Do. Philii. A. Whiiii. 8. S. Swift. Hiii.'li McFaydt'ii. L. N. I'alne. Do. David Smith. Tilton C.>ok. CharloH A. (.'.nik. David Conwell. Q. Perhaps you can give the nationality of the ditt'erent captains ofj these vessels from Provincetown ? — A. Of the 48, 6 are native bornj citizens of the United States ; 9 are Portufjuese, who, I think, willioutj au exception, were born in the Azores ; and 33 are natives of Xovaj SScotia — I include Prince Edward Island with Nova Scotia. Q. I suppose that the last named are naturalized ? — A. Yes ; we dol not clear a vessel from the custom-house unless the captain's papers ani| there. By Mr. Whiteway : Q. How did you ascertain the facts concerning the birthplacesof] these captains ? — A. I have known the six who are native-born citizeasj of the United States from boyhood, and I remember when some of tlienil were born. We have the Portuguese living there, and we are acquaintalj with them, and by hearsay we know that they come from the Azores.! 1 am informed that the others came from Nova Scotia, and we l^uovl AWARD OF THE FISHERY CfMMISSION. 2049 theiiias lu'ifflibois ami citizens. I uiii uccinaiiited witli almost every- iHxIy in rroviiicetowii. Q. Tlicy are all naturalized citizens?— A. (), yes; I am co»m»(!t»'d vitli tlie cuHtumhotise, and I know Hometliin^ about what is done tlieio. Wbeii tlioy clear, the captains have to talie oath that they are citizens of tlio I'nited States. No. 7. FuANCiS M. FiiKEMAN, merchant and outlltter, of Troviiicetown, lilass., wiis called on behalf of the Government of the United States, ,»orn and examined. IJy Mr. Trescot : Question. Ilow ohl are you ? — Answer. I am 47. y. What has been yonr occupation ! — A. I have been a flshorraan Ipurtof my life, and an outfitting merchant during part of it. (}. What is your present occupation ? — A. I am a merchant and out- I fitter of vessels. Q. Which was the first year when you went fishing?— A. The first |y<;ar I was in the Bay of St. Lawrence was 18.j1. ' Q. What was the name of the vessel ? — A. The Sarah K. Louis. Q, Where did you fish f— A. About North Point, on Bank Bradley, I and forty miles north of Gasp^. Q. What was your catch f — A. About 4()t) barrels' taken oft' shore. Q. That was your first trip? — A. Yes; we made another trip. (J. Where ditl you then go ? — A. About Prince Edward Island and I outside of it, and down on the Cape Breton shore, about Margaree I Islaud. Q. What did you catch ? — A. Six hundred barrels. Q. Wbiit proportion of it did you take within the three-mile limit? — lA. Two hundred barrels, caught off Margaree Island. This was in 11851. Q. When did you go again ? — A. In 1855. i}. Where were you in the mean time ?— A. I was fishing on our shore, land I was in California. Q. In what vessel did you go in 1855 ? — A. In the C. W. Dyer. Q. Where did you fish and what did you catch ? — A. We caught 380 Ibarrels at the Magdalen Islands ; and then came over to Souris, where he took about 20 barrels. Q. These 20 barrels were caught inshore! — A. Yes. Q. Out of 380 barrels you took 20 inshore ? — A. Yes ; that was my [last trip in the bay. Q. What were you doing since then ? — A. During the next 10 years jlkept a grocery at Provincetown. Q. When did you begin fishing again ?— A. In 1805. Q. What did you do then ? — A. 1 fitted out two vessels ; one went to |the Bay of St. Lawrence, and the other to the Grand Bank. Q. And you have kept that up ever since ? — A. Yes. Q. How many vessels have you now engaged in fishing ? — A. Seven. Q. Are they all engaged in the mackerel fishery ? — A. No ; they are 1 mackerel-fishers, except one which is in the Bay of St. Lawrence. In IISDT I sent one vessel mackereling to the bay. Q. How did you succeed? — A. We got 80 barrels. Q. How long were you there ? — A. About six weeks in the fall trip. By Mr. Thomson : Q. How many did you get in 1805 ? — A. I sent two vessels cod-fishing Itliatyear.. 129 F 2050 AWABD OF THE FIHHERY COMMISSION. By Mr. Tresoot : Q. With regard to your coiioe ; what did you do with her f — A. We put lierring-nets on board of Iut. Q. And where did you catch the herring T — A. They ItHiied in thn spring at the Magdalen Islands and then on Banlis Bradley and Orphan. The nets were placcht. Q. When you send a vessel coiltishing in the UulT of St. liawroiirt', she carries a number of nets to catch the bait required ? — A. Yes. Q. She goes to the Magdalen Islands and fishes there until alioiit the Ist of July? — A. She starts in the spring and visits the Mn;,Mlaleu Islands first; and she catches her own bait. Q. And then she fishes for cotl until whenT — A. Until she gets k>r| trip. Q. And then what does she do T — A. She returns home. Q. Jn fishing for cod do you set jour nets every night ! — A. We catch j our own bait and sometimes we catch a few mackerel. Q. Have you fished on the Banks f — A. No ; I was never cod llshint;. I Q. Have you ever sent vessels to the Banks f — A. Yes ; I did m iu I 1865. Q. When you did so what did they do for bait t — A. They caried | clams for bait. Q. From home *. — A. Yes; every year, 1874 excepted, when I liad one I vessel go iu for it. She did not procure her trip of fish ou that account j and did not get home until Christmas. Q. You found getting bait in Newfoundland a losing business Y— A. Yes. Q. Then you do not allow your vessels to go to Newfoundland for bait,| but they carry their bait with them t — A. Yes. Q. With your experience of the mackerel fishery what do you think] of the privilege of catching them within three miles of the coast in Brit- ish waters, as compared with the levy of duty of $2 a barrel on colonial- Ciiught fish ? — A. I would prefer the latter. Q. If you were allowed to make your choice which would you talvP,| exclusion from the British inshore fisheries and the imposition of a (liityl on colonial-caught fish or the privilege of fishing inshore in Biitisii| waters and no duty f — A. I would rather have the duty. Q. What do you suppose is the cost of the whole stock of a mackerel , fishing vessel for a four mouths' trip, and what would she have tol catch in order to enable any profit to be made t — A. The whole stotkj would eost $4,000, and she would have to catch 400 barrels ol miickereli to bring things square, without making a profit. Q. Y^ou say that the bait which jou use cod-fishing is caught ou your| const? — A. Yes. Q. IIow do you catch it ? — A. We start about the 1st of May, in tliej spiing of the year, and go to Block Island to fish. We also go to New [ port, where they have traps in which they catch the fish on their lirsti coming on the coast. Tliey thus take pogies, alewives and squid. Po-I gies and herring are also take i at Proviucetown. Q. How do you preserve your bait? — A. In ice. Herring are gener-j ally caught for this purpose on the Maine coast. 1 Q. Do I understand that on your own coast you catch enough sqiii^j to supply yourselves with baitt — A. The schools strike inshore iu tliej spring and about the Ist of September, and sometimes they last uutil| the end of November. Q. And having put the squid in ice do you send them out iu yonrl AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMIHSION. 2051 vesiwlrt f— A. Yea. I have known twenty Cape Ann veHselA <'onj« in Sept^'inlier anil October to Provincetown llurbor lor squitl. TIutv jiro m)ple who make a business of catoliinK ami soUinK squid there. Q. Are you not the president of an insurance company f — A. Yes. (^ Are you in the habit of insuring vessels I — A. Ves. {). What is the ^oueral opinion respecting the insurance of vessels as to any extra danger being incurred if vessels go to the Magdalen Islaiuls f Do you consider that this is especially dangerous ?— A. I would rather iniurc vessels going to the Magdalen Islands than to any other part of the Bay. Q. And in preference to those going to Prince Edward Island f — A. Ve». q. What has been done with respect to the iuMurance of vessels which ;oto Newfoundland for bait f — A. Some insurers have inserted in their policios a clause stating that the vessel should not go in there for bait; but we never have done so as yot. This year wo lost a vessel which went in for bait, and I think that in future a clause will be placed in our poli- cies prohibiting vessels we insure going in for bait. By Mr. Thomson : Q. Is there any clause in your policies prohibiting vessels from entering ihe OuU' of Saint Lawrence at any particular times ? — A. O, no ; but we charge half a cent more on vessels which are in the Bay of Saint Law- rence in the month of October. Q. But your policies do not restrict vessels to any part of the bay t— A. No. Q. Then I understand you, as a navigator, to state that you look upon I the Mn<:;dalen Islands as about the safest place in the bayf — A. Yes.. Whether as a fisherman or an insurer, I would prefer them to any part 1 of the Saint Lawrence. Q. And the idea of the sea round the Magdalen Islands being stormy I and tempestuous is entirely erroneous ? — A. No ; but we can make shel- I ter there so much quicker than elsewhere in the bay. (}, Is there a stormy sea around these islands? — A. I think it is |Tiu(Uer at the Magdalen Islands than it is in any other part of the bay. Q. And yet you think it is safer than any other part of it ? — A. Yes j I because we never fish there so far off that we cannot make shelter in a 1 few moments. Q. You mean that you always flsh inshore there ? — A. Yes. {). Then the mackerel do go inshore there !— A. Yes ; on the ledges, I vliich arc round these islands. (^». According to your idea this is the only place in the bay where backcri'l do go inshore to any extent t — A. I think thatthey do so more at the Magdalen Islands than elsewhere in tlie bay. I was never fishing I anywhere else in the bay inshore. Q. I then understand you to say that you never fished inshore any- therein the Gulf of St. Lawrence except at the Magdalen Islands?— |A, 0, yes; I stated in my evidence in chief, that I fished inshore at |Margaiee and caught 200 barrels there. Q. Did you not say just now that j'ou had fished inshore nowhere in |tlii' gulf save at the Magdalen Islands? — A. You misunderstood me. Q. Then you have fished inshore elsewhere in the bay ? — A. We fished land caught a few mackerel off Souris at another time, and we took a |a large quantity of mackerel off Magaree — 200 barrels. Q. That is off Cape Breton f — A. Yes. Q. And those you caught close inshore ? — A. Yes. 2052 AWARD OF THK FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Al(lioii;
  • i tlwro than anywhere clso in the j^ulfl! — A. Y«'s. Q. How (h) you a(U!Ount lor tliat If — A. I was in tho lii^j; },'iil(i (if i,s; in tho bay — in thi^ luRht ol' rriruio 10:iloi tho Mafidalon Islands f — A. Ves; wo could havy laid t'ndoi tiic Icoi the islands.. Q. Y(Hi think that you would there have been safe? — A. Yes; lii'cau! the wind blew east all tho time. Q. Arc not the Ma^fdalon Islands low-lying islands, over wiiicli tl wind blows! — A. Thoy nuiko a breakwater for us. Q. Would it have been possible for you to have lain anywhere aboi tho Magdalen Ishinds during that gale without being lost t — A. It won! have been safe for us to Inive Iain there. i). You think so? — A. Certainly. (j. Which way was tho wind blowing at the tiaju T — A. About 8lnii{jli oast at tirst; it then turned to the northeast and aftcrwani to the iiurti west. Q. Where about the Magdalen Islands would you have lain diuin that storm ? — A. Under Cow Head, on the southwest i)art of the isliuui; Q. Is that a high blutt? — A. It ia quite high ; it is high enough t nft'ord shelter. Q. And you still state that in your opinion tho Magdalen Islands ar safer than any other part of the gulf; is that the general opinion c navigators in the Gult of St. Lawrence, or are you alone of that o|»iiiioii — A. I do not know about that, but this would be my opinion, if 1 \rn in the baytishing I would prefer the Magdalen Islands to Prince Kdwar Isltiud for tishing. Q. Is that the general opinion ? — A. 1 say I do not know of aiiybod else's opinion, but it is mine. Q. You have surely heard opinions regarding it. Is it not the fjeneri opinion that the neighborhood of the Magdalen Islands is a very dai gerous place? — A. As I said before, it is winii ill think that it is salir Huinf— A. Y»'s. Ill tho h\\i tjaio of isril i«l — uihI we tlu'ii nearly »i>»'ii nt the liinc at tiic I ill no tiiiu' iiiul sliil'tnl iriMUiistiiiu'c ?— A. Yts. sale nt. ,,, I )enuo,Souri8,and(.eori;e inuo U arbor, but 1 wasiu out. The water was quite irbor or Souris Harbor !- i> other side of the islamll srdalen Islands ?— A. lesJ hing in the bight ot the Q. Is ISIalpeque Harbor too shoal ?— A. We think so in the event of a northeast storm. Q. You st'ite that Priiuie Kdward Island is a iiiiuth more dangerous pUro to tish at than tlu^ Magdalen Islands ? — A. 1 do. {}. And yon state that this is tlii^ gein^ral opinion of all nshernien ? — V. 1 <1() not know about that. I never impiired about it, but all the iiiPiil ever heard talk about it say they would rather lish at the Mag- ;inl('ii Islands than in any other part of the Hay of St. liawrence. (^). Why ?— A. Heeause it is niueli easier- to make shelter tliepe than iiiiywhcre «^lse in the gull. {}. Then you have taMu'd over tlm matter with others? — A. That is my opinion too. {}. You have then talked this mutter over with other people ? — A. No. (}. How then did they appear to state that ? — A. In common eonver- jutidii. One might ask wlicire they preferred to llsli in the bay, and the;; would reply that they would rather lish at the Magdalen islands than anywhere tdse. Q, Why? — A. Iiester vesHt'ls Itbese vessels to be able to land on the coast of Nova Scotin, Newfotnul- Jlaiid, or Cape Breton to get bait and go back f— A. I have known vea- I sels come down and spend a mouth and not got bait and then go back. Q. Is that any answer to my qnestiou ?— A. I cannot say whether it is any privilege or not. I do not know. Q. Can yon swear that yon have no oi)inioii, either ? That is the qnes- [ tioii I put. — A. I have never formed any opinion about it. Q. And you won't form one now for me, will yon ? I suppose it would I not take any length of time. Suppose you sit down and form an opin- iou?— A. I do not form opinions without evidence to show me which I iviiy to decide. Q. In point of fact, then, I understand you to swear that you have no I facts before you upon which you can form an opinion and that you have formed none? — A. I have none, as far as the Cape Ann fishermen are I concerned, that I am interested in. Q. As far as j^our fishermen are concerned, they do notgo there ? — A. [Where? Q. Do they use this privilege— I mean your own vessels?— A. No; I well, they go to Newfoundland sometimes. Q. Is that a privilege ? Perhaps you have formed an opinion about [that?— A. I never had but one vessel go in, and that was disastrous to I me. Q. Was it in consequence of that privilege that she met with disas- Iterf— A. She was out late and didn't come in until Christmas. If Iflie Mr. Thomson proceeds to put a question. Mr. Tresoot. Let him finish bis answer. Mr. Thomson. I didn't ask him about vessels going in. He answered I my question and said he had only one vessel that went in and that was I disastrous. I asked him if he considered that disaster overtook him [because of this privilege. Mr. Foster. He was proceeding to answer that very question. By Mr. Thomson : Q. Do you think this disaster overtook you because of this privl- llpge?— A. No, certainly, because she would have got her bait and taken I her fish and conie home if the squid had been there. Q. You wish US to understand that if you had not been tempted by [this privilege your vessel would not have suffered the loss? — A. Yes. 0. Do you say for that reason that this privilege is a mere deception land a snare? — A. I think as far as Provincetown is concerned that it is I worthless, Q. Why is it worthless; because they send no vessels there? — A. I Because the vessels that go with salt bait return quick and with full I fares. Q. Then the Provincetown vessels don't avail themselves of this privi- |lege?— A. They do some. Q. Those that go with salt bait ? — A. No. Q. Didn't you tell me just now it was worthless, because they went |witii salt bait and returned with full fares ? — A. I do say that. (^ Don't you want the Commissioners to understand that all the iProvincetown vessels go with salt bait? — A. I wish them to understand Ithat those that go with salt bait make better voyages and return with I better fares. Q. Do any Provincetown vessels go for fresh bait ? — A. They carry Ifrtsh bait sometimes leaving Provincetown. 2062 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Do tliey avail themselves of the privilege of getting frcsli bait elsewhere 1—A. There have been some in this year. Q. These are Provincetown vessels f — A. Yes. Q. Yon stated just now that the privilege was entirely wortlihss !— a, If they had staid out they would do better. Q. JIow do you know ? — A. Those that did it did better. Q. Tlioso that went in did worse than those that staid out t~\, Yes, Q. And that is the reason you thinli it is worthless f — A. Yhh. Q. How did they happen to do worse. Is the fresh bait poorer than the salt? — A. No; but it uses np so much time going for it. Q. How long does it take them ? — A. 24 hours. Q. Then you deliberately state in consequence of going in and losing 24 hours they do worse than those that stay out and fish with salt bait !- Well, those vessels that do Q. You cannot answer. You say those that trust to salt bait are tar better off than these that trust to tresh bait ? — A. Yes, that is my opin ion — as far as Provincetown is concerned. Q. You do not speak for Cape Ann ? — A. No. Q. Do you think they value the privilege f — A. I don't know bow they value it. Q. You haven't made up your mind ? — A. No. Q. You know about your fleet going to Grand Mauan to get baitf- A. Yes. Q. Yon know that ? — A. I have seen them. I know they go there. Q. Did you ever go yourself? — A. No. Q. Do you know what kinds of Ashing grounds Grand Manan and Deer Island are ? — A. No. Q. Have you ever heard about it ? — A. Yea ; because we insure them sometimes. Q. Do you know whether there is a large fishery carried on there ?- A. There is considerable. That is all I know. Q. In reference to your own waters, there are not a great many Brit ish vessels fishing in your waters ? — A. I never saw them. Q. The mackerel that are caught by the Americans themselves are caught ten or fifteen miles from land ? — A. They catch them right in Provincetown Harbor. There are mackerel on the coast. Q. Well, then, your idea is that the mackerel are inshore? — A. Some times. Q. I mean as a rule ? — A. Twenty-five years ago there was niaclverel in Provincetown Harbor. Q. Is there now ? — A. I was going on to tell yon the difference. Tbis year there is mackerel there again. It is twenty five years since I saw | them there. Q. Taking the last three or fonr years, haven't the mackerel canglit I off the American coast been caught ten or fifteen miles oft" in the deepj sea, with purse seines? — A. Yes, most of them are caught off. Q. The bluefish — you will agree with the gentleman that was exam ined yesterday that they have come and destroyed your fisberic*', or | ruined them ? — A. They drive away the fish wherever they go. Q. They kill the mackerel ?— A. Yes. Q. You never heard of the bluefish in British waters ? Mr. Whiteway proposed to put some questions to the witness. Mr. Foster raised the question as to his right to cross-examine, Mr, | Thomson having, on behalf of the British Government, already done so. After a brief discuss'on the cross-examination proceeded. AWARD OP THE PISHEUY COMMISSION. 20G3 IJy Mr. Whitewny : Q. Ilow many years is it since you flsbed?— A. Since '55 I have not (islied. Q. Was that the year yon were on the Grand IJank?— A. I was not on tbe (irand Bank in my lite. Q. Were yon ever on the coast of Newfoundland?— A. Xever. Q. Are you aware that there are excellent harbors on that coast, un- surpassed anywhere!— A. I don't know anything:; abont it. Q. You are not capable of expressing an opinion. You have one ves- sel fishing on the Banks and one in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?— A. I biive none on the Banks. Q. Have you ever hadf— A. 1874 was the last one. Q. From i8(J5 to 1874 she went. Do I understand you that she fished continuously from 1865 to 1874 every year— one vessel f — A. No. I have had as high as four vessels. Q. You bad vesselu fishing at the Grand Bank from 1865 to 1874 T— A. Yes. Q. Where, during that time, did these vessels obtain their bait!— A. They carried it with them from Provincetown. Q. What bait was it? — A. It was salt clams and slivers. Q. Entirely ! What do you mean by slivers T— A. The side of a porgy fish cut off. Q. Then salt clams and porgy slivers are tbe only bait you use! — A. That was the bait we generally carried. Q. Did they ever get squid upon the Banks?— A. Yes. Q. Did they depend upon this squid principally for their bait? — A. No, sir; they depended upon the bait they carried. Q. Tell me the average quantity of bait taken by each vessel!- A. A vessel carrying 175 hogsheads of salt would carry 50 barrels of bait. Q. Your vessels averaged between 65 and 80 tons! — A. Yes. (J. These would take 50 barrels of bait? — A. Yes. Q. Well, now, you had one vessel in 1874 that went into the Newfound- land coast. What was her name? — A. The Antelope. Q. Was she lost there ?— A. No. Q. What was the name of the captain ? — A. Alexander Lamy. He belonfred to the Gut of Canso. Q. Did she take salt bait? — A. I think not. She took no bait. Q. Was that the only vessel ? — A. Y'es, that was the only one on the Bank. Q. In 1873 did your vessel take any salt bait? — A. Yes. Q. The first year they did not was 1874 ? — A. Yes, only one vessel. Q. Now j)roceeding from Provincetown, where did she go direct ? — A. To tbe Banks. Q. How long did she remain there? — A. I don't know what time. Some time in August she went in. Q. What time did she leave Provincetown ? — A. Some time in May. Q. She went straight to the Banks and remained until August? — A. |>'o, She went into the Gut of Causo. The captain belonged there. Q. When did she arrive in the Gut of Canso ? — A. In a week, I sup- I pose, alter leaving Provincetown. Q. From this she went to the Bank? — A. Yes. Q. There she remained until August ? — A. Yes. Q. Tlien she went into Newfoundland ? — A. Yes. Q. What was she doing between the time she 1 ft the Gut of Canso I and Angnst ?— A. Fishing. Q. What with?— A. With small codfish and halibut. ,j*iT 2064 AWARD OK THE FIHHEKY COMMISSION. eut (j. Then slio liidii't get her full fare with that bait f — A. No. Slio w in aud got Halt sqiiid^. Q. What quantity had hIio taken with that bait up to the month of AugUHt? — A. Four hundred quintain. Q. Why didn't Hhe continue li^hin^; dependent upon that h.ui .'—.v. no thouf^ht he could do better goiiij; for fresh bait. Q, But that was fresh bait, was it not ? — A. Y^es. Q. Didn't ho take any bait with him from the Gut of Canso '.—\. [ think not. Q. J)o you untertake to say he did not! — A. 1 know he did not. I am certain. Q. You mean to say that a vessel proceeded from the Gut of (jaiiso out to the Grand Bank without any bait, depending upon small coiltlHli and halibut T — A. 8he might have a barrel or two when she started. Q. Is not that an isolated case ? Do you mean to say it is a coininon thing for them to go out depending upon bait out upon tho Bunks, or that it was at that timef — A. How do I understand you ? Q. Is that correct, what you stated, that they always went out do pending upon salt bait f You stated that those that went out witb salt bait always got their trips. We understand you now to say that some of them went out supplied with salt bait 50 barrels per vessel, and tliat some \/ent depending upon the small codfish andhalibuton thoBanks!- A. Precisely. Q. What proportion of these vessels were supplied witb salt bait, and what proportion were depending upon the small codfish and halibut !— A. I could not say. Q. Half of them ? — A. I do not know how many. Q. Then, if a witness stated here that all the vessels that went iuto the Banks were supplied with salt bait up to 1873, he would not be stating what you believe to be correct? — A. I do not know auytbiiig further than I said before. I know this vessel went in 1874. Q. Now, are you aware that a large number of vessels during the last three or four years have gone on to the coast and obtained bait for the Grand Banks f — A. Y'es. Q. I believe the numbers have increased every year ; is not that the case ? — A. I think it is. Q. Well, do you think it would be very injurious in fact for tbem to enter ? — A. That is my opinion. Q. Well, now, has it never struck you as very singular that such a number of vessels should go in, aud that every year the number should increase, if it were so very injurious to those vessels ? — A. Well, if I had vessels going to the Banks I should not allow tbem to go in for bait. Q. Does it not strike you as being very singular that those vessels increase in numbers every year if the eflfect is so injurious and prejudi- cial ? — A. I don't know bow to answer that question. Q. You cannot answer that question ; are you the agent of any ves- sel there in Provincetown I — A. Yes. Q. Besides your own, I mean f — A. No. Q. Y'ou know Captain Atwood who was here yesterday ? — A. Yes. Q. He is one who is a high authority in Provincetown on the subject of the fisheries, is he not ? — A. Some. Q. Is not he a man whose opinions relative to the subject of the fisb eries are regarded as important? Is he not in fact regarded as an oracle? — A. Ho may be scientifically, but not practically, more than the rest. ▲WARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2065 (QiiestioD repeated.) — A. He has a great many theories aud opiDions of bis own, and his opinions are very good. Q. Tlie people have faith in those opinions f—A.. Yes. Q. Is that the case ? — A. Yus. Q. Now this vessel of yours, you say, went into Newfoundland for bait in August; are you aware to wliat place f—A. St. Peter's, I thiuk, or St. rierre, I believe it is. Q. Tliat is not in Newfoundland; didn't you know that! — A. I thiuk it ix all Newfoundland down there. Q. You say your vessel went into St. Peter's? — A. I suppose so. I iloa't know whether it was St. Peter's or St. John's. It is all the same tome whether it is St. Peter's or St. John's. I felt provoked enough tbat be was there. Q. As a matter of fact you say he went into St. Peter's I— A. I could not say whether it was St. Peter's or St. John's. Q. You have said it was. Now recollect. — A. Well, I could not say. I would not swear. I had other business to attend to. Q. Will you swear that it was not St. Matthew's! Do you know ffbetlier there is a harbor called St. Matthew's !— A. No. Q, L'o yon know whether he was on the coast of Newfoundland at all f—A. I know he was, because he had a draft. Q. In whose favor ! — A. It was drawn on me. Q. Well, now, who was it in favor of? — A. I don't know who the party was. Q. Do you recollect the amount ! — A. No. Q. Did you pay it!— A. I did. (J. Did you get a bill of parcels of what he bought !— A. I did. (]. Whose name was to the bill ? — A. I don't recollect. Q. What do you recollect about it? Let us know. — A. 1 recollect that I he went in there and didn't get home until November. Q. Where did he go in ? — A. Some part of the British provinces — I into Newfoundland. Q Will you undertake to swear it was Newfoundland now ? — A. No, I I would not say, because I do not remember. It was so small an afifair I tiiat .' paid no attention to it. Q. Y^ou are president of an insurance society ? — A. Yes. Q. Is it mutual or has it a subscribed stock f — A. It has a capital I stock of H 100,000. Q. What was it I understood you to say with regard to increasing the I rate of premium! You were going to put some additional clause in to increase the premium. As regards what place ! — A. As regards any of I these vessels leaving the Bank and going in for bait. Q. You have not put that in the policy yet! — A. No. Q. Although those vessels have been going in there for three or four I years?— A. Some have. There are one or two cases where they have lone it with certain vessels. Q. In Provincetown? — A. Yes. Q. Could you produce one of those policies ? — A. I could not now. Q. Do you remember what it was that was put in ? — A. It was to pro- libit them from going in for bait. Q. Are you aware that all along the coast where those vessels go in Ithere is not a single shoal or rock to bring a vessel up, and that they Igo directly into the harbor; that in reality the eastern coast of New- Ifoandiand is the least dangerous coast we have! — A. I know I have to |pay for one vessel. Q. There was one vessel lost there during the last three or four years; 130 F •ir .. Ail&^ ■■:l it; ^*> .;!»•■ 20fU{ AWAHM Of TMK nsUHnV I'OMMIMHIMN. ( \\m yon \\\\\\\(s «ny olhov v«»«r(»II DihIhh: (Im< Www vmmhn Mini dII im* Anu'iionn ll«>o( lin.v«v 1((»iMt nolnn In (ln>to liiis Immmi otif.v oiio smntA IohI; thrti is (l>t« TiuM, I lM>li(»vi>f A. I do not know. i). Von ilott't Ktnov unv ollnn f -A. I Know of ln«i' Itocunsn I \\m\\\ (). \ on «1onM Unow unv olhorf Wlinf \U\\ wHi, | yon HpiMiU olf— A. lliMiinns, |/0)ii(>s, ,m|nl«l, iinil innckcrol. \\y IMr. 'r«ow>o(: (). N on hiivo Itoon nHUoi) n |i)i'iM«t i1«Mt) iiUonl ^olnulnlo NnwrtMindliniil Tor h\\\{, I ninhM'Hiivnd yon nn>nn( lo Niiy llnil \\h Ww mm yonr «>\|t*Mii>iiiii| Mr. NVnn'K,>t Av. W i> wnni (o Unow wInH ln> rmIiI. Ml. 1 itv<:K< or. I wnnI to Know winit ho intMinl, wlnMlnn' I nnil<>iH|in\i| \\\\\\ oo.roi'lly. i). ) nnilorH(oo«l von (o hiia thin, (lint i«h tiir ns yonr oxiiorliMico wmit yon would pnMor, ninl tlioMo with winini yon doiilt would inrltM, ilmt yonr vohroIm nhonld yo to tlio Unnli with »nlt linit and tnUo tln'ii fliiiiiinl of not tin^i n. ttiiod ivlnrn. rnthiM' thiin wnsto llio thin* noi'OHHuiy lnuoj into nny <»1 tho ports of Nowtonndlund to liny (Vonh liiiit ? — A. Vcs. <),| otho<' «)noHtion. I wiint toUnow whotinn' I iiiuIim stood \on oonvi'tly, hoi'nnm> ,Vlr. riioniNtin didn'ti Hotnn to. I nndi'isMmil yon to Mivy thiU t))or<> wn.s n ^onornl nnwillin^ni sh on th«« piirt nl llnwl pooplo yon woiv fnniilinr with to yo within tho thr«>*viHilo limit, ln'cmiioj tho oost of tluMr vohsoIh wuh hucIi thnt 1 hoy didn't oIiooho ttMiiiniiivf risk, itnd thiU w hon (hoy took lioooHOH thoy took (h«nn to ^innd Muiiiiii<|| rtny nii.stidvo? -A. N os. Wo would pny ."fMl riithor Ihiin run tliorisKol loKUiji our voHvSol. N'o. 8. Uknky Took, of Pnivinootown, MnHN.,owiior nnd tlttoront til vcssoIkJ Oidlod on hohulf of tho (nvst\on. WhiU is yonr n}fo? — Answor. Hixty four. <^>. N on un^ tho ownor of vossols and tho tlltor-oni: of vohhoIs foi lliej l^;uik t\shorios for ood. \ lioliove ? — A. V(>s. «v>. In oarly lito yon woro yoursolf n tlshornnni f — A. I \vi»h. i^>. How miuiy yoais ? — A. I think .Ti yours. \). Old yon tish a littlo for niaokorol f — A. Yos. ^>. \h\[ jninoipally foroodlish f — \. rrinoipally. Q. Old yon ovor inaKo any niaokoroling trip,s to tlio (Snlf of Si, Linv| ronoo ? — \. I did onoo. Q. What yoar was that ?— .V. In *tl. i^>. How inany \>arrols did yon got, if you roniondwr ? — A. I |j[oti>J barrols. (J. 1 will ooino now to what has boon your prinoipal Inrslnoss. Hy the] way. havo \ou Ivon intonvstod in any niaokorol vivssols of hilo yoarsl- A 1 havo had ono that I had in tho niaokorol tlsh«>ry in 1S71. Q. W hat was hor namo ?— A. Tho Torosa l>. Utikor. She tisliod soiii^ whoit> on tho t^ast oi tho Tnitod Stato.s. c^>. In what way ?— A. Sho tishod with soino altogothor. Q. How many banvls did sho gotf — A. Somewhere in the noiglilwrj h^HHi of :UH>. Q. l>id you conio up to St. Peter's one season to live! — A. 1 did. AWAKM Ol^ TIIH KinHKIIV (MMMIHHMm. 2007 |,.,ili>illiit*Ml l<» I'Mii'.v Oil liiiNliM'Hn IImmo— (,o liiivo iiiv voHNi'ls (•oiiin into Ht, |Vli>rH iiikI Dnii IImm'«>. (). Wliiit HI. l*«'liM'MiloyoiM»>f(>rftt \vIh«H' Im If T A. In Onjm Mrnloii. {]. Anil .yon iimmuiI voiir immI IImImmimi'ii Ii» nnno tlii'tiMUMl pioenii^ fiflli ll„.n«? -A. 'I'lin fliHt iiif). {}. W I'll, illtl yon »»Hlnl»li«li yoiiiHi>ir IIm-io 1 A. V«»h. 1^, lloi< nionlliH. (J, WiiH lln» i»x|M'iinn«n( prolllnhlnT - A. No. (J. V(Hi nlniinloiMMl it lnMiniiH(> if, wiis not |iroflfiil>ln f— A, Vcn. {). How iiiiMiy coil Hulling v('HHi>lHMH'yon liifi*ii'Hii>(l in nowT -A HinoiL 1^, WliiMM nii^ llii'y t A. 'I'Iiumi nin liotno in llio liiuiior, (nii> in flie luiill, mill (lii-i'o mil on (liii Otiunl lliinl<. 1^. Wliini* Im flin oiiK In (ho Itiiy o( Hf. liiiwii'iiro ? A. Hlin wan llsli- t initltMHloni|^j,||r III) lliiiili Mniilloy flio limf I Itnow iiiiyfliint; of lior. 1^. Now, wlnil I |4i«n<|i oiio- llild IIH II ll'HOIVO ill I'ttNII of loHiliy IJMt oIIm'IM. riM\V IniVH Mll'HI', 1,0 full \\m\ M|)oii. <,», Tin»io would lio nlioiif. iwiOvo or fln'no iii*'m hiM. (.oni.lr,ii lioirinj< lor miir A. Yi'H. (,l. Ih fliiii doni'oii (IiimmhI HHJiiiiy trioiinoM ?- A. Alloircf.licr, Mint oviu* liiivc lirdi'd (liiMii Miiy. I iii'viM' WHH flo'ic. {}. At llindlcv f— A. Y«'H. {). Now, fiilto your ofhcr vi'hscIh I'od llHliintr. Vim Hiiy Miinn ol' Mii'in Iniriiii llio liiiiik mid lliino liiivc rtMiiincil. Htatf, ilyoii piiMint', liow you l|iiiivi«li>d fJiiMii with liiilt, tliJH ycm.— A. I proviiiiMl my InindliiM^ vi^Hniih |wiili Niifllclonfi linil, to olitnln it r.m'(ro. •^. WInil. Imit wiiH it I — A. Tlio (Intindo Ih IIio ono fliiil, anivi'd nt riiiviiiiM had 1,1100 ipiinfalH. Hho cjirrii'd IOi>arntls of iiiiiiiiN, with II (rawl.* Hho IIhIiimI with tlio trawl. Hho wi-nt intf» Now- IIiiiiikIIhihI twiiio; lint hIio rarried into Ni'.wlonndland wlion hIio (IrHfc ult'or St. liiw^ml in 1,000 ipiliitalH. ^•. ('iiii|i;lit with Halt claiiiH ? — A. V«'m, and what ImmjoiiIiI gut out of ItllHlHil. '^ Now, hot' (wo (rIpH to Niiwlonndland cont how niurJi ? — A. Chio iiiihIi'imI and I'orty-Huvon dollaiH, ^old. . Now, tako tho two vi'hhoIh, the (Icrtrndo thatcanio in lirnt and yot L'i50(|iiintulH with salt <>JaiinH, and tho Arthur Olillord that k<>'' 1,''0(> liiiiitiils and took 000 oC (lioni with Hipiid at lit 1 17 gold, which was tlie |iiiwt jirolllahlo oC tlui two voyiij^oH ? — A. Tho inoHt profitable w»h thr? n<' Willi ihu clam bait, the "eff fouudland and return to the cod-fishing ground, when they have tried tin experiment; how much has the fishing been interrupted ? — A. Ittakei an average of ten days. Last year the captain reported, when I talkei to him so strongly about not going in ; he told me the number of days, and I think it was 4 days. But this year it is more immoderate weather, and it will take longer. Q. You think, on the average of the whole, it will take them lOdayi A. They would lose 10 days' fishing. Q. What other bait is procurable on the banks without going oflf tli fishing-grounds? — A. They can get about half enough out of tbetish Q. Have you ever known codfish itself to be cut up for bait ?— A had a vessel year before lust that caught all in that way. Q. What vessel ? — A. The Arthur Clifford. She was a trawler. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2069 makes a full Q. You had a trawling- vessel year before last that cut up fish and got a full tare ? — A. She caught 1,G40 quintals. Q. Do you l-now of any cod-fishing prosecuted within 3 miles of the shore in British waters ?— A. I don't know of any. Q. There has been some account given here of some young men from Proviucetowu who went to Magdalen Islands and established themselves on tte shore. Do yon know anything about that ?— A. No. There are some that have gone there. I do not know what they are doing. Q. Tou don't know the facts ? — A. No. Q. Do you know how long it takes to go over from where our cod-fish- ermen generally fish on the banks to St. Pierre, the French island I— A. There is no great difference between that and St. John's. It is very trifling. A vessel fishing on the southern part of the Bank would be likely to go into St. Pierre about as quick as from the northern part into St. John's. St. Peter's is something westward of St. John's, on the south coast of Newfoundland, and the Bank extends northeast and southwest, which would bring it about the same distance. It is just about lOU miles from where our fishermen fish on the Bank to St. John's. By Mr. Whiteway: Q. You say you have now seven vessels cod-fishing ? — A. Y'es. Q. How long have you been carrying on the cod fishery ? — A. Well, I commenced about twenty-five years ago, I think. I was engaged in the bay fishing mostly the first part. Q. Your cod-fishing is principally in the gulf and on the Banks ? — A. It is pretty much altogether on the Banks. Q. Well, it is very profitable fishery, is it not ? — A. Sometimes it is very profitable. Q. Upon the whole, it is a very profitable business? — A. Well, I can't say it is a very profitable business. We make a living. Q. A very good one i — A. We make a living. 1 never got rich ; I never got independent. Q. Provincetown is a very respectable town. It is principally built np by the bankers, is it not ? — A. No, sir. Our whaling business, I tilink, brings more money than the bankers. Q. Well, how long was it since your vessels first went into the British provinces, into Newfoundland, for fresh bait ? — A. Well, I guess about tliree years ago. Q. They have continued to go ever since? — A. Yes, they have been two years to my certain knowledge. Q. Three years, then, they have gone? — A. I think it likely that they liave, some of them ; not before three years ago. Q. You have spoken of those vessels — the Chanticleer, the Speedwell, the Lizzie W. Mattheson, the Arthur Clifford, the Gertrude, and the S. E, Davis — and you have given us an account of their voyages, and what lias been realized as far as you have heard from them for the iiresent year?— A. Yes. Q. Can you give the results of the several voyages last year or the vear before? — A. I could not; I haven't the figures. But there were three of them that got half fares — between 800 and UOO quintals. Q. Tlie tliree others— what about them ?— A. The big one didn't go last year. I had five on the Banks last year. The other two did de- I ceutly. Q. !Name them— name the five ?— A. Well, take out Lizzie W. Matthe- j «ou and the big one ; that leaves five. Q. You take out Lizzie W. Mattheson and the Speedwell ?— A. I had 2070 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. nobuinr, to do with the Speedwell. She was only spoken of as one of those that went in. Q. She didn't belong to you ? — A. No. Q. Name the five then ? — A. The Arthur Clitt'ord, S. E. Davis, the Teresa D. Baker, the Chanticleer, and the Gertrude. Q. Can you give me an account of what they did severally ?— A. I havn't the figures. Q. How many of them made full fares ? — A. Teresa D. Baker con- sumed five hogsheads of salt. That was very nearly her full fare. Q. Was she upon the coast to get bait ?— A. I don't think she went in. Q. Do you know whether she did or not ? — A. 1 don't know. I say I think she did not. Q. Never mind what you think. You say you don't know. — A. Well if 1 told you I did not know, I would not be telling you all I know. Q. Do you say more ? — A. I say I think not. Q. What about the other four ? — A. The Arthur CliflFord was in, and the S. E. Davis. Q. What captain was it that told you it took him four days to go io and get bait, and come out again ? — A. Captain McDonald, in the Arthur CliflFord. Q. Is that the only captain from whom you have heard how long it I takes to go in for bait ? — A. No, I have heard others. Q. Of your own captains ? — A. 1 had one that was three weeks, some \ years ago, in at St. Peter's. Q. How many years ago was that ? — A. Five years, I guess. Q. Are you aware that St. Peter's is not part of Newfoundland, and | is not under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland or of the British Got- ernment ? — A. Yes ; I knew it was French. Q. Have other of your captains told you that it took them four dars I to go into the Newfoundland coast to get bait and come out ? — A. >ot | that exact time. Q. Then it is only from him you have the information as to the tiiiie| it takes. Is that the case; Is Captain McDonald the only man?— A. O, no ; I have talked with other captains that don't belong to ray yes-i sels about the matter, and that was the reason why I didn't want mv | vessels to go in, because they took so much time. Q. What others? — A. I have talked with some that belonged to my] cousin's vessel, the Ella May, and several others. Q. Give the captains' names. — A. Captain Mayhew. Q. Was that the only one ? — A. No; I suppose not. I have talked] with the whole of them. Q. How long did Mayhew say it took ? — A. He said it took him a| week to make the (rip into Newfoundland and back. Q. Is there any other ? — A. Yes ; I have talked with the whole of I them. If I was to tell you the names of all it would take me the re$t| of the day. Q. We will require to know the names of the others ? — A. There i no particular time stated by many of them, but they found a good deal| of fault with the going in for bait. Q. Is there any other captain who told you the time it would takel- A. Yes ; I can name a dozen. Q. Name them. Mr. Dana. You do not want these names. Mr. Whiteway (to the witness). You say you can name them. M you refuse to do so? If you do there is an end of it. Do you refuse to| do so? — A. No; I do not refuse. AWARD OP THE PISHEBY COMMISSION. 2071 Q. Will you d« it then !— A. Tea; I could name them if I was to bring them to my recollection — to look them all up. Q. Well, you cannot recollect them all now ? — A. I can some. Q. We might have had the whole of them by this time. — A. There is James Small. Q. How long did he say? — A. It took him three weeks to go in to S( Peter's. Q. Go on. Who else ?— A. William Mattheson. Q. How long did he say? — A. I do not know the time. Q. Who else ? — A. Captain Mackay. y. How long did he say ? — A. I do not recollect. Q. Any one else? — A. I could go on naming them. Q. Well, go on ; the quicker you go the quicker we will get done. — A. flow many do you want to know, the whole of them ? Q. Yes ; the dozen you spoke of. — A. If it must be, I will have to make a memorandum. Q. It would be very interesting, indeed ; let us have the other eight. — A. There is where I got my knowledge from. Q. From the captains that visited Newfoundland for bait — those you have named? As to the other captains, you don't remember the times it occupied them?— A. I didn't suppose Q. Never mind supposing ; did other captains tell you the time ? — A. They did. I can't recollect each one separately. Q. Well, now, why did you pledge yourself that it would occupy on the average ten days to go in and get bait and come out? You pledged yourself to that statement. Now you say the only basis of that is that two captains told you it occupied them four days, and another a week ; how do you arrive at ten days ? — A. There is one in there now. Q. Never mind about him. Explain how you arrived at ten days. I You pledged your oath it would occupy ten days to go in. — A. I pledged I my oath ! I said no such thing. . Q. You didn't say it would occupy ten days ? — A. I said that was my [best judgment. Q. You pledged your word ? — A. I didn't pledge my word at the time. Q. You withdraw it ? — A. I pledge my word that is the best of my [judgment. Q. But you never were down there ? — A. Not on the Bank fishery. I I told you I was not there ; that I got my information from captains I that bad been there. Q. One told you four days, and another a week ? — A. Yes ; owing to [the vessel's sailing, and the weather. If you got in the fog Q. Don't you know there is no fog on the coast of Newfoundland ? — A. I have been there myself. Q. When? — A. A great many years ago. Q. You said you never were there ? — A. I was never there for bait. Q. Were you there Bank-fishing? — A. No. Q. You were on the coast, you say ? — A. I have harbored in New- foundland a good many times. Q, When v/ere you there ?— A. I can go back to forty years ago. Q. Where were you then ?— A. On the north side of Newfoundland. Q. Be kind enough to say what part.— A. Bonne Bay and Bay of Islauds. Q. That is on the western side, is it not ?— A. No ; on the north- |\f ester n. Q. You were there forty years ago ; did you see any fog ?— A. Plenty if it. *r::,i#'*f 2072 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Don't you know, as a matter of fact, that the fog exists on the Banks but not immediately upon the coast f — A. That doctrine won't sit on me. Q. What doctrine do you believe in ? — A. I have got a different doc- trine by experience from that. Q. Were you ever on the eastern coast ? — A. I have been down on the Grand Bank fishing seven years. Q. You have been on the Grand Bank for seven years; you said just now you were never fishing at all ? — A. I didn't say so. 1 said I never went to Newfoundland for bait. Q. I know you said that, and I understood you to say you never went fishing. — A. You never heard me say so. I was, seven years. Q. How long ago was that ? — A. Forty years ago ; forty or forty-five. Q. You were there seven years preceding forty years ago ? — A. Yes. Q. Seven years consecutively ? — A. Somewhere in the neighborhood of foiiy years ago. I have no record unless I overhaul my old books of voyages. Q. What bait did you use in those days ! — A. Clams altogether. Q. When was it you issued these instructions you spoke of to your cap- tains, and why ? — A. When ? Last spring before they went away. O. Tujt before they sailed? — A. Yes;, last spring. rtu give them in writing? — ^A. No, sir, they were verbal. i < • rs the irst year you gave these instructions? — A. Yes; I .1. ;;be reason why. <;. will Q. Never mind the reason. You told them not to go into Newfound land '>>" bait ? — A. Yes ; that is not all. I told them it would be the last vo^.aj, the^ < uld sail for me. Q. Did you tell A>'. Vtwood this? — A. Not that I know of ; I don't know that I ever said anything to him. Q. Had you any conversation with Mr. Atwood about it ? — A. Ifot especially ; I never said anything to him that I know of; I don't know as I ever did. Q. Did he ever come and ask you your opinion as to vessels going into the Newfoundland coast for bait ? — A. He did ; he asked me if I agreed to theii; going in, if I recommended it. i told him no, not by any means. Q. When was this ? — A. Ever since the drafts came. Q. The drafts were what you disapprov ed of ? — A. No ; but I didn't know that they were there until the drafts came. Q. It was the drafts that you disapproved of? — A. The drafts would not have come if they had not gone in. Q. And it was because of that you did not approve of it ? — A. They caused the drafts to come. Q. You spoke of a draft for $147 gold that the captain of the Arthur Clittord drew on you ? — A. Yes. Q. Well, now, have you any bill of parcels of the articles be pur- chased ? — A. No, 1 haven't got anything but just the draft ; 1 never had a single thing. Q. He has not returned, and you have not seen the bill ? — A. No. Q. You don't know what it may be for ? — A. No. Q, But you have a strong objection to paying out money ? — A. No, I haven't. I have paid hundreds of dollars there for that and other ves- sels; I cared nothing about that ; that has nothing to do with the cargo of fish ; but when they last year spent that much money and brought home a half or two-thirds of a fare of fish. Q. Y'ou object to their going there and drawing drafts and not brlD AWARD CF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2073 inghome fall fares !— A. Yes; certaialy, because they might have staid and got their fares. Q. Then j'ou consider the salt bait preferable !— A. No, I never said so. Q. The fresh bait you consider preferable ? — A. Certainly. Q. Why !— A. Because it is contrary to the element of the fish. Of salt bait there is nothing but clams— salt clams — that you can catch fish with. I have shipped them down here from your people, which is right in the fresh bait. Q. Then the fresh bait is no good at all ?— A. It is good ; it is first rate, better than salt clams ; but salt clams is the best salt bait you can get. Q. But surely you don't mean to say that fresh bait is better than salt bait 1— A. Yes. Q. Do you mean to say that you can catch more fish with fresh bait ! — A. Always. Q. You can catch them faster ? — A. Y'es. Q. You are certain of it ? — A. Yes. Q. It is no great advantage to have salt bait ? — A. Not much at all, if you can get fresh bait — if you can get it on the ground where you are fishing, and get it every day. Q. Well, if you must have it so? — A. I will have it so until I am older than I am now. Q. Then you would use exertions to get fresh bait ? — A. They do use a good deal of exertions. They get a good deal of squid on the Bank. Q. Suppose you had not squid on the Bank, you would try to get it elsewhere ? — A. No ; you would not go that distance. Q. What distance? — A. One hundred miles. Q. I was not speaking of any distance. — A. I mean the distance to St. John's from the Banks. Q. Then you think it would be prejudicial to go 100 miles to get that bait, although the fresh is so much better ? — A. I want my vessels to stay there. Q. And you think it would be prejudicial to the vessels to go into Newfoundland to get fresh bait? — A. It would be an advantage to the vessel and the crew to stay where they were and fish. Q. Then it would be injurious to them to go in ? — A. It would not be iujurious if they could get it without spending half the time looking for it. If the Newfoundland people will employ a steamer to get bait and run out, we will buy it and pay that much money for it. I would do that, aud pay a good deal more money for it than I do now. Only let them fetch it out. Q. But if you can go in and out in four days, don't you think it would be better to use it ? — A. That was an extra trip. They will never do it again. Q. Do you mean to say no vessel can do it in four days ? — A. I mean to say that to run in from Virginia liocks to St. John's and get fresh bait aud return again. Q. St. John's is not the only port ? — A. They will have to go further lor them if they don't go to St. John's. Q. Don't yon know there are abundance of harbors between Cape Bace and St. John's? — A. There are abundance, but are they any nearer ? Q. Is not the bait very prolific in those harbors ? — A. It is seventy- I five miles up the bay. But you cannot catch bait at all at the mouth of the harbors. . ^^^r 2074 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Between Gape Bace and Conception Bay tbere are a number of barbors full of bait; are tbere not a number of barbors for that bait between Gape Race and St. Jobn's ! — A. You brin^ an angle of forty- five degrees on one side and fifty-five degrees on tbe otber, and you will find it is the same distance to tbe barbors you speak of tbat it is to St. Jobn's. Q. Have you never beard of any vessels going in and out in less than tbree days f — A. Never. Q. Is it impossible to do it 1 — A. I suould say so. No. 9. The Gonference met. Saturday, September 22, 18 1 1. Joshua Paine, of Provincetown,Mass., merchant, called on behalf ot the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Dana : Question. Your age is 58 ? — Answer. Yes. Q. You are now president of an insurance company? — A. Yes; of tbe Atlantic Mutual Fire and Marine Insurance Company. Q. When did you first go fishing ?— A. I went fishing in 1835. Q. In the bay ?— A. Yes. Q. What fishing ?— A. God-fishing. Q. How long did you continue cod-fishing in the bay 1— A. Four years. Q. Where did you catch codfish— I mean, was it within the three mile limit ? — A. No ; it was deep-sea fishing on Bradley, and Orphan, and the Banks on the west coast, ofif Miramichi Bay and Point Miscou, and down that way. Q. In 1840 you went into the bay again ; what for? — A. Mackerel. Q. How much did you catch ? — A. About 200 barrels. Q. 'Where did you get them ? — A. I caught about 100 barrels at tlie Magdalen Islands, and 100 at Prince Edward Island. Q. On the north side ? — A. Yes ; on the bend of tbe island. Q. Have you any notion how far ott' these 100 barrels at Prince Ed- ward Island werecaught. Did you catch them within the three miles f- A. Well, from recollection, I should judge tbat most of them were within three miles of the shore. Q. In '41 you went into the bay again ? — A. Yes; in another schooner, Q. How much did yon catch ? — A. Fifty-four barrels. Q. What was tbe reason you caught so few? — A. We could do better on the American coast, and went borne. Q. Did you go fishing at home after tbat ? — A. Yes. Q. How did you do in tbe home fishing ? — A. I do not recollect tbat we did anything extra. Q. I suppose if you had done very well or very poorly you would have recollected it ? — A. I do not recollect anything particular. Q. After 1841 you left the fishing business ? — A. Well, I went in mer- chant vessels, and then after that I stopped home and started a grocery store. I carried on the Bank fisheries in a small way up to 1861). Q. You mean you engaged, or tbat you went yourself? — A. I had Uo Q. You didn't go ?— A. No. Q. In 1869 what did you do?— A. In 1869 I sent a small schooner into the Bay St. Lawrence for mackerel. She was tbe Emma Linwuod. thought we i AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2075 J ?— A. Four Q. Were you agent or owner?— A. I wns agent and part owner. Q. What was her tonnage ? — A. 73 tons. Q. How did she do ? — A. Very small. Q. Do you remember the catch 1— A. 120 barrels. She didn't go at the tirst of the season. Q. Do you mean you think she was too late I— A. No; she was in time to get a full fare, but the flsh were scarce and she didn't succeed. Q. Do you know where she went? — A. No. Q. Have you since that time been fishing at all f — A. No. Q. You tit out both codfish and mackerel vessels ? — A. Yea. Q. Your cod-fishing vessels are fitted out in the spring ?— A. Yes. Q. What time do they go off ?— A. Early in May. Q. To the Grand Bank ? — A. Yes ; and the Bay St. Lawrence. Q. AVhere do the mackerel vessels go ?— A. They go down on our coast in the fall. After the cod-fishing voyage is done they land their codfish and go mackereling. Tart of them do that. The small ones do. Q. The bigger ones are laid up ? — A. They go for oysters. Q. How do these vessels do that fish off the American coast ? How have they succeeded for some years past ? — A. They do a very fair bus- iness. Q. Well, do you send many vessels into the bay mackereling now ? — A. Not any. Q. How long since you gave up ? — A. I have sent none since 18G0. Q. Do you find they do better off the American coast than in the bay fishing? — A. 1 think they do. That is the reason I send them. Q. How far does that opinion prevail in your town ? — A. It is pretty general. Q. Is that shown by their action ? — A. Yes ; very few go into the bay. Q. Now, you have had of late years how many cod-fisherman in your own employ ; vessels I mean ? — A. I had three at the Grand Bank, and, one part of the time, two in the bay and two that fished shore-fishing on onr own coast. Q. For the last how many years ? — A. Two years. Q. You have had three on the Grand Bank, two cod-fishing in the bay, and one or two fishing on the American coast ? — A. Y'es. Q. Now, take your two cod-fishermen in the bay, where do they get their bait? Do they take it from home? — A. No herring nets. Q. Are they fastened to the vessel or let out ? — A. a quantity, more than they can let out. Q. They fasten them to the stern of the vessel ? — A. Y'es ; some of them, and some they anchor off. Q. They catch their own bait ? — A. Yes. Q. They catch it where they catch the codfish ? — A. Yes. Q. Now, speaking of the two you send in the bay, their flsh are caught off shore ? — A. Yes; on Bradley and Orphan, and at the Magde- lens early in the year. Q. Now, what bait do they catch ?— A. Herring. Q. Is that bait sufficient for them ?— A. Yes ; formerly they caught i mackerel ; of late years they could not get much mackerel. Q. Do these cod fishermen in the bay, of late years, flsh with hook ; and line, or trawls ? — A. Trawls altogether. Q. They don't run in to buy any bait ?— A. No. Early in the spring I they bait at the Magdalen Islands. After that they catch it on the grounds where they are Ashing. , they carry nets — They carry Both. 2076 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. * Q. Do you hud any complaints of waut of bait ? — A. No ; not par- ticularly. Q. Have any of Miem run in to buy bait ? — A. Not tbat I know. Q. Now, as to your three on the Banks, would you state to the Com- mission how they are titted out as to bait 1 — A. We furnish theiii with salt clams for bait. Q. How is it as to the supply of clams on the Americau coast at the time you lit out ? — A. Any quantity of clants. Q. At the time you lit out your Bank llshermen can you get what clams you waut f — A. Yes. Q. Is there a business springing up of furnishing clams to vessels there along the coast of Cape Cod ?^A. O, yes ; quite a business, from Cape Cod to Maine. Q. Now, you say you fit with salt clams ? — A. Yes. Q. I suppose their voyages are something like three months?— A. We usually fit them out for five months. In the case of the largest ves- sels we provide for five months. Q. Is there any ditllculty in furnit^hing all the salt clams they want for that time ?— A. No. Q. These voyages, have they been with hook and line t — A. Two with hook and line and one with trawl — the present year. Q. Now state to the Commissioners how these vessels have compared with one another, as to the commercial results of their fishing.— A. Well, the Emma Linwood went to the Banks last year, 1870. She was a vessel of 73 tons, and we fitted her out for trawl-flshiug with some salt bait, about 40 barrels. Last year she used the salt bait in addition to what other bait she procured on the Banks ; and finally she got about 1,000 quintals and ran into Newfoundland for fresh bait. She got some fresh bait and went out and finished the voyage and arrived home. I don't know the exact time, but it was the very last of Septem- ber. Q. How much did he bring home 1 — A. One thousand two hundred and fifty quintals. Q. Then he only made 250 quintals after he went in ! — A. That is all. My other schooner, the Freddie W^alter, sailed at the same time. She was 84 tons. She had titted with hand-lines. We put 60 barrels of clams in her. She went down and arrived home the first day of Sep- tember with 1,350 quintals. Q. He didn't go in ? — A. No. Q. Did he use up all his bait? — A. No. He had a few b.irrelsleft. He fished a large portion of the time on the Virgin Eocks and caught fresh bait there. He told me he got caplin most of the time on the rocks. He didn't use it all, but brought some home. My other schooner, I the Allie F. Long, was 97 tons. She took 75 barrels of bait. She went [ down fishing on the banks and arrived home the 18th September with 1,800 quintals. She was hand-lining. Q. He returned the 1st September with 1,800 quintals ? — A. Yes. Q. Had he used up all his clams ? — A. No ; he had a few barrels left. He also got some caplin at the Virgin liocks, so he told me. Q. Now can you give us your experience this year ? — A. From report! I Q. Yes. — A. I have the same three vessels out. One is trawling, aud two are fishjug with lines. The trawling schooner is the same, and the| same two are hand-lining. Q. What is the result so far? — A. The Emma Linwood went into] Newfoundland in July. She had 800 quintals and she got squid a went out, . and reported back to Newfoundland the second time 1,( AWARD OF THE FISHEUY COMMISSION. 2077 quintals. I had a draft from her just before I left home. It was then the 10th August. She was then going out with 1,000 quintals of flsh. The draft on me was for $192 gold. Q. That is, he got 800 with the bait he took from home, and then went into Newfoundland for fresh bait and got 200 more ? — A. Yes. Q. Then he went in a second time and his draft on you was for $192 gold!— A. Yes. Q. Have you heard from him since!— A. No. I notice in the Boston Advertiser, yesterday, that the Freddie Walter arrived home the 16th September with 1,000 (|uintals. She had never been to Newfoundland. She reports the other schooner on the Banks the 5th September, with 1,800 quintals. Q. One of your hand iiners made 1,000, and reports the other on the IJauks with 1,800. They used only the bait from home!— A. That is tbey did not go into Newfoundland. Q. Now tell me what bait they take on the Banks.— A. They take on the Virgin liocks caplin, and before they go there they use birds. Q. Do they take birds with hooks ! — A. With shot guns and with hooks. They use also some of the refuse of the fish, the spawn, &c.j the pea, that is, of the codOsh. They catch some squid on the Banks. Q. Well, there have been times when the squid are very abundant on the Banks? — A. In '73 I had a schooner that went three trips, and never carried any bait unless it was a very few barrels. That was in '73 or '72, I don't know which. Q. Supposing a vessel to be fishing where the Bank fishermen from Proviucetown usually do, and to go into one of the ports) of Newfound- laud, one of the usual ports, suppose her not to have any extraordinary delay, but to be able to buy bait at once and return to her ground, mak- ing allowance for all the difficulties in the way of navigation, what do you think would be the average time for the passage to Newfoundland and back to her ground ? — A. 1 should think seven to ten days. Q. Now as to the certainty of being able to buy as soon as she arrives, or within twenty four hours after, what bait she wants, do you know anything about that? How is that? — A. Well, it is uncertain. Q. Well, if these vessels could not buy bait, but had to run to New- foundland and datuh bait within three miles of the coast, then you could not tell at all, of course, how long it would take them ? — A. No. Q. But taking the most favorable view, that they have to go 100 miles or 80 into a harbor, and occupy one or two days, say two on an average, or three, to buy bait, and return. By the way, you consider that simply as bait the fresh bait is better than the salt ? — A. Yes. Q. Now, allowing for that, and taking into consideration all that makes up the commercial proposition, which would you rather your ves- sel would do, fit out with salt clams and take their chance of fresh bait on the Banks, or go to Newfoundland to get fresh bait ?— A. I should rather they would take their chance with salt clams, and not go in at all. Q. You consider the loss of time in fishing, and the expense and every- thing that enters into the i)roblem ? — A. My experience in the two years I tell you of is in favor of that. Q. This business of going into Newfoundland from the Banks is very recent ? — A. It is with my vessels. Q. You know as an underwriter and as president of an underwriting company, and also as an outfitter, you must know the opinion of the masters of vessels, agents, and owners in Provincetown about that. r'S--' ■.»'i|m 2078 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. What do .vou say the opinion is there on that subject ? — A. 1 think the opinion in that the vessels had better not ffo in. Q. ])ut the nuijority of your vessels year before last perhaps wont in f — A. I thinlv they did. Q. flow is it this year ? — A. I could not say for certain; perhaps mote. Q. But not so many in proportion as went in before ? — A. 1 think not. Q. Do you think the opinion against going in for bait is increasing .'_ A. I think it is. Q. Where do you sell your codflsh f — A. In the Boston market mostly and in rhiladeiphia. Q. It is all sold in the United States ? — A. Yes. Q. Have your vessels ever sold any lish in Newfoundland ? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Now, with reference to the Magdalen Islands, as an '"ulerwriter and an outfitter and tishennan, what do you say with rei e to tlie safety of that place ? — A. Well, the Magdalen Islands is a ^,^y.ay windy place, but the surroundings are such that it is considered there is a bet- ter chance to make lee than any other place in the bay. Q. Allowing for it being a boisterous place, as there is this oppor- tunity of circling round the island and finding a lee, do you think it is a safer place from shipwreck, although, perhaps, not so agreeable ?— A, Yes, unless it is the south side of Prince Edward Island and up about Georgetown. They may be preferable. ii. Take the bend of the island between North Cape and East Cape. What is the most dangerous wind, by the way, in that region f — A. Tlie northeast. Q. You can look at that map (pointing to the chart). You see the bend of the island there ? — A. The northeast wind blows right into that. Q. Now, if a vessel is in there, within three miles of the shore, and a northeaster comes up, what chance has she ? — A. I had experience of that one night myself. In 1840 we were fishing one trip an ' went iu the bay. There came a northeaster and we had a very sev ime. We had to carry sail and go out by East Point. Q. How far off were you ! — A. It was thick sort of weatiici. I could not say very well. Q. You managed to weather the point ? — A. Yes, sir j we did. The wind iu the latter part of the night veered more northerly. Q. If the wind had continued northeast, would you have made it ?— A. I don't know. It is doubtful. Q. Of course it does not need much nautical skill to know that a bight into which the wind blows directly is no safe place? — A. Unless there are good harbors. Q. Do you know any good harbors in the bight of the bay ?— A. I haven't been there for quite a number of years. But when I was there we considered INIalpeque Harbor in the day-time, if it was not very rough, quite a good one, and Cascnmpeque. The schooner I was in went to New Loudon. Q. You know from information from others that have been there whether there are in the bight any harbors large enough and safe enough to furnish refuge for a considerable fleet of vessels ? — A. Mai- peque Harbor is a pretty good Harbor if you are in. * Q. Is there any trouble about getting in ? — A. The water is pretty shoal on the bars. We would expect it to be shoal and rough on the bars. Q. Do you know whether the bar is diminishing in depth ?— A. I don't know. AWARD OF THE II8HERY COMMISSION. 2079 Q. Do you know anytliinf; of those AmericatiH wbo liave gone to Magdiilen IhUiihIh to establish tliemselves f — A. 1 do know a company ofyoiuij! men that went there from Prf^'MJcetown. 1 am personally ac- (|uaiuteil with them. They were neighbors of mine. Q. They were capable men? — A. Yes; there were five young men, as good fishermen as we have out of our place. They are natives of tbe place, and have followed Hshing from boyhood. Q. How did they get ou the ttrst year ?— A. They made a sinking voyage ; they lost money. Q. Have any of them gone back ? — A. Yes ; two of them. Q. What do you know about that? — A. I don't know much about it. Q. What have you heard about it ?— A. 1 have heard that they were doiug a small business. Q. What are your rules as underwriters in Boston as to the rates charged for the season for fishermen in the bay ? — A. We charge fish- ingrutes for the season, three-fourths per cent, a month — a Indf per cent, a month extra in the Bay 8t. Lawrence after 0vincetown altogether? — A. I (lon't know. Q. Are there as many as ten or twelve? — A Q. Would you say as many as that K— A. I more. Q. Many more? — A. I think there is. Q. 1 want to have an idea? — A. I don't know. I don't carry on the mackerel business myself, and don't pay much attention to it. Q. You never have carried it on much yourself? — A. No; uiy small vessels go tlshing around the shores in the fall for mackerel. Q. You haven't given much attention to that branch of the business? — A. No ; very little. Q. I believe you are not what we call a practical tlsherman ? You are a merchant and remain at home? — A. Yes. Q. You don't go yourself, and haven't for many years ? — A. No. Q. Just explain about the navigation of the Gulf of ^t. Lawrence, and the bight of the island ? How many years is it since you have been there? — A. Since '41 I have not been there. Q. Tliat is somewhere about thirty-ftve years ago ? — A. Yes. Q. You cat! hardly say from practical experience whether it is a safe place or not ? — A. No ; only the time I was there. Q. I have been a little surprised to hear about this dangerous coast, as I have lived there. I am anxious to know from somebody where these dangerous places are. You know the harbor of Cascumpeque?- A. Yes. Q. Now, as a practical man, I ask you, is there the slightest difllcnlty in a vessel, with a northeast wind, sailing directly to Cascumpeque liar bor ? — A. I consider it a shoal-water harbor. Q. That is not the question. Is there the slightest difficulty in a ves- sel in the bight, with a northeast wind, making Cascumpeque ?— A. I think there is. Q. Show why. — A. I think it is a shoal-water harbor. That is my experience. It is very rough. Q. You give your reason because of the harbor, not because a vessel could not make it with the wind ? — A. The wind would be fair, of course. Q. The only objection you would have would be the harbor ^— A. Yes. Q. Would you have the same objection to Malpeque ? — A. Yes. Q. How many vessels have sheltered there at one time ? — A. I don't know. Q. Would you be surprised to learn that as many as 250 have f- A. No. AWARD OP THK P^ISHERY COMMISSION. 2081 gberninii 1 You are arbor. That is my >auy a8 250bave!- Q. Constantly week in and week ont for as many as 15 years ?— A. I ghoul<1 be u little surprised. Q. Witli respect to tlie nuinber ?— A. Yes ; because, to the best of my iiiiowledge, I should not think there would bo so many going there for 80 many years. (J. You know Souris Harbor on the map ?— A. Yes. Q. Now, if the wind is northeast, or north, is there any difllculty in making Souris H — A. I think not. Q. Has it not been the invariable custom for all the fleet to make for the harbors at night, and remain there during the night ?— A. I don't know. It was not when I was one. Q. If it was so (it was in point of fact from 1851 to 1807 or 1877)— if they remained in the harbors during the night, and went out at day- breali, wouhl you consider there was any difficulty ? — A. I don't know. Q. Vou don't know what improvements have been made by the gov- ernment in these harbors? — A. No. Q. And, therefore, your intormation upon that point as to the respect- ive dangers of the navigation of Prince Kdward Island and Magdalen Islaixls refers to a period of .'S5 years ago ? Mr. Dana. You mean his personal experience. The Witness. Yes. Q. You would hardly hascard an opinion on that point against the opiuion of men accustomed to sail there year after year ? — A. No, Q. You have never been personally fishing on the Banks for codfish? -A. Never. (I It is ordy of late years that the practice has been made of using frcMh bait 1 — A. bo I undorstaiul. Q. Has it been prosecuted to any extent since it has first been taken up!— A. To quite an extent. We had fresh bait on the Banks for a number of years. (j. Vou said, I think, in answer to Mr. Dana, that a very large pro- portion went in one year, about half of them last year, and that you were not able to say how many of them went in this year to Newfound- land ?— A. I don't know. (}. You can't tell whether those two vessels, the Emma Linwood and the Freddie Walter, went into the bay this year or not ? You have no knowledge one way or the other ? You were not there, and haven't heard directly from your captains ? Not being there yourself, as a mat- ter of fact, you have neither personal knowledge nor the means of infor- mation ? — A. I am satisfied in my own mind. Q. You have a shrewd suspicion they did not ? — A. I didn't fit them to ^'0 ill. I sent them hand lining, and I heard from them on the 10th of August. The hand-liners had not been in, and I don't believe they have hecti in since. Q. 1 thought you said you did not hear from those two vessels. Have you heard direct from the captain ? — A. I sav, the Advertiser. I ho' rd from them direct on the 10th August. (^ Do you believe or have you certain knowledge to enable you to express any opinion as to whether of two vessels fishing alongside of oue another, one with salt bait and the other with fresh — whether the vessel furnished with salt bait would bo able to compete with the one furnished with fresh bait? — A. I don't know. Q. If a practical fisherman were to assert that a vessel with salt bait would have no chance alongside of the other, you would not be prepared to dispute it?— A. No. Q. A gentleman called by the American Governmeat, Mr. StapletoD| 131 F 2082 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. from Gloucester, was asked the question if one vessel had fresh bait whether the others dida't want it too, and he said yes ; and, further, he said that if a vessel alongside had fresh bait you could not catch your share with salt bait. — A. I don't know anything about it. Q. You do not wish to be understood as expressing any opinion upon this fresh or salt bait ? — A. Ko; not to compare them ; but I say that iny vessels that started from home with salt bait and continued fishing with it have succeeded better than those that went in for fresh bait. The loss of time and expense overbalanced the advantage of having fresh bait. Q. You are not aware of the fact yourself, nor of the reasons that en- abled one vessel to take a large catch and another a small one ; there are other reasons besides the quality of the bait that contribute to one ves- sel taking a large catch as against another ? — A. I don't know. Q. Take the reasons you have given. Can yon tell what the cost of procuring bait is 1 $100 1 think you said ? — A. That is the draft ; I do not know what it was for. Q. Supposing that it cost $100, would you consider that an element of any moment at all in considering whether she should go in or not?— A. Would that be a material element ? — A. It would be somethiug. Q. With a catch such as your vessels take ? $100 would not be much on a catch of 2,000 quintals ? — A. If he had staid there and got his whole catch without going in there and paying $100 it would be better for me. The others staid there and fished and finished their cargoes, and got home without sending any draft. Q. But I am reading you the evidence of a fl berman called by the American Government. He says the vessel fish: ig with salt bait has j no chance where the other has fresh bait. Mr. Dana. Don't you think it is a little dangerous reading from mem ory ? He didn't say there was no chance. Dr. Davies. I think that will be recollected as the substance of his | testimony. I have a very strong recollection. Q. Now as to thd number of days it takes a vessel to go into port and | come back. Have you any practical or personal knowledge ? — A. }fo. Q. What induced you to hazard an estimate of seven to ten days, j Was it a mere guess ? — A. No. From talking with the captains and talking the thing over I arrive at that. I had letters from captains that had been in a few weeks and hadn't any bait. They were about ready { to go back but hadn't any bait. Q. You have no means of knowing what the cause of the detention j was 1 — A. She was detained by cs^lms and by a scarcity of bait. Q. And other reasons, possibly ? — A. I don't know any others. Q. And you give these reasons simply from his own statement J— A, | From that statement to the best of my knowledge. Q. If we had evidence that it required only twenty-four hours it woulil| not surprise you ? — A. It would as to that vessel. Q. I am speaking generally as to the time required by a vessel. Eavcl ycu sudicient knowledge to enable you to be surprised ? — A. No. Q. Theu npcn that point you don't wish your evidence to be takeiil for any weight ? — A. No. Q. Have you any knowledge of that portion of the cod-fisbiug fleetl which goes to the Gulf of St. Lawrence from Provincetown ? — A. 1 bave| two there myself. Q. Do they fish with trawls ?— -A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether they use fish bait or not ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know where they get it ? — A. They catch it in nets. AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2083 Q. Are you sure ? — A. 1 furnish the nets. Q. Don't they catch bait in those nets at the Magdalen Islands in the spring ? — A. They do catch some heiring near Magdalen Islands ia the spring. Q. Large quantities, I believe I— A. Yes ; as much as they want. Q. Are you aware whether they run into the coast of Nova Scotia for ice and bait ? — A. They do not. Q. Do any of the fleet coming down to the gulf carry home fresh flgli f_A. Not of mine. Q. Any of the fleet ? — A. I don't know ; it is very large. Q. You are just confining this evidence to your own vessels? — A. Yes. Q. How many years have they been there ? — A. One since 1870, and for the other, this is the second trip. Q. Are you of the opinion that they have never been in for fresh bait ?— A. I am except as to the Magdalen Islands ; but I don't speak positively, not being there. I furnish the vessels with nets ; and the captains told me they set nets on the Banks Bradley and Orphan, and catch their herring and use it for bait. He says the herring are plenty there all through the summer season. Q. In justice to you, I may say it is in evidence that some of the American codflsbing fleet do come in and procure fresh bait. — A. Per- haps so; I do not know. Q. I see you have had a little to do with the mackerel ? — A. Very little. Q. You were down yourself in 1835? — A. I was cod-fishing that time. Q. In 1840 you were down cod-fishing and for mackerel too ? How many did you get ? — A. Two hundred barrels. Q. You got 100 at the Magdalens and 100 at Prince Edward Island?— A. That is as near as I can judge. Q. Were there any cruisers about there in 1841, protecting the fish- eries ? — A. I did not see any. Q. These 100 barrels taken at Prince Edward Island were caught in the bight?— A. Yes. Q. Did you catch them early or late ?— A. In September and October. Q. What kind of fish were they ?— A. Very nice. Q. What would you class them ? — A. They were mostly No. 1 and No. 2. Q. You never went fishing in Bay Chaleurs, or on the west coast ?— A. No. No. 10. Nathan D. Freeman, of Provincetown, merchant, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster : Question. Y'^ou are a merchant ? — Answer. Y'^es. Q. What kind?— A. I am connected with the vessel business as an I outfitter. Q. You are of the firm of Freeman & Hillyard ?— A. Yes. Q. Well, you have not yourself fished much, I suppose ?— A. No, very I little. Q. During the last ten or twelve years your firm has had two or three [mackerel vessels?— A. At times, yes. Q. Have any of them been to the bay ?— A. I had o le in the bay in I18G7. .te*- > -m 2084 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Did she have a liceuse ? — A. She did. Q. What was her name ? — A. The BeDJainin F. Rich. Q. Her captain's name ? — A. John B . Q. You paid for the license ?— A. Yes. Q. How many fish did she catch ? — A. One hundred and seventy barrels. Q. Have you had a mackerel- vessel in the gulf since ? — A. I think not; not of my remembrance. Q. How many vessels have you on the Grand Banks for cod ? — A. This season 1 Q. Yes, generally, for the past few years ? — A. A fleet of five or seven usually. Q. For what number of years have you had them ?— A. Well, I should think I have averaged that number for the last fifteen years. Q. Now, how long is it since any of your vessels began to go to New- foundland to obtain bait? — A. I think perhaps two or three years. Q. Take the year 1875 ; did any of them go then ? — A. That is year before last. I have no remembrance of any then. Possibly they might. Q. When first? — A. I remember 1876, and also this year. Q. How many of your vessels went in 1876 ? — A. Three. Q> How many did you have in 1876 codfishing on the Banks ?— A, Five. Q. Then three went for bait, and two did not. What was the average cost to you for bait ? — A. The average cost last year, if I remember right, was $125 a vessel. Q. How many vessels have you this year on the Banks ? — A. I have five. Q. Have any of them been in for bait ? — A. All have been iu this year. Q. What has it cost you ? — A. Those that have been iu but once, it' I remember right, the drafts have been $125 a vessel. Those that have been twice, the drafts I think have been $170 or $180. Q. Now take last year, the year three of your vessels went in, and two did not ; which made the most profiUble trips, those that went to bny bait, or those that did not ? — A. It is rather difficult to tel! last year. They didn't any of them do very much. I think we hadn't a vessel, or we had but one that got a full fare. There was one that didn't go in and didn't get a full fare. Q. Those that went in didn't get full fares ? — A. No. Q. Do you regard it as beneficial for your vesiLels to go to Newfound land to get bait ? — A. No ; I do not. Q. Now, suppose that instead of buying bait there thej' had to catcli I it themselves, would it then be any benefit? — A. My impression isitj would not. Q. Well, explain your reasons for thinking so in addition to your om \ experience ? — A. I think it would require too much time to get it. Q. Do you know the opinion of the vessel owners of Proviucetowii, and the outfitters, iu regard to this ? — A. I think I do. The goueral | opinion is that it is not well for our vessels to go in for that bait. Q. You have have given one reason that too much time is lost. Is I there any other? — A. There is the expense to be taken into cousiderii- tion, also, and the risk. Q. Do you insure your vessels ? — A. No ; our concern does not. Q. You underwrite for yourselves ? — A. Yes. Q. You say that within the last ten years you have had but one yes j sel go into the Gulf of Saint Lawrence for mackerel. During that timej AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2085 liow many mackerel vessels have you usually bad ?— A. We have usually had from two to three. Q. Where have they fished ? — A. They are just the same fishermen wbo have made a voyage to the Banks. If they have succeeded in get- ting in early enough they can go mackerel fishing in the fall. Q, Your vessels only make autumn trips? — A. Yes. Q. On those trips they have resorted to your own shores f — A. Yes. Q. Have they done fairly well ? — A. Generally so. Q. This year, I suppose, they have not begun to fish? — A. No. Q. How many boats, manned by a couple of men each, are there from Provincetown, engaged in the inshore fishery ? — A. I am unable to state definitely. 1 should judge from fifty to seventy-five. Q. What do they do with their fish ? — A. They sell them principally fresh. Q. Do you know about the fishing in weirs along the coast ? — A. I liave very little information with regard to that about our town. Q. Have you an opinion whether the right to use the inshore fisheries, those within three miles of British territory, coupled with the free im- portation of British fish, is a benefit to our fishermen or not ? — A. My opinion is that it is not a benefit to the fishermen. Q. So far as you know the opinions of others, would it be the prefer- ence of the people of Provincetown to have the provisions of the Wash- ington Treaty as they are now, or to have the old dnty on the fish re- stored and be excluded from the three-mile limit ? — A. We should pre- fer to have the duty restored and be excluded. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. Were you among those who opposed or favored the continuance of the Keciprocity Treaty ?:— A. Was I among those that opposed it ? Q. There were some that opposed it, or rather required the duty to be maintained upon codfish ? — A. 1 was one who preferred to have the duty retained upon codfish. Q. Upon codfish ? — A. Yes. Q. You didn't care about other fish ? Did Captain Atwood represent you ? He went on a . 2090 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. toration of the old duty ou fish ? — A. They would prefer the duty being reimposed. Q. What was the opinion of the people of Provincetown about the Treaty of Washington (its fishery clauses) at the time it was made ?— A. They thought it was decidedly adverse to their interests. Q. I believe you were one of the deputy inspectors of fish for your town from 1870 to 1876 ?— A. Yes. Q. Did you give Captain Atwood some of the statistics in regard to mackerel? Did he inquire of you ? — A. Think he did. Q. There is no mackerel reinspected in your town now as having come from the gulf— none that is taken by British fishermen and rein- spected ? — A. I never knew of a barrel. Q. None that came from the gulf at all ? — A. Very few, indeed. Q. Do you happen to know whether the mackerel that does come from the gulf is branded or stenciled "Bay mackerel "f — A. They are branded bav. Our inspector places a stencil mark on the head of the barrel, " Bay." Q. Where they reinspect and put into new barrels mackerel which has once been inspected here, do you happen to know if it is marked re- inspected? — A. I do not know. By Mr. Davies : Q. The mackerel fishery is not prosecuted much in Provincetown ?— A. Not so much as at some other towns in the States. Q. Do you consider it an appreciable part of your business at all 1— A. We do. Q. I have been looking over the returns. I see out of 295 American vessels which took out license in 1867 only 12 were from Provinetowu ; out of 61 vessels in 1868 only 2. Out of 254 reported by the inspector at Port Mulgrave in 1873 only 5, were from Provincetown, and out of 164 reported in 1874 only 4. So, judging from the returns, your town must be one of the smallest on the coast engaged in mackerel fishing iu the bay ? — A. I think so. Q. Your great interest is the cod fishery ? — A. Yes, more largely cod than mackerel Q. And codfish, we all know, are taken chiefly outside of the limits; it is a deep-sea fishery as a rule ? — A. Yes. Q. When you say your people you mean to limit it to the people of Provincetown? — A. Yes. Q. You say advisedly that your people thought the Washington Treaty was adverse to their interests ? — A. Yes. Q. You preferred the duty which was levied ou fish? — A. Yes. Q. Why ? — A. Because we thought its abolition hurt the sale of our mackerel, for more mackerel were thrown into the market. Q. What was the consequence ? — A. They lowered the price. Q. And naturally from your own stand-point you want to get as high a m-ice as you can ? — A. Certainly. Q. Y'^ou wanted the consumer to pay more than he wanted to pay ?— A. We are all very selfish in regard to that. Q. That was the motive which prompted you to oppose the treaty, I 8U|)pose? — A. Well, I think it was. Q. You spoke with regard to bait-fishing iu Newfoundland and gave a very strong opinion in respect to it. Over what years have you iiad personal experience of going into Newfoundland to purchase or catch bait ? Have you gone in more than once ? — A. I never was in there AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2001 Q. Thenyonr opinion is not forme much time wasted in going in after fresh bait that vlifference in catch between salt and fresh bait does not compensu, . Q. And the time you have taken is what ? — A. I si uld say an aver- age of ten days on each trip. Q. If it turned out you were wrong in that opinion, your conclusion would fall to the ground because your premises were wrong? — A. Yes: AWABD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2093 if parties should substantiate tlie view that it does not take throe days, Qiy opinion would fall to the ground. Q. You were only once in the gulf Ashing mackerel f— A. No, 1 was uot tlshiug mackerel in the gulf. Q. You were interested in the Marshal Ney f— A. Yes. Q. A vessel of 40 tons, which caugiit 75 barrels; do you know where she took them f — A. No. Q. Why did you leave ott" American coast- mackerel fishing?— A. For several reasons. In the first place, 1 did not like the way our people were sending out their vessels, and I knew if 1 kept in the business 1 should have to adopt it. Q. What was that? — A. By giving the crew a share of the whole catch, the owners furnishing the vessel and fitting it out. Q. Do I understand you to mean that it would not be profitable to pursue that plan ? — A. I did uot care to take the risk on myself. That was one reason. The other reason was, that my brother, who was in- terested with me in business, died some two years ago, and his estate bad to be sold up, and his part of the vessels had to be sold, and I thought I was uuable to carry on so much business with the capital I Lad. Q. You were interested in vessels from 1809 to 187.") ; how far ott" from the coast bad your vessels to go to catch fish If — A. 1 have no personal kuowledge of that, although I have seen them fishing. Q. Have you not sutticient knowledge to enable you to state ? You remember you expressed an opinion regarding Newfoundland fishermen, and you never saw them fishing ? — A. They are supposed to fish on the Georges Banks, around Massachusetts Bay, and on the coast of Maine, as far east as Eastport. Q. How far ott' from the coast ? — A. Sometimes they catch the fish close in to the coast, but I never saw them catch any ott' from the coast. Q. You have seen some catching them close in. Have you not got information from the captains and those engaged in fishing respecting the distance from the shore at which they take fish? — A. I know they have been caught on Georges Banks, from what my ca{)tiiins have told me. Q. How far oft' are Georges Banks ? — A. About 100 miles. Q. Is it not a fact that the fish are taken 8, 10, 15, or 16 miles out, as a rule ? — A. I should not say so far ott'. More than one-half are taken within five or six miles of the shore. Q. You think as close in as six miles ? — A. Yes. Q. In regard to the vessels you sent to the gulf, you trusted to the bait they would catch upon the Banks ; they got bait with nets ? — A. I was in the vessel. Q. She did not take clams ?— A. No. Q. And the consequence was the voyage was a failure ? — A. She did uot get enough fresh bait. Q. And the voyage was a failure ?— A. She did uot get a full fare. Q. What did she get? — A. Four hundred and seventy-five quintals. Q. What ought she to have got to be a payiug fare? — A. Five hun- dred and fifty quintals. The vessel was capable of taking 600 quintals. Q. Did you make anything out of the voyage ?— A. I did. Q. Much ?— A. No ; about $50. Q. Clear of all expenses ?— A. Y'es. By Mr. Foster : Q. As a sbaresman ? — A. Yes. »5S!' ■•■ Vfi. 2094 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. By Mr. Davies : Q. What is the name of the vessel f — A. North Cape. C^. What was the size of the vessel ? — A. Fifty- five tons, carpenter's tonnn{;e. Q. How many sliould she have taken ? — A. Six hundred quintals. Q. How many did you getf — A. Four hundred and seventy-live quintals. Q. That same year ? — A. Yes. (i. Without getting any bait except what you caught on the banks f^ A. Yes. Q. Fishing with trawls or handiines ? — A. Trawls. Q. Entirely?— A. Yes. Q. Were you captain ? — A. No. (i. Who was captain? — A. .Jesse Wyley. Q. What year was it? — A. Eighteen hundred and tiftynine. Q. Is Jesse Wyley here ? — A. No. Q. Will he be here? — A. 1 don't know. By Mr. Foster : Q. Where is ho? — A. He is in I'rovincetown. Q. How much would you have mad^ if you had got GOO quintals!— A. Probably we would have made $300 apiece. Q. The additional quintals would have been chielly proQt? — A. Vcs. Q. Did you get any wages besides the $50 ? — A. No. i). You only got your amount as sharesman ? — A. Yea. By Sir Alexander Gait : i}. In regard to those vessels you send to the Grand Banks, do tliey fish with trawls or with hooks and lines ? — A. We send them to fish, sonie with trawls and some with hand-lines. Q. It has been stated before us tha* trawls require fresh bait ; has that been your experience ? — A. It is better to have fresh bait. Q. Witnesses have told us that with trawls the bait lies on the bot- tom, and if it is not fresh the fish will not take it. — A. They will uot take il as well as fresh bait, but they will take it if they cannot get any thing else, and if they cannot get fresh bait. By Mr. Davies : Q. If they can get fresh bait the tish will not take salt bait ?— A. If there is no fresh bait they will take salt bait. By Sir Alexander Gait : Q. The trawlers go to Newfoundland for fresh bait; are those the only vessels ? — A. Yes. Q. Those that fish with hooks and lines ate fitted for that particular mode of fishing and don't go ? — A. Yes. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg : Q. What bait did you speak of as being taken from fish; what partis taken,and how much is the amount? — A. If we fish with trawls, wo some- times cut out the entrails of Hsh and what we call the pope and thcM at times we cut up small halibut for bait. Q. You use the inside parts of lish? — A. Yes; halibut entrails are , considered very good bait. Q. In regard to bird-bait, what oirds do you catch ? — A. Haglet, ami i what we used to call Mother Carey's Chickens. i Q. And gulls ? — A. Very seldom. 1 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2095 ht on the banks *.-. ;jot GOO qiiiiitals ?- le salt bait ?— A. If Q. How do you use birds for bait ?— A. We cut them up and pound tbem up. By Sir Alexander Gait : Q. When your vessels have been in Newfoundland, have they ever sold any flsh ?— A. Xot to my knowledge ; if they have done so, it has been without giving an account to the owners. No. 12. Monday, September 2^, 1877. The Conference met. .lAMES W. Obaiiam, master mariner, of Wellfteet, Mass., was called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and exam- ined. By Mr. Trescot : Question. You have been a fisherman by profession ? — Answer. Yes. Q. How old are you 1 — A. I was 44 last December. Q. How long have you been fishing? — A. I was about ;{0 years in the fishing business, beginning in 1847, when I was 14 years old'. Q. You were engaged in the mackerel fishery entirely?— A. Yes. Q. When did you first so go out ? — A. In 1847, when a boy, on our shore. Q. AVhat line of shore do you mean when you say "our shore"? — A. It might include anywhere from about Cape Henry, on the Virginia coast, to the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, oft" and in shore. I was fish- ing along there for four or five years — until 1851. Q. What did you do in 1851? — A. I went into the Bay of St. Law- rence. Q. lu what capacity ? — A. As a sharesman on board of a vessel. Q. What was her name? — A. She was the Josephine, of Wellfteet, Captain Curtis. Q. That was the year of the great gale ? — A. Yes. Q. Where did you go, and where did you fish ? — A. On our first trip, we fished about Prince Edward Island. During the spring of that year, I went out south, and off Block Island. We got about 100 barrels. We then came in and fitted out for the bay, where we caught 320 barrels on our first trip. Q. Then what did you do ? — A. We went home, landed them, and returned to the Bay of St. Ijawrence. Q. What did you get ou your second trip ? — A. 220 barrels. il. Whereabouts did you catch your fish on your first trip ? — A. Back of Prince Edward Island, from New London up to North Cape, and some of them on Bank Bradley. W^e caught a few within 3 miles of the shore, but I do not mean to say that we fished usually within 3 miles of the land. Q. AYhat proportion of the 320 did you procure within the three mile limit ? — A. That is a hard question to answer ; a rough estimate would be perhaps 30 or 40 barrels. Q. Where did you fish on the second trip ? — A. From Port Hood down the shores to Margaree. Wo caught nothing within three miles of the toast of Cape Breton, but in drifting down back and forth we caught perhaps 20 or 30 barrels within three miles of Margaree. Q. What did you do in 1852 ?— A. I was then in the same schooner, the .losephihe. =i> i^l. i frtSHif,' 2096 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Did you go south that year ! — A. Yes ; and got from 100 to 150 barrels. Q. When did you get to the gulf ? — A. Somewhere about the very last of June or the Ist of July. I was not captain at the time, and I cauuot be very exact on the point. Q. What was your catch ? — A. Three hundred and twenty barrels • we filled the vessel. Q. Where did you get them ? — A. As well as my memory serves me, we caught 100 barrels on Bank Bradley. We procured the balance in the Bight of Prince Edward Island, from North Cape down to St. Peter's and New London. Q. Was this within the three-mile limit ? — A. No, not all ; part of them were taken within it, and part of them without. Q. What proportion of the 220 were taken within the three-mile limit ? — A. Well, I should think, likely one-half. Q. That would be 110 ? — A. Yes ; that is the case as near as I can judge. Q. What did you then do ? — A. We went home and fished on our shore. Q. What did you catch there ? — A. About 200 barrels. Q. And where did you fish the next year, 1853 ? — A. On our shore. Q. What did you get ? — A. A jout 700 barrels, I think. Q. And in 1854? — A. I was then in the George Ohaddock. We caught somewhere between 800 and 1,000 barrels on our shore. Q. And in 1855 ? — A. I was then in the bay on the George Chaddock, Captain Deguire. I was in this schooner during these three years. Q. In 1855, what did you get in the bay? — A. 240 barrels. Q. Within the limits ? — A. To the best of my recollection, we caught nothing within the limits. We fished over at the Magdalen Islands ami off Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. What did you do in 185G ? — A. I was in the George Chaddock,ou our shore. Q. Entirely? — A. Yes; as far as the catch is concerned I could not specify. Q. In 1857, what did ^ou do ? — A. I was in the John S. Eagan, Captain Kemp. Q. Whereabouts did you fish ? — A. We first went to the bay aud got 325 barrels. Q. Where ? — A. Some of them back of Prince Edward Island, and others on Bank Bradley and at the Magdalen Islands. I do not think that we caught any during that trip within the three-mile limit, but we might possibly have so taken a few ; still, I cannot say ; I cauuot be positive on the point. Q. What did you do then f — A. We went home, landed our fish, and came into the bay for another trip, when we caught twenty barrels at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Did you go right home again ? — A. Yes; aud we caugat 250 bar- rels after we arrived home. Q. What did you do in 1858? — A. I was in the schooner Benjamin Baker, Captain Kemp. We went to the bay two trips, and on our tirst trip we caught 225 barrels. Q. Where ? — A. Off North Cape, and inks Bradley and Orphan. Q. And whereabouts the secon.1 trip ? — A We only then took 35 bar- rels at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Where did you go from them ? — A. Ilome, aud fished on our shore, catching about 225 barrels. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2097 could not say exactly ; biit^we took Q. Where were you in 18G0 ?— A. In the schooner Empire, Captain }fe\vco!nb. We were in the bay during the first part of the season, taking- 140 barrels off the Magdalen Islands and Brvon Island. We afterward went home and caught 430 barrels on our shore. In 1859 I was not fishing, but coasting. Q, Where were you in 1801 ?— A. I was in the Empire, Captain New- comb, on our shore. We only fished part of the year. We did not do much in the fall, when I was on a trading voyage. Q. What did you do in 1802 ?— A. 1 was in the Mary 13. Dyer, Cap- tain Piirvere. Q. What did yon catch ? — A. from 500 to GOO or 700 barrels. Q. And in 1803?— A. I was then in the Mary B. Dyer, Captain Pur- vere, in the bay and on our shore. We caught 280 barrels in the bay. Q, Where?— A. Over at the Magdalen Islands and on Banks Bradley and Orphan. We afterwards fished on our shore and took about 300 barrels. Q. What did you do in 1864?— A. I was in the schooner Maria Web- ster, Captain Newcombe. We went to the bay and got 320 barrels. We landed 200 in Bouche Bay, and returning into the bay, caught 210 barrels more ; in all we carried 530 barrels out of the bay that year. We (lid not transshij) any. Q. What proportion of these did you take within the limits? — A. We 80 caught a few on our first trip; that is a hard question to answer; but I CO. iJ not say that we so obtained mere than from 20 to^40 barrels that y ir. Q. What did you do in 1805? — A. I was in the Mary B, Dyer, on our sliore. Q. What did you do? — A. I cannot remember; that year is almost a blank to me. Q. And in 18G6 ? — A. I was then on the C. W. Dyer, in the bay, on two trips as master. Q. What was her size? — A. A'^out 100 tons. (^ What did you do? — A. On our first trip we ojily got 180 barrels. Q. W^here? — A. Principally at the Magossibly might then have been eight or ten ; I won't be sure about the number. Q. So very few — a very small proportion, considering the whole num berof the An»erican fleet, came to the bay ? — A. Our fleet has for years iniiioipallv fished on our own shore. Q, You did not prosecute the gulf fisheries very much, I judge from that ?— A. We ^ lay of tlie land off Malpeque aud of the high land oil" New London. Q. How tar off? — A. Probably 12 or l."» miles. Q. That would take you well clear of the bight altogether ?— A. Yes. Q. AVIiat possible danger could you be in 12 or 15 miles off 1'— A. We hove to as usual under foresail— a vessel makes leeway under foresail — and I was not called to until 12 o'clock at night, when, perhaps, we were ; or 8 miles off' the land ; a good breeze was blowing from the eastward, and we raised our sails to carry us out, because I did not consider that we would be safe in going into Malpeque harbor at night, for there was not half a light at the phuje ; it never was otherwise. We were going straight out when the wind blew away my foresail and left the mainsail jib. Q. Was not all that liable to happen not only in the bight of the isl- and, but almost anywhere ? — A. There would have been no danger if we had not been in the bight and back of the islaiul; under other cir- nmstances we would have had no trouble in getting oft' with our jib. Q. If the wind was blowing east ?— A. I do not say that the wind there is direct east, but it is an easterly wind. Q. What possible difficulty could there have been in your getting clear off around North (Jape ". — A. My schooner is of IGO tons, Baltimore built, drawing 12 feet of water; I consider her as smart as any vessel in our fleet, and when 1 went over by North Cape I did not find over IJ fathoms of water, which was not near enough for the purpose. Q. You were 12 miles off" the bight of the island ? — A. Yes. Q. And you drifted within seven miles of the shore ? — A. Yes. Q. Now, with an easterly win«l blowing, what possible difticulty were you in ?— A. The wind blew away ray sails. When I speak of the wind being easterly there, I mean that the prevailing wind is from the north- east and southeast. Q. You were seven miles oft' New London ; and can you not run off without the slightest difficulty there '' — A. No. Q. Drawing a straight line from North Cape to East Point, how far will it run off" New London ?— A. Twenty-odd miles. Q. Have you measured the distance? — A. I do not know that I have. Q. Is it on that supposition that you base your statement ? — A. No. When I went across the bar there were only 4i fathoms of water. Q. If the wind is as you state, is there any difficulty to be experienced with respect to a vessel being seven miles off' shore? — A. Yes, in a gale of wind. Q, What would be the case with a westerly wind ? — A. You could not go ashore hi a westerly gale if you tried to, if oft' shore at the place I am speaking of; but, at the same time, you could not get around East Point. Q. If a westerly wind was blowing, aud you were in the bight of the island, could you not easily run around iiast Point? — A. No ; but you could drift off' to sea. Q. No danger is to be apprehended, as far as the island coast is con- cerued, in such a wind ? — A. No. Q. But with an east wind danger is to be feared ? — A. Yes ; when tlie wind is northeast and southeast. :i^4: 'riid 2102 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. .1 I' I Q. Is a southeast \>'ud an offshore wiud? — A. Noj it then blows straight up the shore. Q. A soutlieast wind at Prince Edward Island is not an oft-shore wind I — A. No ; it blows up the bight of the island. Q. Is not that blowing oil' the island shore? — A. No. Q. But when you had reference to a northeast wiud, to what pari did you allude? — A. I speak of where I was. 1 do not know about East Point; we were talking about the bight of the island. Q. You say that a southeast and an easterly wind are dang«M'ous there? — A. 1 say that it is dangerous there in a northeast and southeast gale; and 1 will leave that for corroboration to any practical seaiuau either of the United States or Canada, if he speaks the truth. Q. Did you ever lose a vessel there ? — A. No ; not back of Prince Edward Island. Q. Have you yourself seen any vessels wrecked there? — A. No. Q. Have you seen any American lishing-vessels wrecked there since 1851? — A. In Malpcque, yes; but never back of the island. 1 was never near enough to the beach in a gale of wind to see a vessel wrecked there. Q. Did you ever see a vessel wrecked there? — A. I have seen the remains of any amount of wrecks there. Q. Since 1851, have you seen one vessel wrecked there? — A. I saw one wrecked on New London Head. Q. When? — A. I could not say exactly, but I think it was 1807. I was in the Finback at the time. This vessel was going in when sbe struck the bar and went ashore. Q. Was she an American vessel ? — A. Yes. Q. W^as she lost? — A. She was got ofl after a good deal of expense had been incurred. Her name I think was the Julia Franklin. She touched on the bar and drifted ashore. Q. When you were fishing along the bight of the island did you ever run in, throw out bait, and drift off? — A. I have tried in there. Q. How would you get in if the wind blew off shore? — A. If I thougbt that there was a prospect of catching fish inshore 1 would stand in as near as possible. Q. How near ? — A. That would depend on the vessel I was iii. If she was small, I would drift in to within perhaps one mile of the sLoie, if I was fishing there, heave to, and drift off". Q. And commence throwing out bait? — A. Y'es; if I raised the fisbl would certainly catch them if I had a license. Q. But some years you did not require a license? — A. Yes. Q. During the Ileciprocity Treaty, when you had full right to ^o in- shore, what w as your practice with reference to fishing off" the north shore of Prince Edward Island ? — A. I have given the history of ray fishing there during two years. I never made a business of fishiuji iu shore save in 1852, when I was with Curtis. We then caught, 1 tliink. over 100 barrels out of 320 within the three-mile limit. We would stand in to perhaps one mile of the laud, heave to, and drift off'; and if we raised mackerel, we would catch all we could. Q. When you say that you caught one-half within the limits, ,vou mean that you caught the other half when you had drifted beyond tbe limits ? — A. I mean that this Avas all we got within the limits; the rest we caught on what we call Malpeque, or the New Loudon Head grouml. W^e w ould fish, say, 12 miles oft" New London and Kildare, in the lay of the land, and the other half we took on this ground. We fished tlieie considerably that year. AWARD OF THE FLSHKRY COMMISSION. 2103 Q. When you make the estimatoof one-half as cauglit within the lim- its, do yon mean toinchule the tish you took while drit'tinffotK— A. Yes. Q. Whether within three or live niilc.s of the land ?— A. I inclnde one-half of the 220 as being caught while standing in and drifting otf. {}. How far oil" did you drift i—A. Perhaps three or four miles at the most. Q. And do yon include in the one-half the lish you took when you di'ilted out four miles ? — A. Yes. Q. What makes yon say one-half; do you remember the quantity exactly? — A. No; but I think to tiie best of my judguient, speaking on oatb, that one-half of the tish which we then caught back of the island were taken within the bounds. Q. Are you speaking from memory alone? — A. Yes; 1 was not cap- tiiin of the vessel at the time. Q. :Might the proportion be two-thirds or three-quarters ?— A. It was one-half, as near as my recollection goes. 1 would just as soon swear that it was one-third as two-thirds. It was not over one-half or less than half. Q. And where did you obtain the others ? — A. Farther ofif shore ; and we caught 100 barrels this trip on Bank Bradley. Q. Do you' distinctly remember that all of those 100 barrels were taken otf Bank Bradley ? — A. The number was about 100. We after- wards came over to and tished at the island. (}. Did you fish any that year towards Margaree ? — A. No. Q, Did you ever fish along the Cape Breton coast ? — A. Yes ; during my rtrst year, 1851, 1 did. Q. When you fished along the Cape Breton coast, between Margaree and Cheticamp, did you ever catch a fish outside of the three-mile limit ? — A. I never caught any within the three-mile limit olf the Cape Breton coast. We caught all our fish in that quarter outside of Mar- garee, probably from 5 to G or 7 miles off the Cape Breton shore ; but while drifting off Margaree — which lays 2;^ or 3 miles from the coast — and down by Margaree Island perhaps we caught from 20 to 40 or 50 barrels. Q. And not more ? — A. Y'^es. Q. Is it not the fact that nearly all the fish taken along the Cape Breton shore, between Margaree and Cheticamp, are caught within one, one and a half, and two miles of the shore ?— A. My experience about Margaree was confined to that fall ; we only fished there for three or four or five days, late in the fall of 1851, so that I aui not a com- petent judge in this matter. Q. And how many fish did you take there ?— A. Two hundred and twenty barrels. It was then late in October. Q. And your impression is that you were four or five miles off Mar- garee ?— A.' Yes ; we drifted down and tished. Probably while passing the island we might have got some fish within the three-mile limit, but not over fifty barrels during the trij). Q. How far from IMargaree were the balance taken ?— A. Anywhere from four to eight miles off, as near as I can judge. Q. You are quite sure that the balance was caught beyond the three- mile limit ? — A. Yes. Q. llow many would that be .'—A. Taking 50 from 220 leaves 170, I think. Q. And you tool: them all within three or four days ?— A. Yes. Q. Have"^ you a clear and distiuct recollection of that ?— A. Yes. I -^w^ ifm •,i|i->Si 2104 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. was in the Josephine at the time. I know we went through tlicGut of Oanso that fall after tlie I3th of October. ItR Q. And you toolc all with the exception of ."iO barrels from lour to five or six miles off shore ? — A. Yes. Q. How close inshore were you whf;n you cnught the 50 barrels ?— A. Perhaps within two miles of it; we were driftiuj,' down by the island at the time. Q. In 1851 you wore in the Georfje Chaddock in the biiiht of tlie island, and in 185.'{ on the American coast U — A. In 18.53 I was in Uie George Chaddock on our shore. Q. Have you had anything to assist you in making your estiiiiiitos save your memory? — A. No; I remember the facts concerniii;^' l.s.ii very di8tiuctl.v, owing to the occurren(;e of the great gale that year, and 1852 was a peculiar year; and I remember the facts distinctly. I never fished right along the island. Q. That was the only time when you fished at the island ?— A. To any extent — yes. Q. In 1851 you fished off Cape Breton ?— A. Yes. Q. And in 1852 at the island 1 — A. Yes. Tliese were the only two seasons when I made a business of fishing in these particular loc.ilitios. Q. Have you had any other means of recollecting or refreshing voiir memory? — A. No; save that 1 have consulted some of the men with whom I fished. We talked matters over, and I have made n)y osti- mates as near as I could. I have stated the facts on oath, to the best of my recollection. Q. Had you any Nova Scotians or Prince Edward Islanders with you ? — A. Yes. The fall that we fished near Mar^aree we shii»iK.'il a number of Cape Breton fellow^ at the Gut. Q. Can you give any of their names ? — A. No. Q. In 1853 you fished on the American coast ? — A. Yes. Q. At what distance from tha shore there do you generally catch your fish ? — A. From Cape Henry up to Long Island and down to Martini's Vineyard and Cape Cod, and along the shore to the Bay of Fundy. We are liable to fish anywhere, from 2 or 3 miles off" shore to 30 mih's otl', save when the mackerel come into the rivers and harbors. I have some times made as good trips in the harbors on the eastern shore as I ever made in my life. Q. Would I be correct in saying that the American fishing fleet, as a rule, fish from 2 or 3 to 30 miles off' the American coast ? — A. Yes ; 1 do not know but what you would. Q. And the bulk of the fish is taken within those limits? — A. Yes; I think so. Q. Can you recollect what you did in 1357 — suppo.se that you did not look at your book, and trusted to your memory ? — A. I do not know that I could. Q. Now, don't look at your book, and tell me what vessel you wereiu during 1857 ? — A. I do not know that I could tell you. I do not believe that you could tell me what case you had in 1857, who was the plaintiff, and who the defendant, and how much you got for it. Q. Certainly not ; but bring it down ten years later — 1867— and I could do so. — A. So can I. Then I was in the schooner Finback, aud I bought a license that year. Q. As a matter of fact, can you recollect the vessel in which you were in 1857 ? — A. I have looked at the book, and I see that she was tlie J. S. Eagau. I now remember the circumstances a little. AWARD OB^ THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2105 Q. How many barrels iWd you take ?— A. Three hundred and twenty tbp lirst trip. Q. Where?— A. Along the island, ott" on Bank Bradley, and all round. Q. In 18.")7, did you llsh, as in isr»i>, cominfi within a mile of the shore .ititl drifting ort .'—A. No; the lisli were not there; at least we did not tiud them there. Q. Did you try ?— A. Y'es. vSometimes we came in aiul made Mal- pp(|ue Harbor, to get wood and water. We have to coiiie in tor water once in ten days or a t()rtni;iht, unless we make \\\) our minds to take a biu stock with ua. A. No; 1 do not 8onu»times, in Q. You did not drift off shore and fish in 1857 ?— remember of doing so, or of making a business of it, going out of iNIalpeque Harbor, we would heave to and drift off, but we ui'ver maiit to the inspector were we packed and learned the amonnt of fisli oop vessel pattked on a certain year. Q. Did yon consnit any of these men as to whether any propoition of yonr catch was taken in 1857, within the limits ? — A. No. I did not see any of the men who were witli ns that year. (}. You have harbored a jjood deal at Malpecjne, and todiitt oft from tiiere ; but your impression is that you caught no lisli within the .'5-mile limit while doinjy so :' — A. I do not say that I harboretl a <;(iu(l deal there; but I was there perhaps 3 or 4 times (luring the seasuii. Q. Yon went to Bank 15ra*lley that year? — A. Y'es. i},. When yon tished on Hank JJradley, how long would you rtMiiain there ? — A. I have been there for a fortnight or 3 weeks at a time. Q. Would that be an exce[>tional circumstance 1 — A. It might be so in my case, because I never made a business of tlshing altogether on IJaiik Bradley. I fished there and at the Magdalen Islands. (iJ. Y'ou mentioned Bank Bradley very often in your evidence .'—A. Yes. Q. Taking the general average, how long did you remain there ?— -A. If 1 was in a large schooner fltted out strong, and had plenty of watir and everything, and found tish, I would lay tliere until I got a trip. Q. And if you did not find fish there, you would run over to tlit> is. land coast and the Magdalen lslang at all in 1S(1.">, but from 1S70 to 187.> they were small souje years. Q. AVere the catches on the American ield to 10 or 20 or 40 men who swore to the cou- trary f — A. .No. (,). Will you swear that there never were VOO Americiun vessels in the hay .'—A. Ye.s; I will take oatli that there were never (iOO which passed ilietJut of Cunso into the bay. Q, Were there .".(M> /-~A. There miylit have been, bnt I do not think it. As to the outside limit 1 would swear to, I would not go below (;()0, but still 1 say, I will lake oati» to (iOO, thonj'h I won't dare j,'o any further. Q, When a man takea an oath it is a serious thins. — A. I know what ill) oath is. (}, One, then, requires i)ietty ••ood data to j(0 on ?— A, T know that. Q. Do you know ,janies I'.radley, who was called on behalf of the American (luveriiinent f — A. Yes; I am wt^ll actpiainted with iiim. Q, lie is from Newburyitort .' — A. 1 was with him in the fruit busi- lios.s. il Is iie a truthful man f — A. I consider him to be so. (}. Wlien in the same position in which you now are— under oath —he fk'liosed : Q, In tlioMK t\nyy, wlint wiin tlip avcrapfe nuinher of tlio flnet thnt did very much as you Jill .'—A. I (Uiu't ktiow that I could imikc a wry good HV(')ivf,'i>. Q. Mytx till a(ipio.\iniaft; aiiioimt, to itie bcht of jom jiidj;iiiciit. — A, Ti'lO or 700 sail cer- tainly. I iiavc Ijccii iu the bar witli UOO •.ail of Auunitau vcs.sols, liiit the mui.ijer rather limini.slii'd aloti<^ the lust yuar.s I went there. A. He was not read np in statistics. I can prove that that is not so. Q. Are you a statistician ? — A. 1 Inive statistics enough to show, in tb'.ulivst place, that we have only 1,300 rej^istered tishing vessels in the United States, and taking out iiOO — a low estimate as (!od iishers — this leaves 1,000 other vessels, as nigh as 1 can judge. Well, then, there are L'OO /essels under American register ou our shore, which are not lit lugo into the bay. (}. VN'hy i — A. Jlccanse they are not big enough or good enough. If a man is going from the United States down to the l>ay of Chaleurs, he wants a good vessel ; and then there arc I'OO more which have no dispo- sition or dare not go down, and that leaves 000 ; and so [jutting in the baye\ery vessel whiidi is capable of going there atone time, this leaves WH) for such purpose. (^ Vou talk about statistics ou which you base your evidence; where aic they ' — A. 1 have not got them with me save in my mind. Q. Where did you get them ? — A. .From hearing the statistics spoken of. I say there are about the numbers 1 mentioned. 1 am not speak- iiijjwith the most minute exactness. I say that we have about 1,300 ii'^'istered vessels, and I suppose that there are about oOO cod-tislier.s. (). Vou say that the rea.son why your evidence should be preferred over Mr. IJradley's is that he is a man who is not acquainccd with sta- ti,>jties :'— A. 1 did not sa^ preferred. 1 told you that I could prove to tlic contrary. Q. 1 have read the evidence in which he stated that he had been in »,«>«-■ :-:v?,vi;.;;;wis,g ^Ivil^l^ 2110 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the bay with 000 American vessels, and you answer that he must be "wrong? — A. Yes. Q. Because he had no statistics to go by ? — A. I said that he diil not speak from statistics ; that is what I meant, any way. Q. But he states that he had been in the bay with them ? — A, He never saw 900 American vessels in the bay ; and if he was here 1 would just tell him so. Q. You have never examined the statistics yourself, and you are speaking fromi what others have said ? — A. I have heard gentlemen say how many registered vessels we have. I never examined the statistics myself. Probably you know ; you may have the statistics. Q. Yes; and if you are wrong in your statistics, or rather in your recollection or presumption of what the statistics are, your evidence on this point would be valueless, would it not ? — A. I do not know but it then might be. Q. Who gave the statistics to you ? — A. I could not tell you, but I heard them spoken of. Q. You base your statement on information obtained from persona whose names you cannot remember, and you never examined tli< iin tistics yourself? — A. Yes. Ey Mr. Trestot : Q. You state it from general intelligence received by yoa ? — A. Yes, By Mr. Davies: Q. Will you undertake to contradict Mr. Bladley on that .'—A. Yes. Q. You will ? — A. Y"es ; my common sense tells me that th«*re were never 900 American vessels in the bay at one time. I (U) not think rliat Captain Bradley meant to lie, and I would not say that he would lie in any way or shape. Q. Then you say that the stat»Mnent of Mr. Bradley is false I — A I have nothing to do with Mr. Bradley's statement. I said I never be- lieved that there were 900 American vessels in the bay at one time. Q. But I ask you that question now. — A. Has he any right to bring me to oath on Captain Bradley's statement ? Mr. Dana. No, Witness. You want me to say that Mr. Bradley is a liar, and I will not say so. By Mr. Davies : Q. What do you say? — A. I state that there never were 91)0 Auier lean vessels in the bay at one time. Q. And if Captain Bradley says so, he is wrong ? — A. I am not saying so. Y^ou cannot make me commit myself. Q. I do not desire to do so. — A. You want me to say that Captain Bradley is telling a lie, and E won't do anything of the kind. Q. You will not swear either that he is telling the truth or a lie; you refuse to answer. — A. I refuse to implicate Captain Bradley as a liar. Q. Will you venture to assert that Captain Bradley's statement is in- correct? — A. I say that in my opinion and to the best of my ability, I do not believe it, and I knovv that there never were 900 American V(>s- sels in the bay at one time, and that I guess is all that is required ot me on that question. Q. You came to the bay in 1807 ?— A. Yes. Q. In the Finback ?— A. Yes. Q. And you took out a license ? — A. Yes. Q. And you did this, you say. for two reasons — first, becaiL^^e you ON. that he must be id that he d'u\ not th thera ?— A. He } was here 1 would •self, and you are ard gentlemen say jiiied the statistics :istics. or rather in your i, your evidence ou do not know but it not tell you, but I lined from persons examined thf •»♦« [ by you ? — A. Yes. ^ on that f— A. Yes, me that there were I do not think that that he would lie in dley is false I — A 1 I 'said I never be- ay at one time, any right to bring is a liar, and 1 wil ver were 900 Amer- -A. I am not saying o say that Captain the kind. e truth or a lie ; you Bradley as a liar, ley's statement is in- best of my ability, I e 1)00 American vos- hat is required of me -first, because you AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2111 ffould not then be liable to be taken 10 miles off shore by the cutters, and secondly because you wished to fish within the 3 mile limit if any such chance presented itself ?— A. I considered that I was as liable to l)e taken within 10 as within 3 miles of the shore. Q. You stated that you considered so, from what you had seen ?— A. I have seen American vessels bothered when outside of the limits. Q. That is a serious statement.— A. This happened some time before that. Q. I wish you to name one vessel which was captured or taken by the cutters outside of three-mile limit. — A. I could not tell you the year, but it occurred under the old treaty, when they used to take vessel's. Q. Under what old treaty ? — A. 1 do not exactly know how long this was ago. I have seen 7 or 8 vessels lying below North Cape, when cut- ters would come down and bother some of them, and the rest would all make sail and go oil"; and this happened when they were tishing without tlie bounds. Q. Give the names of the cutters. — A. There were the Daring, Cap- tain Laybold, and the Telegraph — I do not know the name of her cap- uiiu. These cutters were in the bay in 1851 and 1852, and along there. Ibave been fishing when cutters would come down along the island and lire guns, no matter though the American vessels were seven or eight miles off shore. This bothered the fish, and the American vessels would [1,.,, v,;in,.i-. Seven or eight miles is my estimate, but I will not swear to liie exact distance. 1 will not swear to the cutter that did it ; there were several of them in the bay at the time. Q. Can you give lur the name of a cutter which interfered with an American vessel wlie>> sf^vm or eight miles off" shore f — A. I do not '.:, 'V tha»^ I could. 1 remember that when American vessels were laying •" r", one ot lue cutters came down and flred guns, but I could not tell uni ■ hich one did it. I think that nt the time it was not clearly under- stood whether the line was to l>e drawn from luMdland to headlan ', or whether the distance was to be measured from the shore invariably. il Whereabouts did this happen '! — A. Between North Cape and Kil- (liue, seven or eight miles otf North Cape, to the best of my judgment. It was that distance, I think, off the land between North Cape and Kil- dare. Q. And in 1867 you remembered that this outrage or act took place ! — A, Yes. Q. And you state that your ren)embering this U» years after its occur- rence was one of the reasons why you took out a hcense ? — A. That was one of the reasons. Q. And you seriously give it as such ? — A. Yes; I do. Q. Do von seriously affirm before this Commission that this motive inlluenced yonf — A. That was oii*^ thing with others; 1 say I was anxious; I did not know how far th«' cutters would bother me. Q. Name the other vessels. — A. 1 know that Hsh had been caught in- shore. I had caught some there in 1851, and I vanted to by prepared to take advantage of any such opportunity. Q. How much did you i)ay for your license ? — A. iDG — $.. a i ! I obtained it of Vincent Wallace at Port Midgrave. t^ You had then hoen sixteen years witlutut (iatchiiig any risii within the tli.ee-mile limit in British waters, and you never tlien caught any i there of any monn'iit at all during all the years you Vv'ere fishing in the wy?— A. \'es: 1852 excepted. (I And nevertheless you paid $0(5 for a license to fish within the ^'''^t-'Stpfc"™! iu' •«"'•'"<.', zM n ' "^HB M ! :sjttSi 1 1 1 n^^H' 2112 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. limits! — A. I bad not been captain when I was there before, and I jjj not know but that I would do better there than some others. Q. Haht years .' — A. V'-*: during this time tliey have been of no account to us at all. Q. What do you mean by that '. — A. That we ne\er get any tisli there. Q, Was no quantity of fish taken by Amerirau vessels in our waters HON. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2iia e before, ami I did e others. irge portion of the ir ! — A. I bad not, ; and sometimes I 5e ?— A. One had to [>le were not so in- always found tbem iree-mile limit poor have uot tUouglit acliau fish enterino; ithiu three miles ot Ushing. livilege amounts to ecause, in the first States. ■ally comes down ?— ;hat the price would 0 yon uot think that 3uld prefer the dut.v twrence, witliin the this would iieepthe Let me think the the privilege men- and we would theu e. . That is my candid I was fishing, that I want to get alU s possible. *^ you waut the duties he Gulf of St. Law. and that you ('(uild speaking wirli ivi- y never. I will say , as far as 1 can re- give >iOU soni*- id'M ht years .' — A. Vr-^; at all. ue\er get any tisli ■fssel« in our waters during the last seven or eight years ?— A. No amount of fish were so caugl't— 1 am speaking with respect to Wellfleet. Q. You would not like to extend that statement to other fishing porta in the United States, wouUl you ?— A. I have no statistics respecting those ports, and 1 f'o not know anything about that. I am referring to my own native place. Q. And Wellfleet possesses but a very smill proportion of the Ameri- can fishing fleet? — A. It has a small proportion of it as to number, but TC all have large vessels. Q. Give me the number of your vessels that frequented the bay dur- ing the last six, seven, or eight years.— A. I cannot do so save for the two years and this sej son. One vessel has gone each year to the bay from our port during this time. Q. It was because very few vessels came down here that you said the gulf fisheries were of no account to you ? — A. Of course. Q. Has any great number of vessels ever come from Wellfleet to the bay? — A. I stated previously that within the last seven, eight, or ten years I thought that perhaps 8 or 10 vessels had come over here ; aud that is as near as I can remember. Q. Your vessels that came here never really amounted to anything in number? — A. Not during that time. Q. Did they do so at any time? — A. Perhaps the number really amounted to something some years, but I could neither tell yon the years nor the numbers. Q. Over the years to which your information extends there never was a time when the Wellfleet fishermen sent any number of vessels to our bay ? — A. No more than what I have stated, to the best of my recollection. Q. Do you think the Gulf of St. Liwrence fisheries ani of any value to the Americans, as a whole ? — A. If a man goes to any place and gets atrip of mackerel, that is of some value to him, perhaps; but 1 dc not say but that he might have staid at home and done as well or a little better. Q. What brings the Americans to our waters, then ? — A. I have stated Diy reasons as to the mackerel-fishermen, and I do not know anything about the cod fishermen. Q. Have you hetird any statement made by any person raspecting tbebay fishery, or about the fisheries anywhere, as being valuable to you?— A. No; never. ■ .•: ■ >'■ Q. And you would be very much surprised if that turned out to be a tiict? — A. Yes; I should. Q You do uot think that they are of any value at all yourself? — ^A. I say that they are of no account at all to my place. (^ Can you give me the name of any person of Prince Edward. Island or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick who was among tlie crews of m one of your vessels ? — A, I do uot know as I could. Last year alioiit onehsilf of the crews belonged to these provinces, but 1 could uot tell their names. Q. Are you fishing this year ? — A. No. Q. Do you know tiie result of the fishing this year in thti bay ?— A. I Only one vessel of our fleet is there this year. (/. What is her name '! — A. The iiu^h E. New combe. Q. With regard to the statistics you mentioned, did you speak re- specting tlie number of vessels engaged in the fisheries as from Massa- | Q. Then I will put it raoro distinctly. Do you think that fishery, well prosecuted, will supply the American m^rketi Avithout the; necessity of AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2117 je been to sea as resorting to the bay ?— A. Last year it seemed to me as though it would, but this year the flsh are very scarce. Q. Do you find that you are much helped by what conies from the bay this year ?— A. We haven't had anything come in. Only one vessel has come from the bay. Q. From all you have heard is it promising or not? — A. There soems to be a report since I have been here that it is brighter. Similar reports come from our own coast. Everything was dark when I came away. Some vessels hadn't landed a tish this season. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. You say that your own fisheries are not equal to supplying the United States market last year?— A. This year. I said last year I thought they were. Q. You thought they were equal to supplying your own market; that is, the whole of your markets. What do you call j^our market?— A. Well, our market is all over the United States where our railroads go. By Mr. Dana : Q. 1 meant to include in my question the cod Bank fisheries ?— A. I am not posted as to the cod-tisheries at all. Q. But in asking you whether our fisheries would supply our market, I meant to include the Bank fisheries? — A. I dou't kuow anything of the Bank fisheries. By Mr. Weatherbe: Q. Y^ou answered with reference to your own fisheries alone? — A. Yes. Q. Y'^ou were referring to the home fishery ? — A. I understood him to ask me if 1 thought our American fishery would supply our demands, aud I replied Q. You were speaking of the home fishery alone? — A. Yes. Q. Are you not astray ? Mr. Dana did not mean that. He meant the cod fishery outside in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Banks of Xewfouuland ? — A. I do not want to touch the cod fishery at all. 1 was talking about mackerel. Q. And you meant on the United States coast? — A. I meant the mackerel fishery on the coast last year ; that last year I thought, from the price we got for our flsh, there was plenty of flsh to supply our mar- ket. They ruled so low that it was hardly worth while to catch fish. Q. You are speaking entirely of the mackerel fishery? — A. Yes. I would not talk about the codfish, for [ am not acquainted with it. Q. What do you consider to be the quantity required to supply the United States market ? — A. I do not know. I don't take the figures at all. I supposed that if fish were not worth catching on account of the price being so low everybody was supplied. Q. Suppose the supply was limited. Suppose other fish were very plenty and they were very scarce, what would your opinion be then? — A. I dou't understand the question. Q. I understood you now to have stated, or to have intended to say, that your supply of mackerel and cod on the United States coast was sufficient to supply the demand in the United States, all over the United States? — A. My opinion was that it was last year. Q. How do you come to have that opinion? — A. When they haul up and don't think it worth while to catch fish I assume that the market is supplied. Q. Were there any mackerel caught outside of the United States I 'ife-t, 15 )u.'.¥";j>t!vljiii MMi f .Ji "* Si P-f^wMt" r '1 2118 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. there was. There were 55 barrels shores last year? — A. I presum caught in the liay St. Lawrence. Q. When you were speaking of your market Mere you not conflning yourself only to your own town? — A. Wo don't eat many fish in our town. 1 packed 11,000 barrels last year. Q. How many mackerel does your market require ? — A. I don't know. Q. Can you give us any idea? — A. I haven't the least idea. Q. Have you any sort of an idea whatever how many of those mack eral last year that did supply that demand were caught in the United States waters ? — A. No, I have not, only as to my own town of Well- fleet. In the town of Wellfleet there was 38,000 barrels put up. Q. Outside of that you can't give us any idea whatever? — A. No. Q. Bo you recollect when there was an agitation in regard to the Washington Treaty coming into operation ? — A. I heard of it. I don't recollect anything particular. Q. Did you engage with those wlio sent a delegation to Washing- ton ? — A. 1 didn't take any part in any political movement. Q. In 1838 and 1839 you fished ?— A. Y« s. Q. In the Bay St. Lawrence ? Then from 1839 to 1845 you ceased to fish there ? You fished on your own shores? — A. Yes. Q. Then afterwards when did you fish on your own shores? It was after '45?— A. Yes. Q. You have nothing in your books, I suppose, except dates ? — A. No, Q. And these dates, of course, come from your records? — A. All of those except one. I went with other men into the bay. Q. Did you put those years down ? — A. They are all down in the book up to 1873. Then I was master. Q. From '39 to '45 you went on your own coast ? — A. Yes. Q. You didn't take any account of those years? — A. 1 only took a list of the vessels I went in, not the quantity of fish caught. Q. You didn't take down the names of the vessels you fished in on your own coast ? — A. Yes ; all the ves sels I ever went in. Q. What vessels did you fish in in the Gulf of St. Lawrence? Did you take a list of them ? — A. I have them. Q. I wish you had made a list so that you could put it in? — A. I cau give you the vessels and the tonnage. Q. Tell me if you can name any Nova Scotians or Canadians you fished with ?— A. In the bay ? Q. Yes. — A. 1 could not tell you one. Q. You cannot give the name of a single man ? — A. Do you mean in the vessels with me? Q. Certainly; that is what I want to find out. — A. I don't carry it in my mind. It is 15 years since I went into the bay. Q. These you have written down there in the (memorandum) are from memory? — A. Y^es. Q. Not from any book ? — A. No. Q. Then if your memory is defective the book is defective? — A. Yes, that is so. Q. Now, you have looked at the book. If you have it from your memory why can't you give it to us without looking at the book ? 1 cau understand from the rules of the evidence it is allowable to look at auy writing or instrument made at the time, but I never heard of it being allowed to write down from memory and give evidence from paper.— A. If I am sitting down by myself I can count them up, but in a room like this it is different. Q. We had an American master here the other day. He gave the AWARD OP THK FISHERY COMMISSION. 2119 A. Do you mean in A. I dou't carry it uoranduiu) are from lefective?— A. Yes, imiiies from the records, but I don't understand your writing down evi- dence and reading it. I never heard of that in any court. Mr. DANA. Suppose you didn't, can't you goon with the examination I Mr. WEATiiBiinK. Certainly. Q. You cannot give tlio name of one single Canadian, Nova Scotian, or liritlsh subject who llshod with yon during the whole period you tished ill Canadian waters ? — A. Xo. Q. Can you tell me how many British subjects fished in the same ves- sels, or can you give mo anything like the proportion ?— A. In IH'tS I was in the Bay St. Lawrence. I think we had three Frenchmen from Harbor Bouche, in the E. J. Lawton. I think it was three. I will not be positive. (}. Where did you flsh in the E. J. Lawton ?— A. We didn't catch them anywhere. We tried everywhere. Q. You haven't down in your book at all any memorandum of where yon caught your fish ? — A. No. ' Q. Itead what you have in your book forl85S. — A. In 1S5S we caught 30 barrels in the schooner E. J. Lawton, 70 tons burden. That is just what I have in the book. (J. You have 30 down there 1 — A. Yes. Q. How did you remember to put down 30 ? — A. I will tell j'ou. I recollect because I was a mau just starting life, and I had to pay $22 as my proportion. Q. You have to look at the book now to tell me ? —A. I have ; to show the dates ; that is all. Q. It was not necessary to look to find the number ? — A. No ; give me the vessels and I will tell the numbers. Q. In 1859, can you tell me without looking at the book? — A. I think theWintield Scott. Q. That is the next year. We will suppose it is the Wiufield Scott. Tell me what you caught. — A. 250 barrels. Two trips. Q. Now, you recollect that, don't you ? — A. Yes. Q. The reason why you recollect with regard to the previous case is tliat you paid something. Perhaps with this vessel the reason why you recollect is different. Is it the same in this case ? — A. No; we made a fair voyage that time. Q. You told me the reason you recollected the previous year was be- cirnae you had to pay out money, which I admit was a good reason. There may be some other reason in this case? — A. We went only two or three times to various places. If we had gone a great number of years in succession I might not remember, but by skipping a number of years and going to the bay in that way I can keep it in ray mind. Q. How many years altogether did you flsh in the Gulf of St. Law- reuce ? — A. Seven years. (}. Then you give me as the reason of your recollecting, that you m;i(le so few l)rips ? — A. Yes. Q. That is the reason you recollect you got these 250 barrels. Is that in round numbers or exactly ? — A. That is to the best of my knowledge. Q. To the best of your recollection ? — A. Yes. Q. But in round numbers ? — A. Yes. Q. You had no record and could not get any record ? — A. The col- i lector told me he wanted me to go down and testify to the number of flsli I caught in the Bay of St. Lawrence, and I supposed I could tell every year, but when I came to figure up the Wiufield Scott bothered me. Every other one was quite clear. Q. So you are not sure ?— A. I am not sure. I am not sure that was ^m^i ";|m . '''-^i 4 #tifi'^li g^ 0^'^ iiWii! iB|n| mt ^ '^7/i^ o^ % V Ii . Foster : Question. You were formerly a fisherman ? — Answer. Yes. Q. How early were jou in Bay St. Lawrence fixhiug?— A. In 1842. Q. flow many years after that were yod there f— A. Ten. I was in tbe bay ten different years, between 1842 and- 1858. Q. The rest of the time you were fishing on the United States coast? — A. Yes. Q. Fishing for mackerel ? — A. Yes; solely. Q. Where did you catch the fish in the gulf f— A. The first year, 1842, I was in the schooner Patrol as sharesman. We caught about 150 barrels of mackerel to tbe northward of the Magdalen Islands. Sometimes we caught sight of Cape Gasp6 and Bonaventure Island, but we never saw St. John's Island. It was called on our chart Prince Edward Island or St. John's Island. The next year I was in the schooner as captain and caught 80 barrels. Q. Whereabouts ? — A. At Magdalen Islands; I saw North Capo once during the voyage and only once. I was young and 1 knew it was a very dangerous place, and I did not want to be caught there. Q. During all the years yon have been in the gulf, where was your principal fishing douel — A. At Magdalen Islands; occasionally on Brad- ley, but not often. Q. Did you make fair catches?— A. Yes; fair. Q. During that term of years yon fished a number of seasons on the United States coast ? — A. Yes. Q. How did you do there ? — A. Very well ; some years we made a good thing and some years a poor thing. Q. What would be the average number of barrels a season you took on tbe United States coast? — About 400 barrels a year. I had a small vessel in those days. The vessels were not so large as now. Q. How many trips did you require to make to take that quantity ? — A. Half a dozen in one season extending for a fortnight or three weeks, as it might happen. If fishing near home, we would make short trips ; if we went to George's or Mount Desert, they would be longer. Q. You remember the mackerel fleet from Newburyport and some other of the leading fishery towns for a good many years back. Take the years when you were fishing here, how did the towns stand in regard to the number of mackerel vessels they sent out ; which had the most, and so on t — A. Gloucester, I think, for a great many years, led ; Well- tleet came next, and Newburyport next. Q. How many vessels had Newburyport mackereling in the gulf when you left off fishing ?— A. I think there might have been 25 hailing from Newburyport and manned by Newburyport men. Q How many mackerelers in all, including those on our own coast ? A. There was about an equal number in the gulf and on our coast in those days. A 2122 AWARD OF 1HE FISHEBY COMMISSION. By Sir Alexander Gait : Q. In what year was that ? — A. 1858. By Mr. Foster : Q. TIow many mackerelers sail from Newbury port now f — A. We liavp 7 vessels that are licensed by the government, being over 30 tons. \Vu have a little Heet of vessels under 30 tons. Q. How many vessels from your port have been engaged mackcr*'!- flshing in the bay this summer T — A. The Miantonoma went to the bay, and two or three weeks ago she packed from the bay 9' from fishing within three miles of the shore, what would your answer be ? — A. My answer would be that 1 would rather, today, if I was 25 years old, and going to prosecute the fishing business, be debarred from going into Bay St. Lawrence at all. I would not want to go there. Q. Why ? — A. For the very reason that I don't think it is a profita- ble business. I never found it so there. I never went there of my owu free will in my life. I went there because of the mEyority of the vessel was owned outside myself, and we have to please our owners sometimes. Q. If yon were coming to the gulf, would you regard it as a matter o consequence to be deprived of the right of fishing within three miles of AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2123 e seiners the const T— A. No. I think tbo mackerel are eel grass mackerel right insliore, and if I fitted out a vessel and had a skipper who would go there, I would not have him go in the vessel. The inshore mackerel are not as good by fifty per cent. Q. Tlien it is hardly necessary to ask you whether you regard it bet- ter to have a duty on mackerel than not T — A. I suppose it would be better. It might enhance the price of our fish a little ; I don^t know that it wonld. The fish caught in Nova Scotia vessels does not make a great deal of dift'erence in the States, as regards the price. Q. Why T — A. Because we catch so many more there. If the quan- tity caught by American fishermen in American waters fell off, then the mackerel which came from Nova Scotia would be very high in price ; but the main thing is this: if the quantity of mackerel caught by Amer- ican fishermen in American waters is plentiful we have low prices, if the quantity is scarce, wo have high prices; and this without regard to iciported mackerel. Q. How many boats from Newburyi>ort are engaged in fishing ? — A. W> iiiive from 40 to 00 open boats, having 2 men each. Q. Where do they flsli ? — A. From one to six miles from land, winter and summer. I have myself fished 25 years in winter. Q. What do they fish for! — A. For codfish altogether in the winter. Q. And for what in the summer?— A. For cod, mackerel, hake, and haddock. Q. And then going beyond open boats, what have you ? — A. We have tirck l)0Ht8 that are not large enough to be admeasured by government. We don't admeasure anything under five tons. These deck boats go and stay out every night in summer. We have from 15 to 20 of these. Tiieii we have anotlier class, which comes under the registry laws, ves- sels from 5 tons to 30. We have from 15 to 20 of these. Q. Where do they fish ?— A. They catch cod off the bar of the mouth nftbe Merrimac, ofi' the Island of Shoals, and off the Jeffreys. They hh for haddock in winter. Q. Do they come into British waters ?— A. No. Q. Do any vessels less than 20 tonsi come up beyond the American side of the Bay of Fundy ? — A. No ; I never knew one under that size, present tonnage. I knew a vessel which went to Bay Ghaleurs and fliich was 25 tons, old register, about 15 tons new measurement. Q. That was how many years ago ? — A. 25 years ago. By Mr. Davies : Q. You are not a practical fisherman now f — A. No. Q. What is the position you now hold T — A. I am inspector of cus- toms, and I hold four or five different oflices. Q. Uow long have you held office ? — A. Seven years on 25th of last month. Q. You are a Republican in politics ?— A. I suppose you are right in that. Q. You were down in the bay, I understood, for ten years! — A. About ten years off and on, not continuously. Q. From 1842 to 1858 you were some years on your own coast ! — A. Yes. Q. You fished chiefly to the north of the Magdalen Islands when in the bay! — A. Yes. Q. Did you catch all your fish there !— A. Chiefly. Q. In 1844 in what vessel were you f— A. Vesper, and caught 260 barrels. if A 2124 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. In 1845 T— A. In Equator, and took 225 barrels. (j. In 184A what vessel f — A. EquRtor, on our shores. Q. In 1847 what vessel f— A. Tbe Far West. I built the vchsoI, and the owners insisted on the vessel coming to the bay. Q. Yon did not like British waters for mackerel-fishing ? — A. Xn. Q. What year did the Far West come down to the bay ? — A. l.S4,s, Q. The owners insisted on tbe vessel coming down. Thi\v knew better than you did f — A. They thought they knew better than* I did. Q. What did you get T — A. Alraut 240 barrels. Q. And the next year, 1840, what vessel were yon in in the bay 7— a. I was on our shores. Q. In 1850 what vessel ? — A. I was in the bay one trip in tlie Fnr West, and got 160 barrels. Q. In 1851 where were you 1 — A. On our shores. Q. And in 1852 T— A. In the bay. Q. In what vessel f— A. Far West. W^e got 250 barrels. Q. The owners still forced you there f — A. Yes ; it was the yoar of the gale. Q. No ; 1851 was the year of the gale. What did you take on your own coast in the year of the gale f — A. 500 barrels. Q. How many trips! — A. That was for the whole season, from 1st May to 1st November. Q. In 1853 where were you ? — A. On our shores. Q. And in 1854 f — A. In the bay. Q. How many barrels did you get ? — A. 225. Q. In the same vessel T — A. Yes. Q. In 1855 where were yon T — A. On our shores. Q. And in 1850 ?— A. In the bay. Q. IIow many barrels did you get f — A. 60 barrels, in the same vessel. Q. The owners were evidently comparing the value of the bay tishiiif; with the fishing on your shores, for they sent the vessel to each iu alter- nate years. Where were you iu 1857 f — A. I was piloting on the Amer- ican coast. Q. Where were you iu 1858 ? — A. In Bay Ghaleurs, schooner Elliott: we got 280 barrels. Q. You have said yon took all your catches off the shore. Did you ever get in sight of the land ? — A. Yes. Q. Where f — A. At St. John's Island. I saw it the last time. Q. Were you very close f — A. I was iu a harbor there. Q. In what harbor ? — A. Malpeque. Q. Did you not cast a line overboard to sec if mackerel were there '— A. No. I had no desire to do so. Q. You would not have takeu them if you could have got them f— A. With a northeast wind blowing and night coming on, would you heave to to catch mackerel with a vessel ou which there were 225 barrels f Q. You were in the harbor of Malpeque ? — A. Yes. Q. What were you doing there f — A. 1 went there out of the way of the storm. Q. Why did you not fish there? — A. In the harbor ? Q. When you went out next day. — A. If I had desired I could have done so; I had no desire. Q. Why did you not fish? — A. Because I did not like inshore mack- erel. Q. You call them eel-grass mackerel ! — A. I do. Q. You never caught any mackerel within ten miles of the shore in AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2125 Toiir life in the bay, except a few round the Magdalen Islands f— A. I joii't ri'collect. Q. Have you cauffht any mackerel in the bay within 5, 6, or 7 miles of the shore! — A. 1 mi^;ht probably. * Q. Hut what is the proHability !— A. I don't think it is very probable. Q. If you never caught any mackerel inshore at the bay, how cau you tell whether they are eel-grass mackerel f— A. From what I have seen brouglit home in vessels. Q. How did you know where they were taken 1— A. Because they told Die where they had taken the tish. Q. Whole cargoes f — A. No. y. Did they select particular fish as those caught within the limits I aoil others as caught outside?— A. Inshore and off shore. Q. They can tell whether the mackerel have been taken inshore or off shore f —A. Yes. Q. They can select the fish taken within the limits f — A. Yes. I am speiikiiig about inshore fish. Q. What do you call inshore f— A. Five, six, seven, or eight miles out. Q. Do you come before the Commission as an expert possessing a kaowledge of the fishing business and of fish ? — A. Xo. Q. Do you represent yourself before the Commission as a gentleman rbo has a knowledge of the mackerel fishery f — A. 1 was born and brought up to fishing, and followed it up to 1858 from the time I was nine years old. Q. ',oyou represent yourself as such f — A. I don't represent myself to bea great expert; but I may be a common-fisherman expert, and I know about as much as any good fisherman who has common sense and a kuowledge of the fisheries. (J. You never caught mackerel within the limits, and yet you venture ibe opinion that fish caught within one, two, three, or four miles of the iiiore are eel-grass fish i — A, Yes. Q. And not so good as otheis ? You make that statement, and wish to have it taken down 1 — A. Yes, Q. 1 don't speak with regard to the American coast, where, I under- stand, you catch mackerel 15, 20, and 30 miles out ? — A. Yes ; lUO miles. Q. The fish are not close to your shore ? — A. Yes, y. How close ? — A. Near to the rocks. Q. From 100 miles out to the rocks inshore ? — A. At timt>s. Q. Generally f — A. I have caught them one hundred miles out and I have caught them in the surf. Q. You call those fish caught inshore eel-grass fish, and they don't sell as well ? — A. Yes. Q. Huw far out are the eel-grass Ash caught !— A. To about the Jef- freys, about fifteen miles olf from Cape Ann. (). The mackerel caught within fifteen miles of shore are of an inferior liiiracter *. — A. Yes. Q. Are they known as eel grass tish ? — A. They are. Q. All the witnesses, especially Amcricau fishermen, will know them such If — A. That is, inshore fish. Q. Fishermen will know what 1 refer to when I speak of eel-grass liiii t— A. Yes ; those coming from our port. Q. Don't you know that mess mackerel are taken inshore in the gulf, ntltbat no me;ss mackerel are taken more than three miles from the ore ?— A. I don't know it. .l m--'*^ \t ' If 2126 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. you know tke contrary 1 — A. Yes ; I know it from «'iitchiiijr Q, Do them. Q. When f— A. In 1848. Q. I believe in 1848 they were taken a long distance from slioro. (;ji„| you speak of any year from 1851, especially during the last ten yoars, when mess mackerel have been taken beyond three miles from sliorp i||| the bay t — A. Yes. Q. From your own knowledge f — A. I hate not been there since 18)1, and I don't know. Q. Are you inspector of fish f — A. No. Q. When fishermen come in with a cargo, can the inspector, oti e.\ amining the fish, tell what have been taken within ilie limits and nliatl outside f — A. I think he can ; I think I could. Q. Could you, when examining (iab, tell that certain fish \vu\ been I caught within ten miles of shore and were eelgrass tish f — A. 1 rievirl caught any of that kind in the bay. Q. You saw them T — A. Yes ; in my own port. Q. You easily recognized them? — A. As easily as spring ainl mackerel; they were not so fat. Q. You put the limit on your coast, within which eelgrass in u'vurdl are caught, at 15 miles. How far from shore do you place it as ri>jrikr(ls| the bayf — A. I should judge about ten miles. Q. Your catches in the bay were not very large! — A. No; I ahvavsl bad small vessels. Q. You never fished inshore? — A. No; always at Magdalen Isliiiuls.! Q. And you gave it up t — A. Yes. Q. Did you ever fish in Bay Clialeurs ? — A. No. Q. You never caught any on the west shore or off Now Brunswick ?-| A. No. Q. Nor round Cape Breton f — A. No. Q. You eventually had to give the business up; it didn't pay you?- A. I got a living all the time ; I paid my debts and had souiethins left. Q. With those small catches ? — A. Yes. Q. A vessel of the same size which caught two or three times as mnci would make a very remunerative return ! — A. Allow me to explaii why I got a living on small catches. When I was captain of the Fai West I owned one-third of the vessel, and a man who was witb mi owned a sixth. Mr. Pettingell (I was junior then) and Mr. C. II. Irelam owned the other part of the vessel. They gave me $35 a month to sail the vessel, and I derived an equal share with the merchant at houie. hired all the rest of the crew and paid the provision bill, and allowi the vessel 25 |)er cent. After all duties were paid and provision bill, drew a straight line dividing the balance. I made up to $1,000 a yei in those small vessels. Q. Then other vessels which caught three times as much fish mtisi have made a handsome thing f — A. They had more men to feed am pay- Q. What was the size of the vessels ? — A. About 57 tons. Q. Were all the vessels about 57 tons ? — A. The largest was 62 ton Q. With those returns of fish you cleared $1,000 a year ? — A. |l,r in the best year. The average would be about $500. I made a prolil on the men more than I caught with my own hands. Q. You would not make a great deal out of them f — A. No. Q. The chief part was out of the catch of mackerel T — A. Yesi. Q. When yoa were making that very fair profit why did you lea^ AWARD OF THE FIBllERT COMMI88IOK. 212V a the business! — A. I can tell you If necesstiry; it was something do- mestic, Q. You said that the duty on mackerel niiglit enhance the price, and afterwards qnaliticd the statement by doubting «liat imported macl\k< I 2128 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1* The fish would have to come ont by and by, ng tbey woald not be worth much another year. So yon couUl keep up the niiirket for a few davt, the same as speculators in flour and grain and other nrtioles do. Q. To put it another way. Suppose that instead of 250,000 boini; re- quired for consumption, only 100,000 barrels were required, would those 100,000 barrels bring a higher price than if 250,000 were reipiired ?— a. Some years when we have had as large a quantity of mackervl in. spected as there has ever been, we have got a goml price. Wo iiavt; sometimes got low prices when there hns been a small oatcli. Thi.s wim owing to the demand, which is regulated by other businesses as much a^ anything else. Q. Dk\ you oppose the Treaty of Washington, or were yon in favor uf it? — A. I did not know anything about it till it was settled. No. 16. Isaiah 0. Young, of Wellfleet, Mass., outAtter of vessels, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Trescot: Question. You have beeu engaged in mackerel fishing during some years t — Answer. Yes. Q. During what years?— A. From 1858 to 1871. Q. In 1859, where did you gof — A. To Bay St. Lawrence. Q. How long were you there ? — A. About two mouths. Q. What did you catch ! — A. Sixty barrels. Q. Whereabouts ? — A. Most of them at Magdalen Islands and Bank Bradley ; we caught a few about Prince Edward Island. Q. How many ?— A. Five to eight barrels. Q. Did you go there in 1859 ? — A. Yes. Q. In the same vessel ! — A. Yes. Q. What luck had you there?— A. We got 150 barrels. Q. Wh»t proportion of them did you take withiu the limits!— A, About 120 barrels when wo first went into the bay near East Point; tbe | remainder we caught ofi' shore and over at the Magdalen Islands. Q. After 1859 were you in the gulf! — A. No. Q. Whore were you engaged fishing in the mean time ? — A. Ou tbe | coast of the United States. Q. How^ long? — A. From the season of 1860 up to tbe season of I 1871. Q. Upon an average have you done well in fishing on the American { coast? — A. Yes; very well. Q. What is the average catch you made? — A. Probably 500 barrels. I Q. Have you any idea from your own knowledge of the business of I Wellfleet, and your experience since you have been in business, what [ nnmber of barrels of mackerel have been inspected there! — A. Icanj tell you for the last ten years. Q. For the last ten years, what do you suppose has been the nutnbertl — A. There has beeu inspected in Wellfleet during the last ten yeani 274,591 barrels. Q. How do you know that? — A. It is the sworn statement of the | general inspector. Q. From your knowledge of tbe business, can you form any ideaasl to what proportion of that number of barrels has been inspected asl mackerel from the gulf? — A. I got the best information I could get inl our place. I went to the inspector, who has been there for twentyfivel AWARD uF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2129 (Is and Bank temeut of the veAi'H, aiKl be said he bad not kept bis books so tbut bo could give it, but r>,(MN) barrels was a large estimate. Q. Wbat sail of mackerul vessels bavo yon tbis year belonging to vour port T— A. Fifty-four vessels. ' ii Uow many went to tbe gulf tbis year T— A. One. (}. How many went in 1875 f— A. One. (}. And in 1874 !— A. I tbink none. Tbere was one in 1870. (}, In tbe last ten years an exceedingly small pn»portion of tlio mack- fiel Heet of WelUleet bas gone to tbe gulf f— A. Very small. NVolUlt'ot, during wbat tbe gon- tbe our By Mr. Weatberbe : (j. You say 274,5i)l barrels were inspected in [teriud *. — A. In tbe last ten years. Q. Wbere did you get those figures f—A. Tbey come from eral ins|»cctor's report for tbe State of Massachusetts. {}. Where ditl you get them f— A. Tbe general inspector sends statements to tbe various inspectors, and 1 got that from one of iuspectors. y. You got tbe printed return !— A. From the inspector. Q. \'ou asked him for a statement in regard to tbe number of barrels inspected ? — A. I asked him for the amount of mackerel inspected at WellHeet for tbe last ten years, and be gave mo tbe ligures. :^ (}, Tbis was sent to bim from where! — A. From the general inspec- tor at Boston. I suppose so. ^_ Q. How did the Boston inspector get itT— A. That is bis business. (}. How did he get itt — A. From tbe various inspectors. (l From the inspector at Welltteet f — A. Yes. (j. Tbe inspector at Wcllfleet would send tbe information to the gen- eral inspector, who would send it back to tbe inspector at Wellfleet ? — A, lie places it on tile. Q. Tbe general inspector would get it from tbe inspector at Well- tleet? — A. Yes. (j. He would know wbat the quantity was without going to tbe Bos- tou inspector ? — A. I don't know anything about that. This is a sworn stiitemenr. Q. Who swore to it ; tbe inspector ? — A. The general inspector. Q. The local inspector ? — A. The local inspector swore to it. Q. \'ou would not undertake to say it is correct f — A. I would under- talie to swear it is as near correct as men can make figures. Q. Tbere is no return with regard to tbe proportion of those caught on the different shores ? — A. They make no distinction so far as I know. Q. Have you undertaken to make a distinction f — A. This is the near- est estimate I could get. (^ How did you make it ? becrtuse I am instructed that is not cor- rect.— A. I did not say it was correct. Q. But you want some importan(5e to be attached to it .' — A. Cer- taiDly. (J. Wbere did you get it? — A, From one of the inspectors. Q. Wbat is bis name ? — A. Noah Swett. Q. What did he tell you f— A. That to the best of his judginent (and he bas been in tbe business twenty-five years) there had not been .5,000 [barrels of mackerel brought into the town of WelUleet from the gulf I (lining tbe last ten years. Q. He kept no record of that ? — A. I could not say. Q. Don't you know whether he kept any record ? — A. No. Q. You never asked him that t — A. I don't think that I did. 134 F i , rt ■rtth ■'■ ^.i ^i ■t-l^-i Ih^mt I! 2130 AWARD OP THE PI8REHY COMMISfilON. li. Q. I umlcratood you to nay 3'ou went to the books to ascertaia whcJ there was any record of what had been inspected from the gulf f— 1| don't think so. Q. Is that correct ?— A. I went to the books to see how many fiHhfn the gulf had lieen inspected in the town of Wellileet, and I got the (rciiei inspector's report. I asked the inspector if there was any way of 1 ing how many barrels of fish had been inspected fVom the Gulf ot; Lawrence, and he said no. Q. Now, you say you asked him ; did you ask him T— A. I hav( you I asked him. Q. What did you ask him f— A. I have told you what 1 asked IiIidJ Q. Be kind enough to mention it again. — A. 1 went to Mr. iSwetij being the oldest inspector, and .'. asked him the number of barrelDi had been inspected in WellHcet during the last ten years. lie Haiil.^ can give you the general inspector's sworn returns." Then I asked I if he could tell me how many fish were inspected in Wellfleot from 1 Bay St. Lawrence for the last 1 () yenrn. lie suid he could not, biitj the best estimate he could make the number would be 5,000 barrels, Q. Tliat is the only I'uundution you have for making the statonifij —A. Yes. Q. Did you ask him how he came to that opinion ? — A. No. i). Was there any information from which lie could have jutlKeil A. He said ho could have told me if he had kept his books so. ilcu me he could not tell ; but to the best of his judgment it would be j.ll barrels. Q. Did you ask liim if he had any record ? — A. No. I don't k about that. Q. You don't remember ? — A. I think he told me that, to the lie; his judgment, it was .5,000 barrels. Q. After ho had given you the 271,000 barrels, I understood ym say you also asked him if he kept a record of the others? — A. laifti him how many tish had been packed from Bay St. Lawrence. Q. Did you ask if he kept aay record ? — A. 1 am unable to any. Q. Do you remember whether you said so t — A. I am unable to you. Q. Y'ou don't remember whether you said so or not ? — A. I asked b{ if be could tell me how nmny fish were packed from Bay St. Lawrei Q. Have you no other means of knowing f — A. No. Q. You spoke of catching 100 barrels of mackerel iu 1858; where iri they caught ? — A. In Bay St. Lawrence. Q. How many years were you engaged there? — A. Two years; 1; and 1859. Q. Do you recollect what vessel ? — A. Indiana. Q. W^as any British subject on board ? — A. One each year ; but unable to give his name. Q. Where did he belong? — A. To the Strait of Ganso. Q. Was that his place of residence ? — A. No ; we shipped him tin Q. The first year?— A. Yes. Q. Did you find him there the second year? — A. Not the, same it^ W^e got another man from the same place. Q. Y'ou are not able to give the name of either of them ? — A. No. Q. What year was there one vessel from your town in the bay f This year, 1877. Q. And what number last year ? — A. In 1876 and 1875 we liad vessel each year. 1 1 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2131 lU year; butl ot thesiuneui^l 1875 we liadd ly. I'rovlous to that year, do you know what number of vesseU your Inn lind there !— A. No. [y. Was the number up to that date given from your own knowledge f Ia. Yes. |q. Previous to that year can you give us no idea of the number !-.A. Ily Mr. Foster: ly. How many i)eoplo live at VVelllleet ?— A. 2,250. |(^. Vou are acquainted with pretty much all of them !— A. Yes. JJy Mr. Trescot : I Do you know a vessel of the name of R. A. Kingsbury, Captain |iilock f— A. There is no such vessel and no such captain at our place. No. 10. Itimothy a. Daniels, of V»'eIUh'et, Mass., llsliorman, called on behalf jtlie (lovernment of the United States, sworn and examined. liy Mr. Foster : )f.}. How old are you ?— A. Seventy years. Were you engnged in mackerel Hshiiig during a good many years ? Lv. Yt's. fl How many years did you come to the gulf to fish mackerel ?— A. Ivciiteen years. jl). What year did you begin and what year end f— A. From 1840 to I believe, inclusive ; one year out. b. Were you in tlie same schooner all the time ? — A. Yes. h. What was the name of the vessel !— A. I'lonecr. h. What tonimge ? — A. (>2 tons. V, New or old measurement * — A. Old measurement. h. Were you captain all those years? — A. Yes. \i. How many barrels of mackerel did you take in all during the 17 arsyou were in the gulf? — A. 2,(578. h. TLat would be an average of 157 or l."5S. What was the largest kill you nmde ? — A. 280 barrels. fl. And what the smallest catch f — A. 02 barrels. h. Whereabouts were you in the habit of Hshing * — A. From North |l« to East Point. Ott" Prince Edward Island? — A. Yes, mostly. Aiul where else ? — A. Off the west shore and on Bank Bradley. K>. Where did you do your principal Hshing on those plattes ; more Hii three miles from shore, or less? — A. More than three miles. h What is the largest number of American nifickerelors you ever re* fiuber to have seen together ? — A. About .'iOO, I think, from 250 to 300. }, Where did you see them ?— A. I saw most of them off North Cape, |tffeeii North Cape and East Point. l What is the largest number of mackerel vessels Wellfleet has ever liuone j'ear in your day! — A. About 100 vessels. . And what is the largest number you have ever known to be in one ill Bay St. Lawrence f — A. From 30 to 40. . How many mackerelers has Welltleet now J — A. About fifty, I I How many has it in the gulf now f — A. There is not one now ; it lone there this season. If you were a young man and a fisherman once more and wanted ., %'^''■; 2132 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMI88IO^. to come to the gnlf to catch mackerel, \^ould you bo prevcntod froj doing it by the fact that you were forbidden to fish within three mile of the shore ? — A. I think so. Q. You wov'Id not come ? — A. 1 would sooner fish on our shores noj any time. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. If you were forbidden to come within three miles of the slion would you come at .ilH — A. It would be under certain circumstance If there were no fish with us and plenty there, perhaps I might. I cai not say as to that. Q. From your experience, if you had been restricted, during all tli years you came to the bay, from coming to within three miles of tU shore, you would not have come ? — A. I think not. No. 17. D. VV. Oliver, of Wellfleet, Mass., fisherman, called on behalf of tij Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Trescot : Question. You have been engaged in fishing ? How old are you 1 Answer. 37 years. Q. How long have you been fishing ? — A. 22 seasons. Q. Mackerel fishing entirely ? — A. Yes. Q. Where have you been fishing ? — A. Partly in Bay St. Lawren and partly on our own coast. Parts of 7 seasons I was in the bay. Q. Then you had an opportunity to compare the two fisheries ?-| Yes. Q. As far as your experience goes, which fishery is the more profit ble f — A. That on our own shores. Q. What was your average catch on our shores ? — A. Our catchi were from 500 to 1,200 barrels. Q. What was the average catch in the gulf ? — A, The catches wd from 130 to 460 barrels. Q. When fishing in the gulf, what portion did you take inshore, witlj the three-mile limit ? — A. Very little. Q. You have fislied inside ? — A. I would not swear I had not fish within the limits. I will allow that I have, a little. Q, As far as the experience of Wellfleet fishermen goes, it is no gn advantage to have the privilege of the inshore fishery of the gulff- No. Q. What is the number of the vessels from Wellfleet which havego| mackerel-fishing this season ? — A. 52 sail. Q. What portion has gone to the gulf? — A. One has been there] of the season, but she came out. Q. As a general rule, you don't value the gulf fishery, for you m\ very small portion of your fleet there ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Davies : Q. Where did you fish in the bay ?-:-A. I fished in diflferent places] the gulf. Q. Whereabouts? — A. On Bank Bradley, at Magdalen Islands, aii^ Bank Orphan. Q. Any other places ? — A. Along the north side of Prince E(Iff| Island. Q. From East Point to North Cape ? — A. Yes. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2133 ir shores no< 11 behalf of to Q. What year did you fish there ?— A. In 1857. I flslicd from the Inst shore down the north side of the island. Q.Was that the only year ? — A. Yes. Q. How many seasons altogether were you in the gulf ?— A. Seven, I Jere. Q. Your chief fishing was outside 1 — A. Yes. I Q. And you made poor catches ? — A. Yes. Q. Did the business pay at all ? — A. 1 made a trip that paid me one jjson. Q. With the exception of that, it was not a paying business ? — A. Q. You did not fish within the limits at all ?— A. I did not, to speak of. Q. Did the season when you caught your fish along the island, pay nty well ? — A. We were three months, and got 300 barrels. ' Q, How was it you stuck in there and did not go out into the bay ? — We were in there, and thought we would make a business of it. I Q. What was the size of the vessel in which you fished on your own Bst when you caught 1 ,200 barrels ? — A. 90 tons, old register. [ Q. How many months were you in ciitching 1,200 barrels ? — A. About Ire mouths. I Q. How many hands were employed ?— A. Thirteen. i). Was that considered a good catch in five months? — A. Yes. il Paid well ?— A. Yes. (J. Netting a good profit ? — A. Yes. Q. How much profit would a vessel catching 1,200 barrels of mackerel Uve months make ? — A. I don't think I could say. The crew got $300 Biiece. [Q. That would not bo very extra ? — A. It is a very good average com- wl with what they get down here. Three to one, according to my taierience. JQ, Vessels have taken 1,200 barrels in the bay ? — A. I don't know. Q. That would leave a good profit for five mouths' work f — A. Yes. |q. Would it leave a large profit? — A. It is according to the quality f the fish. |Q. What was the quality you caught? — A. The quality of the fish i nothing extra that season. |Q. How far from the shore did you take them ? — A. We caught them hloug the coast of Maine. I Q. Any awav down at George's? — A. We did not go down to George's. Q. 30, 20, and 10 miles out?— A. Yes. |(}. Chiefly ten or twenty miles? — A. Sometimes we were within two r three miles of land. Sometimes we would not bo within 50 miles. By Sir Alexander Gait : IQ. Did you catch the fish with a purse seine ? — A. No, with hook and pe. IQ. When you caught 1,200 barrels, were they taken with hook and pef— A. Yes. The following season i caught 1,000 barrels which might 814,000. I Q. They were better fish ? — A. YTes. They were caught on our own lores. No. 18. Tuesday, September 25, 1877. Ilbe Conference met. [GEORftE Friend, of Gloucester, Mass., fisherman and sailmaker, [lied ou behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and laiuined. m »;/.:»''■ 2134 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. By Mr. Foster : Question. What is your age ?— Answer. Fifty-five years last July. Q. When were you first in the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishing for niack-l erel f— A. In 1836. Q. Do yon remember how many barrels you caught that year ?— A.| About 120 barrels. Q. Do you recollect where you fished? — A. Mostly all over the bay.l Q. It was a poor year, and you fished all over the bay !— A. Yes. Q. Did you fish within three miles of the shore I — A. No. Q. Was there any reason why that should not be done that year !-.| A. We found no mackerel there, and if we had, there was a cutter, an| English man-of-war, there. Q. In 1843 and 1844, were you next in the bay 1 — A. Yes. Q. Fishing for mackerel 1 — A. Yes. (j. What were you, a sharesmac ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you own part of the vessel ! — A. I owned one-fourf h i)art. Q. What was the vessel? — A. The schooner Constitution, about 7 tons. Q. How many mackerel did you take those years, 1843 and 1844?- A. We took 270 barrels, I think, the first of those years ; and from 2G0 to 270 barrels the second. Q. Where were they caught ? — A. At the Magdalen Islands. Q. You were in the gulf again fishing for mackerel in 1853, 1 belierel — A. Yes. Q. In what capacity were you in the vessel ? — A. As a sharesman. Q. What was the vessel ? — A. The Kepublic. Q. How many barrels of mackerel were taken ? — A. About 280. Q. Where were they taken? — A. At the Magdalen Islands, North Cape, and on Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. When were you next in the bay? — A. In 1855. Q. When you came in 1855 to the bay, were you skipper? — A. I was Q. What was the vessel ? — A. The Republic. Q. Of what tonnage ? — A. 102 tons and a few feet, old measarenienti Q. And were you in the same vessel in the Gulf of St. Lawreucq during the following years, from 1855 to 1860, inclusive? — A. Yes. Q. I will take these trips and see where you went and where yoq caught your mackerel. We will begin with your first trip in tbe Kepub lie, as skipper. How many trips did you make in 1855 ? — A. Iwo. Q. How many barrels did you take the first trip ? — A. About 380. (J. Where were they caught ? — A. At Bank Bradley, North Cape, au^ a few at Magdalen Islands and Burnt Island. Q. What did you do with your first trip of 380 barrels ?— A. TooH them home to Gloucester. Q. Did you make another trip here that year? — A. Yes. Q. What time did you leave Gloucester on the second trip ?— A. A| the latter end of September. Q. How many barrels did you take on the second trip? — A. Ifiuj memory serves me right, 140 or 150 barrels. Q. Where were they taken ? — A. Most of them to the northward ( Magdalen Islands. Q. Did you take any anywhere else? — A. I cannot say we did noj take a few. We hauled to, I suppose, in going and coming out of Caud Q. At what place did you take any mackerel except at .Magdalej Islands ? — A. None of any consequence elsewhere. Q. In 1856 were you skipper of the same vessel, and how many trip] did you make that year ? — A. Two. AWABO OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2136 larcsman. Q. How many mackerel did you get the Brst trip ?— A. I think aboat 1 300 barrels. Q. Where were they taken 1— A. In deep water. Q. Wheieabouts ?— A. At Bank Bradley and oflf Gasp(5. Q. How far out?— A. At Banks Orphan and Bradley; wo are not al- [fays in one position ; our position varies 20 or 30 miles. Q. Were they taken within sight of land I— A. In sight of Purse's I Hill. {}. Did you get the whole 300 barrels thereabouts ?— A. We went to I Magdalen Islands for water and tried for mackerel, but caught very I few. Most of them were caught where I have mentioned. Q. During the second trip of 1856 how many mackerel did you get?— I A. About 200 barrels. Q. W^here were they taken ?— A. At Magdalen Islands. Q. Were any of those taken inshore f— A. I don't think so. Q. In 1857 how many trips did you make ? — A. Two. Q. How many barrels did you get the first trip ?— A. About 300. Q. Where were they taken ?— A. At Banks Bradley and Orphan and I down at Magdalen Islands. Q. Was any portion of the catcli of the first trip in 1857 taken in- ■ shore? — A. I think not. Q. How many barrels did you get the second trip ?— A. I think about 1200. Q. Where were they taken ?— A. At Magdalen Islands, and in the I fall ne took about 4Q barrels in Cape North Bay. Q. Were they taken inshore at Cape North Bay ? — A. Yes. They lirere taken up in the bay, within perhaps three or four miles of the beach, with half that distance from the shore on the north side, North I Cape. Q. In 1858 what were you doing? — A. Mackereling in the bay. Q. How many trips did you make ? — A. Two. Q. How many barrels did you get ? — A. I think about 250 barrels the jirsttrip. Q. W^here were those taken ? — A. At the Magdalen Islands and north- jyrd of the Magdalens. Q. What do you mean by northward ? — A. When we lose sight of jPurse's Hill, as we call it, we call ourselves to the northwr.id of the hlsi^cdalen Islands. Q. Did you get the fish up toward Seven Islands ? — A. We got them |at Seven Islands. Q. Did you fish there at Seven Islands? — A. Yes; and we carae to |Ca|)e St. Anne on the south side. Q. When you fished at Seven Islands, how did you catch mackerel ? — |A. With boats. Q. With dories ? — A. In stern boats and little Nova Scotia boats with Iround bottoms. Q. Did you catch the fish inshore there? — A. Yes, inshore. Q. Did you fish in the middle of the river there?— A. No. Q. Why not ? — A. It is rough and mackerel don't bite. Q. Because the current is too strong ?— A. The current is strouft and Imackerel won't bite. Q. So when you say fishing was done between Seven Islands and St. inne, you don't mean that it was done in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence ?— A. No. Q. But over in the bay at St. Anne and the bay at Seven Islands ?— Yes, we anchored and went in small boats round the rocks. W':^ 2136 ▲WARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Did you fish that way at St. Anne as well as at Seven Island.s ?-. A. Yes. Q. All the fish you caught duriug that first trip in 1858 up at Seven Islands and between there and Gape St. Anne, were caught inshore ?— A. Yes. Q. Do you remember what portion of your first trip was so taken ?— A. I think about 70 barrels. Q. Where were the rest taken ? — A. At the Magdalen Islands ; we fished round and up to Purse Hill that trip. Q. Did you fish inshore during the first trip iu 1858, at any place except at St. Anne and Seven Islands ? — A. No. Q. Take the second trip of 1858, where did you fish ! — A. At the Magdalen Islands and off Margaree. I caught some few off Margaree. Q. Were those taken oft' Margaree caught inshore ? — A. I suppose we were outside of three miles. Three miles is very near at Margaree. Q. And the second trip you caught 150 barrels? — A. Yes. Q. In 1857 did you made two trips f — A. Yes. Q. How many did you get the first trip ? — A. 300 barrels. Q. Where were they taken ? — A. Mo^t of them at Magdalen Islands. Q. Any elsewhere ? — A. No. Q. On the second trip Low many did yon take ! — A. I think about IJO barrels. Q. Where were they taken? — A. At Magdalen Islands, most of them. Q. Did you take any fish, during that aniumu trip, at what is called Fisherman's Bank ? — A. Yes. Q. Where is that ? — A. It is about iu a line from Port Hood to George town, off Cape St. George to the eastward. Q. It is on Cape Breton shore ? — A. Yes. Q. Howfar from any land is Fisherman's Bank? — A. I think about lu miles. , Q. In 1860 did you make a trip ? — A. One trip. Q. Where did you go ? — A. To the Magdalen Islands. Q. How many barrels did you take ? — A. About 260. Q. You were fishing iu the bay every year from 1855 to 1860 inclusive .' —A. Yes. Q. And in those six years you made eleven trips, two trips a year every year, but the last ? — A. Yes. Q. You appear to have caught 2,635 barrels, or 240 barrels a trip. How many barrels was the vessel fitted for ? — A. Four hundred aud eighty barrels. Q. How many men did you take ? — A. Sixteen. Q. When you were fishing for mackerel, did you ever take any off Prince Edward Island ? — A. No. Q. Did you ever go into any of the harbors of Prince Edward Island! — A, Not while fishing. I have been there coasting. I have been at Charlottetown coasting. Q. All your fishing in the gulf was away from Prince Edward Islandl — A. Yes ; I never caught fish within 25 or 40 miles of it. Q. How late in the season have you been at the Magdalen Islands 7- A. To the last of October. Q. Do you regard the Magdalen Islands as a safe place to fish?— A. Perfectly safe. Q. Is the water there still or blowy ? — A. I don't know that we hare j not more blowy weather there than in other parts of the bay at some seasons. As a general thing it is more blowy. AWiRD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2137 Q. What makes it safer to lish there ?— A. Because when it is coming on windy you can hoist your jib and run round to the lee. Q. Was there any harbor to which you used to resort for shelter when fisbing for mackerel ; if so, what was it ?— A. Port Hood late in the sea- son ; but, as a general thing, I have gone under the lee of Magaree Island. Q. By your statement, the great body of your mackerel have been caught much more than three miles from any shore f — A. Yes. Q. Is that true even of your fishing at Magdalen Islands t— A. Yes; \re anchored sometimes under Bryon Island. Q. Since 1860 you have not been fishing ? — A. No. Q. In early life what trade did you learn ? — A. Sail-making. Q. Did you go to making sails after you quit fishing in 1800 ?— A. Yes. Q. Perhaps you can tell the Commission what a suit of sails for a Gloucester mackerel schooner costs — what was the cost before the war! A. About $450. Q. What does a suit cost now? — A. It costs perhaps more; about $500. Q. How often does a vessel require a new suit of sails, take from the time the vessel is built f — A. A vessel comes out this season and the fall following she must have another set of sails. Q. When she gets the second suit of sails does she continue to use the first suit also ? — A. Y^es, in the summer season. Q. Then she has a summer set and winter set ? — A. Yes. Q. Then every two years afterwards she will want a new set ? — A. Yes. Q. How long did you continue in the business of making sails after you left fishing ?— A. Till 1808. Q, What have you been doing since?— A. I was in the fish business up to within two years ago. Q. Have you been interested in fishing- vessels since 186S ? — A. Yes. Q. Up to what time? — A. Up to the spring. of 1876. Q. In how many vessels have you been interested ? — A. Five. Q. And how many owners have there been ? — A. Three part of the time, and during the last three years two. Q. You sold out the vessels * — A. Yes. Q. When ?— A. In the spring of 1870. Q. Between 1808 and 1870, what were those vessels doing?— A. Fish- ing. Q. Where ? — A. At George's, Western Banks, and Gruud Banks. Q. For cod ? — A. Yes, and for fresh halibut. Q. Were any of those vessels in those years going for mackerel ?— A. We made three trips in the bay or for mackerel. One vessel went one year and two vessels went another year. Q. Did you make or lose money on those three trips ? — A. I think we lost money. Q. How much ? — A. I could not tell you. Q. Did those vessels lose ? — A. Y'es. Q. Did the captain and crew make anything?— A. No. Q. Then the voyage was so poor that not only the vessel lost, but the captain and crew made nothing ?— A. They got very few mackerel. Q. Did the captain and crew lose ?— A. They got nothing or very little for their time. Q. Do you regard the privilege of fishing within throe miles of the shore in British waters for mackerel as of any value? — A. No. 2138 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Where have yoar cod-fishing vessels obtained their bait; bavc they bought any ? — A. Tes. Q. At what places T — A. At Eastport, Canipobello Island, Shelbiinio, Prospect, and all down the coast, and at Newfoundland. Q. What do yoa say as to the profitableness of cod-fishing vessels {;o- ing in from the fishing-grounds to buy baitf — A. I have no doubt at all it is an injury to us. Q. Explain why. — A. The vessels lose one-half their time. Q. Do you mean half their timef — A. More than half their time. It takes a vessel to go to the Grand Banks with a fishing-crew and get 150,000 fish, three or four months. More than one-half of that time tliey are going aAvay seeking bait. Q. Is that necessary, or do they do it because they prefer it to fish- ing f — A. There may be some inducement in the good spirit, good drink, in this country. Q. Do yoa think they come in unnecessarily ? — A. I do. Q. And yon prefer your vessels not to go in and buy bait? — A. Vos; and to take salt bait from home. Q. Did your cod-fishing vessels fish with trawls or hand-lines?— A. With trawls. Q. I think you had a couple of vessels seized f — A. Yes. Q* What was the first one? — A. The schooner Helen Maria, in 1852. Q. Where was she taken ? — A. In Publico Harbor. Q. What was the name of the captain ?— A. Captain Finney, belong- ing to Argyle, Nova Scotia. Q. What did you understand she was seized for ? — A. She was taken by Captain Cowie. She was detained about eight weeks, when word was sent to us to come and take our vessel. Q. Was there any trial ? — A. No. Q. Was that a cod-fishing vessel ? — A. Yes. Q. Had you any other vessel seized ? — A. The White Fawn. Q. Where was she seized ? — A. At Can pobello Island. Q. What year was that ?— A. The fall A 1870. Q. She was restored after trial ? — A. She had no trial. Q. The White Fawn ? — A. She had no trial. Q. Do you remember who the judge was ?— A. 1 forget the judge's name. Q. Who was the counsel conducting the prosecution ? — A. Mr. Tuck. Q. You say there was no trial : did you not employ a lawyer i— A. No. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. When did you last fish yourself ?— A. In the fall of 1800. Q. Where did you fish that year ? — A. On Banks Bradley and Or- phan and north of Magdalen Islands. Q. How many barrels did you catch ? — A. About 380. Q. In 1859, how many barrels did you catch during the season ? — A. About 450. Q. Where did you catch them ? — A. At Magdalen Islands. Q. Altogether ? — A. At Magdalen Islands and on the west shore, at Gasp6. Q. On the first trip, where did you go when you first entered the bay ? — A. I went to Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. How long did you fish there? — A. I do not remember the number of days. Q. What proportion of time did you spend on Bank Bradley— cue- AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2139 biilf f — A. We would fish there till oar water ran out, perhaps ten days or two weeks, and then we would go to the shore. Q. Where to ?— A. To Magdalen Islands. I went twice, I think, to the shore. Q. What proportion of your trip did you catch on Bank Bradley ?— A. I could not tell you. Q. Can you give any idea I— A. No. Q. You fished at Gaspij in 1850?— A. Yes. Q. Where did you fish T— A. I fished so that I could see Purse's Hill. Q. How long did you fish there ?— A. Till I got my trip. Q. Have you ever been farther north than that ?— A. Yes. Q. Have you fished on the other side of the river Saint Lawrence ?— A. I did that same year. Q. Where did you fish ?— A. At Seven Islands. Q. You fished there once f — A. Yes, along the coast. Q. On the south side of the river at where f— A. Cape Saint Anne. Q. How many different seasons did you fish there 1 — A. Only one. Q. Where did you catch the fish at Cape Saint Anne ; how far from the shore ? — A. About one mile. Q. How many did you catch there 1 — A. About 70 barrels up the gulf. Q. How long were you in getting those 70 barrels t— A. We might have been there three weeks. Q. What did you catch on the north side of the river Saint Lawrence ? —A. We caught 70 barrels up the gulf. Q. On both sides ? — A. Yes. Q. You only were one season there ? — A. Yes. Q. In 1857 where did you catch your fish ? — A. To the northward of the Magdalen Islands and on Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. Did you fish every year at Magdalen Islands and Banks Bradley and Orphan ? — A. Yes. Q. And fished at no other places ? — A. No. Q. At any time? — A. In the fall I did. I caught a few mackerel at Margaree Island one fall. Q. Generally speaking, you caught your fish at three places, Magdalen Islands and Banks Bradley and Orphan ? — A. Yes. Q. There were some exceptions ? — A. Yes. Q. Tell rae what the exceptions were 1 — A. I canght a few mackerel at Cape North Bay in 1857. Q. North of Cape Breton Island?— A. Yes. Cape North Bay is marked on the chart as Aspee Bay. Q. How often did you fish there?— A. We fished there and caught 40 barrels. We were there some three or four times. Q. During how m^ny years ? — A. One year. Q. With the exception of Banks Bradley and Orphan and Magdalen Islands, you fished, as you have shown us, on both sides of the St. Law- rence one year and one year north of Cape Breton Island ? — A. Yes. Q. Tell me any other place.— A. We took a few mackerel at Marga- ree one fall. Q. Did you try any other year ? — A. Yes ; as we have gone around we have heaved to. Q. Except heaving to, you never tried to fish there?— A. I have fished off there seven or efght or ten or twelve miles out. There is a bank out there where we frequently go. Q. Is it Fisherman's Bank? — A. No. Margaree is marked as Sea Cove Island. ^^f'M 2140 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISblON. Q. Is tbe bank to which you refer on tho west coast of Cape Breton i — A. Yes. Q. Yoa did not confine yourself to the island, but fished ofi' the coast T — A. We tried all along there. Q. Along the west coast of Cape Breton ?— A. Yes. Q. How often did you try f — A. We tried when we went there ; I can- not tell how often. When night overtook us we would heave to. Q. Did you ever fish withUi three miles of the shore there T— A. I would not swear that I have not, and I would not swear that I have, because distance is so deceiving. I would presume I have not. Q. I mean three miles of the land, either island or mainland ? — A. I should think I have, and I would not swear that I have, within three miles of the island. Q. Are you aware that the best fishing is within three miles of the land 1 — A. No ; I am not. Q. At that place T — A. No. Q. Have you tried in there? — A. Yes. Q. Have you given it a fair and thorough trial ? — A. I never fre- quented there so much as some other vessels. Q. Have you given it a fair and thorough trial ? — A. I cannot say that I have. Q. You never fished at Prince Edward Island? — A. Never. Q. Previous to 1854, how many years did you fish ? — A. Three years. Q. You were not permitted to fish within three miles of the shore then ? — A. In 1854 we were not. Q. In 1855 were you ? — A. I was not there in 1855. Q. How many years were you there when you were proUibited from fishing within three miles of land ? — A. While I was skipper of a vessel we could fish anywhere we saw fit. Q. You don't know what lee-bowing boats mepns? You perhaps never heard the word lee-bowing before ? — A. Never in my life. Bouts generally fish at anchor. To lee-bow a boat it must be under way. Q. You don't know anything of the extent of the boat-fishing in any of the places you have been ? — A. It was not very extensive in those days. Q. Do you know the statistics in regard to the number of boats en- gaged in the mackerel fishery ? — A. No, I do not. Q. Have you a son who has been fishing ? — A. Yes. Q. How many years has he been fishing ? — A. 1 really could not tell you. He went fishing some few years previous to the war, then he went to the war, then he came home and went fishing a year, and he has been to China and California. Q. What is his name ? — A. George F. Friend. • Q. He is not here?— A. No. Q. Had you any Nova Scotia fishermen with you when fishing ?— A. Yes. Q. Will you give the names of any ? — A. I had a fellow of the name of Powers. Q. Do you know where he belonged ? — A. Somewhere on this shore ; I cannot tell the place. I think it was Prospect. Q. Do you know of any other? — A. A fellow of the name of Mitchell. Q. Where did he belong ? — A. Port Hood. Q. What years was he with you ? — A. About three years. I think he was with us the second, third, and fourth year. Q. What year was Powers fishing with you ? — A. 1 could not tell you. AWARD OF THE FIsnKRY COMMISSION. 2141 Q. Can you tell me where you were flsbing when Towers was with yon t — A. No ; I could not tell yon the year. Q. You cannot tell in what part of the bay you caught your fish when Powers was with you? — A. No. Q. Cannot you give the Commission any sort of idea ?— A. No. Q. Not where you caught most of them f — A. No. Q. Did you catch the largest part at Margaree when Powers was with youf — A. I could not answer the question. Q. I ask you to remember if possible?— A. It is impossible. Q. Is it impossible for you to say whether, when Powers of Prospect was fishing in your vessel, you did not catch most of the fish at Mar- garee ? — A. I could not say. Q. Within three miles of tlie shore ! — A. I could not say. Q. Did you carry cod-fishing gear with you when you went mackerel- fishing? — A. No. Q. Notatall? you never caught any codfish on those trips?— A. Just to eat; nothing else. Q. Uave you ever been in B.iy Clialeurs ?— A. No. By Mr. Foster : Q. What do you understand by the phrase " lee-bowing"? — A. When one vessel gets up a school of mackerel and a neighbor comes along and sees the vessel catching them, and being too lazy and not wanting to waste his bait, he goes round very close to the vessel and heaves out a little bait, and drifts off and gets the mackerel to follow his vessel. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. I understood that you did not know what lee-bowing boats was, and that you had not heard the phrase f — A. I said I had not. Q. You never heard of lee-bowing boats? — A. If yon will give me an idea of what you call a boat, I will be better able to answer you. Q. Have you ever heard of lee-bowing boats ? — A. No. Q. You understand the question ? — A. I understand it i)erfectly. I never heard of it. Q. You know what a boat means ? — A. They sometimes call our fish- ing-smacks of 70 or 80 tons boats. If you mean fishing- vessels of 75 tons, I tell you, yes. Q. Of boats smaller than that, you never heard it ?— A. What we would term boats, no. By Mr. Foster : Q. Explain what you mean by boats. — A. Small boats, such as they have on Nova Scotia shore and some parts of Idaine, of five, six, or seven tons. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. These are what you call boats ? — A. Yes. Q. You never heard of vessels lee bowing them ? — A. No. By Mr. Foster : Q. Explain why.— A. Because they fish to an anchor. By Sir Alexander Gait: Q. Could you not do the same with a boat fishing to an anchor as with a boat drifting ? If a boat is at anchor catching mackerel, cannot a vessel run in, throw out bait and drift off and take the fish with it ?— A. No ; vesse's of 70, 80, or 100 tons cannot run in alongside of boats fishing to an anchor. There are the wind and tide to contend with. The ill 2142 AWARD OF 1HE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1 I I I I r wind migbt be blowing from the east and the tide setting in a westerly direction. By Mr. Weatberbe : Q. Then, if I understand you, you never heard of such a thing as lee- bowing boats — these small boats? — A. Never in my life. Q. You have described what lee-bowing is ; what is it f — A. If you were in a vessel laying to, and I came along, and when I got within half or three-quarters of a mile, according to the headway, hauled the Jib and came along by you, threw out a little bait as I came alongside yuur vessel, and then went ahead of your vessel and took the fish away. Q. It is quite possible, quite probable, that it could be done?— A. Some might do it, but I would not. Q. You would not think it right to do it ?— A. I would not dare to do it, even if I thought it right. Q. Is it not easily done ? — A. No ; I never tried it. Q. Y'^ou would not, as a sailor, undertake to say that it could not be done ? — A. I don't think it is impossible. Q. Is it not quite easily done ? — A. I don't know that. Q. I want your opinion ? — A. I never knew of it being done. Q. You cannot undertake to say it is not easily done ? — A. I tell you I don't know. I would not dare to do it. Q. I want you to say whether it can be done or not ? — A. I could not answer the d vastly. Q. How many mackerel-fishing vessels from Gloucester do you sup- pose are in the gulf this year? — A. 1 should say that there are 50. Q. And within your experience what has been the number which has come up to the gulf? — A. I have been there when from our port there AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2151 were 200 vessels aud upwards. I presume that this was iu 18G4 or 1865 or 1860. Q. The decrease has been steady ?— A. The number has been dimin- isbinjr. Th jre were 30-odd sail in the gulf last year from our port. 1 do not know the exact number now in the bay, but it is a very small tleet. Q. Were you Bank fishing from 1868 to 1873 ?— A. Yes. Q. How did you supply j^ourself with bait when you were cod-fishing ou the Banks I— A. Well, one year— the first year that I went banking— I took clams from Gloucester. This was in the spring of 1865. I took my own bait from Gloucester, caught my trip of fish, aud went home. I never saw land, in my remembrance, from the time I left until I re- turned. Q. How long were you out on that trip!- A. I left home on the 7th of March and made two trips between that date and the 27th of June. I do not remember the length of time I was on my first trip. Q. And the bait which you took out lasted you oa each occasion I— A. The first did, but during my second trip I ciught my own bait. Q. Wliat did you catch ?— A. Herring. Q. During your fishing there, were you in the habit of goUvj; at all to Xewfoundland to buy bait ? — A. I have been there of late years. Q. Have you made a practice of it late years ?— A. I went in for bait the second year I went there. Q. What is your opinion as to the respective value of the two sys- tems ? Would the fisherman do better if they fished with the salt bait which they may carry to the Banks and trusted to supplying themselves with bait there or in St. Peter'Sj or by running into Newfoundland for bait ? — A. I think that the former is the best, after they get into the liabit of using salt bait. I do not know, however, that they would find it so the first year; but I think that this would be the case after they got into the habit of using salt bait. Q. Do you consider the vicinity of the Magdalen Islands a dangerous fishing place ? — A. No ; I do not. Q. As far as the fishing-ground and the situation of vessels during stress of weather are concerned, would you not consider yourself as safe or safer there than anywhere else in the gulf? — A. I would be fully as safe there. Q. Have you had any large experience in fishing in the Bight of Prince Edward Island l — A. Well, I have had very little there. Q. There is nothing to make the harbors of Prince Edward Island ports of refuge in bad weather preferable to the lee shore of the Magda- len Islands if — A. No ; for my part I would prefer the Magdalen Islands for such a purpose. One reason for this is that the water about the Prince Edward Island harbors is shoal, and in bad weather it is rough there, though when the water is smooth they are very easy of access. When the water is rough it is dangerous to go into the Prince Edward Island harbors. By Mr. Da vies : Q# You did not fish very much about Prince Edward Island ? — A. Not a great deal. Q. How often were you fishing up and down the coast of the island ? — A. I was there in 1808, iu the Julia Grace. Q. Is that the only time you fished around the island ? — A. I think I was there other years. Q. Were you there every year more or less ? — A. I presume that I havejjeen there every year. mt^-' , r Life I i'. i/' m^ 2152 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Fisbiug? — A. Yes; but I cannot commit my memor^^ to ever}' time and p]ace. Q. Did yon go there every year when you came to the bay to fish ?— A. I think that I did. Q. You generally, as others do, have run down the north side of tbc island ? — A. Well, if I go there, I do. I have run 7 times out of 10 from Ganso to Magdalen Islands. Q. When you and others have come to the bay, have you and tbey not made a practice of fishing off the northi coast of Prince Edwnril Island ? — A. I have tried there, I think, every year that I was in tlu bay, but I cannot tell what my neighbors have done. Q. Have you not seen other vessels fishing there ? — A. Yes. I pre sume that they were fishing or trying to fish. Q. Have you any doubt of it at all 7 — A. No ; not in the least. Q. Off what p^rts of the island did you use to fish ; for instance, did you fish from East Point down to Two Chapels? — A. Yes; I tried there last year ; but I could not command my memory to any other year in particular in this respect, but still I have no doubt that I have done so. Q. It is a well-known fishing-ground to many Gloucester fisherineu, is it not ? — A. I presume that it is. Q. Is that not the fact ? — A. I have stated that I have fished there, and I have seen my neighbors there. Q. Have you fished or seen vessels fishing down off Eustico and Malpeque Harbors ? — A. Malpeque — yes. I have fished there and tried there ; and I was in Malpeque Harbor last year and one year before. Q. Going up farther west, off Cascumpeque, Kildare, and North Cape, have you fished there? — A. I do not remember fishing on this side of North Cape, farther than Tignish Chapel. Q. That is also a fishing ground pretty well known among Gloucester fishermen, and one of the points which you make? — A. I presume so. Q. Did you fish on the other side of North Cape, off Mimiuegash ?— A. 1 do not know of such a place. Q. Itlies between North and West Capes? — A. I do not remember fish- ing there. Q. When would you go to Prince Edward Island, or would yon select any special part of the season to do so ? — A. I was there last year dur- ing this month. Q. How was it during previous years, 18G4, '05, '07, or '08? — A. I cannot commit ray memory to the time of the year when I was there; one trip excepted. Q. Would you go there when you went up to the bay in the spring, or did you do so later, in September or October ? — A. Well, I never have been there earlier than in July as I know of. Q. Do you generally strike the Magdalen Islands during the first trip for mackerel ? — A. Yes. I have gone there 7 times out of 10. Q. And when would you leave these islands ? — A. I fished there until I got my trip, if I found the mackerel there. Q. I do not notice your having got any oue trip at the Magdalen Islands alone. — A. O, I think I have stated that I did get a full trip there. Q. Have you ever fished on the west shore of New Brunswick, from Miscou down to Richibucto? — A. No; not that I remember of. Q. You may have done so and have forgotten it ? — A. I think not. I think if I had fished there I would remember it. Q. Did you ever fish in the Bay of Chaleurs ? — A. I have tried there. Q. Have you seen other vessels there ? — A. I presume that I have. AWARD OF THE FISHERY TOMMISSION. 2153 Q. You know whether you did or not!— A. I went in to procure water. Q. Have you seen other vessels there !— A. Yes. Q. Fishing? — A. I would not swear to that. Q. What is your belief ?— A. I believe that part, if not all of them, which I saw were coasting-vessels. I have now reference to one time in particular. Q. Do I understand you to say you have no recollection of ever hav- ing seen American vessels fishing in the Bay of Chaleurs t—A. To my certain knowledge, no. Q. What do you mean by "certain knowledge "?— A. To my knowl- edge. The vessels I saw there I suppose were, as to the most of them, coasters. I saw very few, and them only once that I remember of. Q. Did you try to flsh there then ?— A. Yes. Q. On which shore did you do so ?— A. I filled vith water on the Canadian side and I presume that I tried there. Q. At what harbor 1 — A. Cascapediac. Q. When was this ?— A. I think that it was in 1803. Q. You were then in the Julia Grace ? — A. Yes. Q. You were never in the Bay of Chaleurs previously ?— A. Not to my recollection. Q. Have you ever fished much up around the Gaspu shore ?— A. No. Q. Perhaps you were never to the north of that or at Seven Islands ? -A. Q. Q. -A. Q. No. You have never been there at all ?— A. No. Do you know whether the American fishing fleet go there or not ? I do not know. You have never heard of it ? — A. I heard Mr. Friend state outside to (lay that he was there. Q. Before your conversation with Mr. Friend about it today have you heard many Americans say that they had fished about Seven Isl- ands, and speak of it as one of the points where they used to fish ? — A. No. Q. Nor Gasp6 ? — A. I could not say as to that. {}. Have you heard them speak of fishing around the Gaspe shore ? — A. That is near Bonaventure, is it not f Q. Yes. — A. Well, I presume that I have. Q. Do you not know whether you have or not ? — A. I should not want to swear to it. Q. Have you a doubt in your own mind about this part being spoken of as one of the points where they caught mackerel? — A. We are talk- ing about ^shing all the time when on our trips, and I would not swear that I have heard of it during my voyages. Q. Or that you have not? — A. No; we are talking about the fishing grounds all the time while fishing, and a man may have mentioned that last year, and still I would not remember it. Q. Have you ever heard them talk about Prince Edward Island as one of their fishing grounds ? — A. Yes. Q. Often?— A. Yes. Q. Many of them ? — A. Plenty of them. Q. A great many of them 1 — A. Yes. Q. You know a great many people, or some at any rate, from Prince Edward Island who have sailed from Gloucester in fishing vessels ? — A. 1 know some — yes. Q. And you have heard the island constantly and often tallied of? — A. Yes. 4ii If! t^v^^.f - .^1 .m 'h\ ' '>i',r^if 2154 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Ilave you heard the Gape Breton shore, between Cbeticaini* and Margaree and around Margareo Island, spoken of as oue of thelishinrr grounds of American fishermen ? — A. Yes. Q. Often?— A. Yes. Q. And as one of the best fishing grounds? — A. I never heard it spoken of la that way. Q. Have you ever heard it mentioned as a place where the best Qsb are taken in the fall ? — A. No. Q. In 1864 you were in the Joseph Storey, and you stated at first that you got your first trip at the Magdalen Islands, and afterward you cor- re(ited yourself and said that was wrong ; what really is the fact ?— A. The fact is that I caught the whole trip at the Magdalen Islands, aud I do not think that I altered that statement. Q. I understood you to alter it. — A. If I did, I was wrong. I caught them all at the Magdalen Islands. Q. How far out around the Magdalen Islands did you fish? — A. When I speak of fishing round them, I mean inshore, and oft' shore I could not determine the distance round, but the distances oft' i^hore would vary from 2 to 30 miles. Q. Is the bulk of the fish caught near the shores of these islands ?— A. The bulk of mine was not so taken. Q. Is the bulk of the fish taken near their shores by other people ?— A. I do not know. Q. You have no knowledge of what others have caught there ?— A. Xo more than seeing their vessels fishing where I was. Q. You really cannot tell whether the bulk of the fish is caught in shore there or not ? — A. Other vessels might have done so, but I did* not. Q. What proportion of yours was caught there within the three mile limit? — A. A small proportion; possibly from 15 to 25 barrels in the trip I made there. Q. That number out of 270 or 280?— A. Yes. Q. And the rest were caught from 15 to 20 miles from the islaiuls .'— A. From 2 to 30 miles oft:". Q. During that trip ? — A. And in fact during every trip I was there, Q. Did you fish on Bank Bradley during your first trip? — A. No. 1 fished then entirely at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Aud where did you fish on your second trip? — A. At the Magda len islands. Q. That year?— A. Yes. Q. You caught it altogether there ? — A. Yes. Q. And on your third trip you fished about East Point ajid Marga roe, and caught three-quarters of your fish within tlie three-mile limit. How much did you catch on your third trip that year? — A. 240 bar- rels, and I caught them at Margaree Island. Q. How far from the island ? — A. It is ditticult to determine that. I presume that I caught three-quarters of that trip within the limits. Q. Would you like to swear that you caught one-quarter of it outside the three-mile limit? — A. I should. Q. Why ? — A. Because I fished well oft' shore. Q. And you are perfectly clear in your recollection as ta three-quar ters of the trip being taken inside and one-quarter of it outside of the limits ? — A. Yes ; to the best of my judgment. Q. Is that the only time when you fished around Margaree ? — A. Yes; that year. Q. Did you fish there at any other time ? — A. I believe not. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2155 ) islands !— q. Then, so far as you personally are concerned, the fish caught about Murpareo are taken in the proportion of three-quarters inside and one- quarter outside of the 3 mile limit; and that, and tliat alone, has been voiir experience ? — A. That is my experience. " Q. In 1865, 5'ou went in the same vessel. Where did you then get your first trip ?— A. At tlie Magdalen Islands. Q. With the same result as during previous years ?— A. I presume so. Q. You did not fish on Bank Bradley at all '?— A. Not on my first trip the second year. Q. And during your second trip that year you caught some off" North CaiH! and some on Bank Bradley. How far off' North Cape was it ?— A. I think I caught my second trip, in 1805, at the Magdalen Islands, and I tliink 1 stated so ; but if I did not do so there, I caught them off' North Cape. Q. You are not sure where you took them : but if you fished nt North Tape, how far otF from it were you ?— A. 1 think I stated that I fiihed at the Magdalen Islands on that trip, and I think 1 said so; but that has I nothing to do with it. ^ly memory is bad. Q. You do not recollect where you caught that second trip ? — A. I think now that I caught one trip In that vessel about North Cape; but I cannot exactly sjiy whether it was that trip or a trip in the ensuing year. Q. If j'ou caught them at North Cape, can you tell what you took in- side and what outside of 3 or 4 miles from the shore ? — A. In that case I caught a small proportion of the trip inside the limits. Q. When you fished off' Prince Edward Island, was it your practice to I run in and drift off? — A. If the wind was oft" shore, I would do so; but I if the wind was inshore, I would not. Q. You do not fish inshore at Prince Edward Island with an inshore hvind? — A. No. Q. Is it not a fact that 5 days out of 6 during the fishing season, the [wind there blows offshore ? — A. That was not the case when I was there. The little I have been there was usually in September. Then the weather sets in blowy and it gets blustery. You are as likely to get the wind from the northwest as from the southwest at this time in my experience. Where I was one could fish, I think, as well with a northwest wind as if 1 it was from the southwest. Q. You do not mean to say that you fished within the 3 miles of the I shore with a northwest wind ? — A. I could do so down at Georgetown. (i. And I dare say you have done so ? — A. I do not remember partic- |ularly of having done so. Q. Have you ever fished off' Georgetown? — A. Not that I remember I of. I have not fished nearer it than on Fisherman's Bank. Q. That is about 7 miles from East Point ? — A. I think it is more than [that, but I do not remember the exact distance. Q. When you spoke of having taken your third trip that year between [the Magdalen Islands and Cape Breton, did you mean that you caught them off North Cape, C. B., or between the Magdalen Islands and 3Iar- garee, or partly in one place and partly in another? — A. I mean be- |twceu Entry Island and Cheticamp, or between that and Cape North. (J. How far offshore are the fish generally taken about Cheticamp ?— A. Farther off" than about Margaree. Q. How far off! — A. When I speak of fishing inshore, I mean fishing I from 3 to 5 and 8 miles from the shore. Q. IIow far off" shore have you been accustomed to fish about Cheti- icamp ?— A. From 2 to 8 and 9 miles. '■"■•mi /'/J 'flIJ im''''''"M 2156 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Have yoa caaght many fish within the3-mile limit there f— A. No. Q. You have never Qshed there often f — A. I fiahed there part of oiio trip. Q. And that is all f— A. Yes. Q. The next year, 18G9, you fished in the same vesnol, taking tin" first trip off the Magdalen Islands ; the second off North Cape, and the tliird around the Magdalen Islands, East Point, and Gape Oeorge ; what |)ro- portion of the third trip was taken off East Point and Gape Geor};(>, ami what proportion within the limit ? — A. From 25 to 30 barrels. Q. You said you did that on the second trip that year f — A. I pr<>siiiQe that I did. Q. Yon said that the third trip was a mixed trip, and that yon cau^rht some of the fish at the Magdalen Islands, but the most of them about East Point and Cape George f — A. I do not remember saying that I took the most of them there. I stated that it was what I call a mixed trip. Some were caught at the Magdalen Islands ; some between these islands and Cheticamp, some between that and Etist Point, and some between that and Fisherman's Bank. Q. You kept no account of what were taken within tlie limits, and m what were not so caught in 18GG ? — A. No. Q. Had you a license in 1866 ? — A. Yes. Q. So you had a right to go inshore, and you did not keep any special account regarding your catch ? — A. Yes; as far as the license i.s ecu. cerned. Q. You stated the gulf inshore fisheries were of no use ? — A. I di not say they were of no use ; at least I do not remember of bavin done so. Q. Why then did you take out a license and pay for it ! — A. One rea son why I did so was my owners advised me to do it ; and another rea son was, if I was in and made a harbor and wanted to try inshore, wished to do so without running the risk of being taken. Q. You could make a harbor witliout a license 1 — A. Certainly. I sail that if I was inshore in a harbor, I might try for fish within the limit Q. Then the inshore fisheries are of some VAlue ? — A. If you can catc any fish inshore — yea. Q. Have you seen many boats fishing along the coast of Prince Eilwan Island 1 — A. I have ; some. Q. Only a few, I suppose ? — A. I have seen as many as 30 at a time. think, while passing along the shore. Q. Do you know of any place in the world where there is a betti boat-fishery than there is off Prince Edward Island ? — A. I could a say ; I was never boat-fishing. Q. Have you seen as many as 30 boats there in one place ? — A. I them along the island. I do not think there is a place about the islam with 30 boats, where I could see them fishing from my vessel's deck Q. How far off could you see them ? — A. Four miles, I presume. Q. Would it surprise you to learn that in some of the harbors of tl island there are as many as loO and 180 boats ? — A. No ; I do not dool your word. Q. When you saw those boats fishing how far off from the shore wi they ? — A. From 2 to 7 miles off the island. Q. What size was a boat which fished 7 miles off shore ? — A. I same that it was an open boat. I know in fact that most of them vi open boats, but I could not give their dimensions. I would not wish try to do so. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2157 I— A. No. lart of oue ig tlu"! first 1 the tliinl I what uro. feor}j;«, ami | k. , I pn'siime I you cauglit I bbem about) r that I took mixed trip. bese islamh ne between luits, ami nil [1 any special] sense is cou-f J?— \. I er of baviiig —A.. One real . anotber real try inshore, I iainly. I saiil lin the bmitsj you can catcli »rince Ed wad 30 at a time. re is a bett( !^. 1 couUl n( ce ?• — A.. 1 8ai )0ut the islan^ Bssel's deck. presume, harbors of til I do not (loni the shore m ore?— A. Ipi ,t of them wi )uld not Q. What year was thisi — A. I cannot remember. I have not con- fined myself to any year iu this respect. Q. How far were you from these boats T — A. I presume that they irere on both sides of me when I was running up the island. I do not know why I should be outside of all these boats which fish there. I presume that some were outside and some were inside of my vessel. I I will not swear to being on any one side of all these boats. If I was lanning from East Point up to Malpeque and ran through a fleet of boats I would as likely be in the middle of them as outside of them, be- cause I would be running up there in good and not in bad weather. Q, Do you not make a practice of fishing wliere you see the boats ijhing off .Prince Edward Island? — A. No; I have tried there and caught little or nothing. I had' men with me who called the fish there boat mackerel. The boats would lay to an anchor and catch mackerel ffheu I could not do anything with the vessel. Q. What year was that? — A. I do not remember. Q. At what part of the island was it ? — A. I do not remember. I I presume that it was about Bustico and about that way. Q. You say you would prefer a duty of |2 a barrel to the liberty of I fishing within the limits of the bay? — A. I do. Q. Why f — A. Because I think the mackerel which I take to market |fouId then bring more. Q. Would the price be then higher by $2 ? — A. I could not say. Q. What is your belief? — A. I believe that would be the case. Q. Consumers might appreciate the matter differently ? — A. I speak las a fisherman. Q. You spoke of 200 vessels and upwards being in the bay some years lago from Gloucester ; were there as many as 300 ? — A. I cannot go into Itlie details. Q. Was the number 300 ?— A. I think not. Q. Did you ever examine the lists to see how many there were in the Ibayt— A. No. Q. You are only speaking generally ? — A. I speak from general infor- Ination. Q. Do you know as a fact how many vessels from Gloucester are this year in the bay 1 — A. I do not. Q. Do you know whether ,the catch this year has been very good or not ?— A. I presume from the general information I have received that ftlias been very slim. Q. You have not taken means to post yourself on this subject ? — A. lo. Q. Do you know how many vessels have returned from the bay to jiloucester with catches this year ? — A. I do not. Q. In your fishing you generally kept clear of the Bay of Chaleurs \m\ you never saw large fleets in there at all ? — A. No. Q. Have you ever seen off* the Prince Edward Island coast — several wit- kesaeshave'mentioned the fact — as many as 300 American vessels in one leet at one'time? — A. I think not. I do not think that I ever saw 200 lessels in one fleet in the bay in my life. ]Q. You did not go perhaps with the fleet? — A. I have been in the leets. 1 Q. When ? — A. Late in the fall ; then the vessels generally fish to- ether. I Q. That would be down near the Cape B eton shore ?— A. It was on he lisliing grounds where I fished. Q. Did you not fish about the Cape Breton shore mostly in the fall, ^4m if' .:;j:.^rr- 5. t?*-- Ml 2158 AWARD 0^ THE FISHERY COMMIfSION. whcu the mackerel were returning 1 — A. I only fished there tlio ycur when I caught a trip there, in 18Ui ; that was my hist trip that yoar. By Mr. Whiteway : Q. On what bank were you fishing in 1805 f— A. I do not know that I was fishing on any bank save Bank Bradley, and I presume 1 was there that year. Q. Did I not understand you to say that between the 7th of Marcit and the 27th of .rune, 186.J, you made two trips f — A. I did ho ; yoii have reference to cod-fishing. I caught my ilrst trip on the VVesUirn Bank. Q. And the second ? — A. I then fished oiV to the southward of Cape Sable. Q. And then you closed your cod-fishery for that year ? — A. Yes ; I afterwards, in the first part of July, went into the gulf. I wasiMifragcd . in fishing on the Banks from IHOO to 1872, inclusive, four years ; tliuugh I may not have been fishing for one year during this time. Q. In what vessels were you ? — A. In the J. F. Iluntross, E. L. Cook, and Arequippa. Q. JIad you an interest in those vessels? — A. No. Q. But you were captain f — A. Yes, and that is all. Q. During all those years did you go to the Newfoundland coast for bait ?— A. 1 did go in 1870. Q. And not during the other years ?— A. I think not. Q. To what port did you go f — A. I went to St. Pierre, and from tiience to difi'erent places, for which there are no names I guess in Fortune Ba). I was at St. Jacques, Fortune Bay. Q. When were you at St. Jacques ? — A. In June, I think. Q. What bait did you get there t — A. Ilerring. Q. And that was in the spring? — A. I presume that it was in June. I know, in fact, that this was the case. Q. Did you go immediately from Gloucester for bait? — A. No; I took some bait I'rom Gloucester. During part of 1870 I was fresh-halitmtiiig. £ took enough herring to bait up my trawls once, and then I used small fish for bait. Q. Yon left Gloucester with salt bait? — A. Noj I took enough fresh herring to bait my trawls once ; this was in 1870. If I remember right] I went to the Grand Bank for halibut. I did not get a trip until afterj I bad gone in for fresh bait. Q. You went into St. Peter's? — A. Yes. Q. And not being able to procure bait there you went to St. Jaccjuesi — A. Yes. Q. Where you got fresh herring and preserved them in ice? — A. YesJ Q. Then you went out, finished your trip, and returned to Glouce8terf| — A. Yes. Q. What was the result of that voyage ? — A. I cannot remember. Q. When did you return ? — A. I do not remember. I made six ot, seven trips that year. Q. To the Banks ? — A. I left Gloucester that year, if I remembeij aright, the 1st of January, and from that time until I hauled up I iuade| 0 or 7 trips. Q. When did you leave off? — A. The first part of November, as uearljj as I can remember. Q. And in the mean time you made 6 or 7 trips to the Banks ?- A. Yes. Q. Did you go into any other ports in the Dominion or Newfonndl By Q. You Q. I nD( laud not first said s bait and "ot the cas Benjam Ibehalf of t By Qaestionl Pa^t; trip in \ Q. Wbei AWARD OF THE FIRIIKRY COMMISSION. 2\r)9 Irtinl, besUlea St. Peter's and St. .Jnc«|ue8, that .year for bait I— A. Not that 1 remember of. Q. What bait ditl you use f— A. Ilerriti);. Q. Where did you procure it I— A. 1 came into St. Peter's for it. Q. Then you went there neveral times during tliat year f— A. Yes. i]. Did you go into any port in Newfoundland besides f— A. 1 only went up Fortune Hay for bait. il. Then you went in rei)eatedly that year to jjot bait?— A. I did. g. Fresh bait is far superior to salt bait, 1 believe f— A. Well, 1 think it is better than salt bait. Q. Did you tish with a trawl ? — A. Yes. Q. And 1870 is the only year when you went into Newfoundland for bait?— A. It is the only yeiir I remember of; yes. Q. Did you ro in there for it in 1871 or 187lif— A. I think not. I know that I did not do so. Q. Are you certain that you did not ?— A. I am clear that I tlid not^ goto St. Peter's or anywhere about the Newfoundland coast; but I tbiuk I got bait about this coast. Q. At what part of the Nova Scotiin coast ?— A. 1 baited up once in Prospect. That was in 187;{. Q. I thought that you were mackerel fishing in 1873 ?— A. That was tbe case, part of the year. Q. In 1871 and 1872 did you get your bait for Hank fishing on the coast of Nova Scotia ?— A. In 1872 I did, but I do not think that 1 went Hank fishing in 1871. Q. You stated just now that you were Bank fishing in 1871 1 — A. Dur- ing those years there was one year when 1 did not go fishing ; but in 1873 I went Bank fishing one trip, and afterward I went niackerol-fish- iug. Q. Where did you get your bait in 1869 ? — A. I think that I did not go banking that year. Q. Then you did not go Bank fishing in 1809 or 1871 ; and yon only tisbed on the Banks in 1870 and 1872 and the first part of 1873 f— A. Yes. By Mr. Dana : Q. You went to Saint Pierre for bait ? — A. \'es. Q. Is that as good as any place in Newfoundland for the procuring of I bait ?— A. I found that I could get bait every time I went there during Itbe years I frequented the Banks. By Mr. Whiteway: (i. You now refer to the French Island t — A. Yes. Q. I understood you to say that you went to Saint Peter's to get bait, laud not being able to procure it there, went to Saint Jacques f — A. I Ifirst said so. I think that I went there one trip when I did not get any Ibitit and had to go for it up Fortune Bay, but at other times this was |iiot the case. No. 20. Benjamin Maddocks, fish-dealer, of Gloucester, Mass., was called tn |behalf of the American Government, sworn and examined. By Mr. Dana : Question. When did you cease to go fishing ? — Answer. I went on my |ast trip In 1852. Q. When did you make your first fisl'ing voyage ?— A. In 1826. -'•1M;|!: ■ii/'iy«ff'*,Jii . Ji ''^^ ir.ir If '\.«« ^ '"^^"^ ^M'X ' d - • '' 'PkIQ HiiHI ,j^^'M b;-"^?;'' 2160 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. !i Q. Where did you go then?— A. Down the Bay of Fundy, off Moimt Desert. Q. You were fishing for mackerel ? — A. Yes. i4. You did not go to the Gulf of St. Lawrence ? — A. Not then. Q. When did you make your next voyage ? — A. In the Spriug of 1828 on this coast, cod -fishing. Q. What did you do in your next voyage ? — A. In 1829 I was cod- fishing during the latter part of the season in the Bay of St. Lawrence. Q. Was there any such thing then known as mackerel-fishing in the bay as an occupation ? — A. I do not recollect that anything of the sort was then d ne. Q. What did you then mostly use for bait ? — A. We caught mackerel to u'ie as bait for codfish. Q. What did you do from 1829 to 1833 ?— A. I was then fishing on our own coast. Q. For what ?— A. Cod and hake. Q. What sort of luck did you have ? — A. We did what was consid- ered then a fair business. Q. Where did you go in 1833 ? — A. Into the Bay of St. Lawrence cod- fishing. Q. What did you dc from 1833 to 1847 ?— A. From 1833 to 1817 I was fishing for the larger portion of the time on our own coast, and I also made one or two foreign trading voyages during that time. Q. Did you go to the Grand Banks during that period ? — A. I was there in 1835 and in 1844. Q. When did you make your first mackerel voyage ? — A. In 1347, 1 think, to the Bay of St. Lawrence. Q. How many barrels did you catch ? — A. I was in a very small ves- sel. I do not think she would have held more than 150 barrels, and we got, I believe, about 100 barrels. Q. Did you get them inshore or offshore ? — A. Well, we caught them off' shore. Q. What did you do in 1848 ? — A. I went one trip to the bay, mack- erel-fishing. Q. What were the results! — A. We got about 90 barrels, 1 think, iu the same vessel in which'I was the year before. In 1849 and 1850 I was not fishing. I did not go fishing from 1848 to 1852, when I went one trip in the fall. Q. Were you always during the latter part of this period interested iu vessels? — A. Well, I had a small interest iu two or three different ves sels, I think, up to 1852. Q. The last year you went fishing to the bay you went for mackerel 1— | A. Yes. Q. That was in 1852 ? — A. Yes ; I left on that trip about the latter part of August. Q. How much did you get ? — A. About 250 barrels. Q, Where ? — A. The larger portion of them we took broad off North j Cape, P. E. Island, and toward Bank Bradley. Q. How much do you think you caught oft" I3ank Bradley? — A. Nearly] 200 barrels. Q. Where did you catch the other 50 barrels? — A. We made a good! catch one morning d))wn off Margaree. The men on board, I believe, thought we were then rather inside of the 3-mile range, but I was iD-[ clined to think that we were not. Q. Is it not difficult to determine that question ? — A. Yes. Q. Why ! — A. When you are near or in sight of high laud, you all 136 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2161 f Mouut en. ig of 1828 was cod- jawrence. ,ng in the if the sort t mackerel fishing on as consid- vrence cod- 1847 I was , and I also — A. I was . In 1347, 1 y small ves- eels, and we aught them bay, mack- . 1 think, in d 1850 1 was 1 1 went one interested iu ifferent ves- mackerel !- j ut the latter ^ad off Nortli I j_A. ^Nearly! made a good rd, I believe,! )ut I was in- es. , laud, yott al- ways look to be a great deal nearer the coast than you really are in my experience ; and if the land is low, the distance is not so great as it looks to be. Q. So then you may be then 3 miles from land when you suppose that you are 4 or 5 miles off t — A. Yes. Q. And if the land is high it is just the other way ?— A. Yes. Q. Is your ability to determine distances affected by the state of the weather? — A. Certainly. Q. Did you ever take out licenses ? — A. When 1 went to the bay I think no licenses were issued. Q. Were any cutters there when you fished in the bay ?— A. O, yes; this was the case in 1852. Q. What is your experience in relation to cutters ? What were the real dangers which the American fishermen feared from them, and what was the reason why they wished to be relieved from their interference by licenses or by treaty ? — A. What we used to dread most was the an- noyance the cutters occasioned us, when we did not go witliin what we supposed was 3 miles from the land. Q. If a vessel was entirely innocent in this respect and did not even intend to go within three miles of the land, and did not do so still, what annoyance did the cutters occasion her? — A. O, well, I suppose they might have thought we were nearer obe land than we actually were. Our fishermen were afraid that tLey would trouble us even when we wore farther than 3 miles from the land. Q. They could not always tell the distance? — A. They could not al- ways do so. Some might say we were three miles off" shore and others four or five miles. There is that much difference in the judgment of these distances, and when we were five miles off" shore we didn't know but the cutters would consider it three miles. Q. And besides they might have a personal interest in seizing you ? — A. Yes. Q. Suppose that a vessel turned out to be innocent in this relation, was she restored next day or was she often kept until the end of tbe season? — A. Some of our vessels were confiscated, bnt I do not recol- lect of any vessel that was seized when so innocent and held for a long I time. This might have, however, been the case in some instances. Q. Were any held until the end of the season before they were re- [leased? — A. I do not recollect of any with which this was the case. Q. Did you hear of any such instances ? — A. I do not know that I did. Q. There was also an unsettled question as to how the three-mile line I ran— as to whether it ran ^rom a line drawn from headland to headland ? I -A. Certainly. Q. Did the Americans generally know that the British held they had |aii»lit to seize vessels within the three-mile line drawn from headland to headland, which we denied?— A. Yes. I was aware of that at the I time. Q. After 1852, when you made your last fishing voyage, what did lyou do? — A. From 1852 to 1858 I was in business at Southport mainly. IWe used to fit out vessels to fish on the banks in the spring until about the middle of July, and then they went into the Bay of Saint Lawrence |tbr mackerel. Q. About how many vessels were you interested in during these six lyears at Southport ?— A. From 1852 to the time I left Southport I think |l was interested in vessels to the number of all the way from ten to jtwenty, from year to year. Q. During that period while you were at Southport you say you were 136 F "-'*.,. i S' '1 2162 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. engaged in coil-flshing oa the Banks in the spring. What kiud of bait was used by your vessels? — A. Olain bait wholly. Q. Were your vessels hand-liners or trawlers ? — A. They were haml- liners, they used to fish over the rail at that time. Q. They didn't have boats even 1 — A. No ; they fished from the deck of the vessel. Q. Did they make respectable voyages? — A. Yes. Q. What time did they generally go into the bay ? — A. From the first of July to the middle of July generally. They uaed to make two trips. Q. Now, when those vessels returned did you as agent usually leuru where they fished ? — A. Well, yes. I recollect hearing the men telliug about where they would get their best catches. Q. According to their reports where did they get their best catches ?— A. About the Magdalens principally. Q. You have been in the bay several years fishing, and you have heard the reports of owners and underwriters I suppose. What do you cou- sider the safest part ? — A. We used to consider the Magdalens were safe. Q. Why ? — A. Well, on account of the wind shifting we could run around the islands and make lee with almost any wind. Q. Now, how is it with the north side — the bend of Prince Eilwanl Island ? — A. That was considered the most dangerous i)art of the bay. Q. From what reasons ? — A. Well, from its being quite a deep bay; if the wind came up from the southeast, to the northeast or north, the sea would come up very suddenly. Q. Is it rather a shoal shore ? — A. Yes ; we would have a heavy sea, and a vessel getting in there would find it very difiicult to get out with it blowing heavily. Q. Look at the chart for a moment. (Witness refers to chart.) Q. Now suppose the wind was easterly, what you call an east-south- east gale, and you are here (pointing to chart), what chance have you to weather East Cape ? — A. If you were up anywhere toward this bight you would have a bard chance to get out. Q. Then with a gale from southeast to east-northeast, if you were near inshore toward North Point, it would be difficult ? — A. Yes. (Mr. Davies asks witness to put his finger upon the place, and wituess points to map, near Kildare Cape.) Q. If you were on the eastern part of the island, with an east south- east gale, you could go where you liked ? — A. Yos. Q. But with the wind westerly it would be dangerous about clear of North Cape ? — A. Yes. Q. Now, if the wind is more to northward, east-northeast to north- east, how would it be if you were near shore in any part of the bend ! Does not a northerly wind blow as straight into the bend as it can ?— A. Yes. Q. What chance would you have to escape a northerly gale if were close in on the north side ? — A. No chance whatever. Q. Do you know anything about Cascumpec Harbor ? — A. I was tberei once. Q. How did you find it ? — A. I should think it was rather a difficalt place to get in; rather shoal. Q. Is there a heavy sea there? — A. Yes; with the wind blowing in shore. Q. Then Malpeque, what do you think of that ?— A. I have uevci been there. getiiugl .voul AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2163 Q. Have you been near it ?— A. Not very near it. I kuow nothing about it more than I could learn by the chart. Q. Now you say from 1852 to 1858 you were engaged in business at Soiithport. Did you return to Gloucester ?— A. I commenced business iu Gloucester in January, 1858. Q. Have you remained in the fishing business up to this time ?— A. With the exception of two years I have been actually engaged in the fishing business there. For two years I had a partial interest iu differ- ent vessels. I was not engaged directly. Q. Except these two years have you been an agent and manager of vessels ? — A. I have. Q. And engaged both in the cod and mackerel business ?— A. Yes. Q. Now, I take that period from 1858 on, excepting the two years you refer to. How have you fitted out your cod-fishers for Banks as to bait ? — A. When we fitted them out we put aboard some clams and some pogies. Q. Are the pogies put on board fresh ?— A. No ; salted. Q. When did you first know— how many years ago— of any of the vessels going in either to some port in Nova Scotia or of Newfoundland for fresh bait ? — A. The Bankers ? I think it is not more than four years since they went iu to make a business of getting fresh bait. Q. Are there plenty of clams to be found on the American coast to fit out your vessels 1 — A. Yes. Q. There is no difficulty ? — A. No. Q. Have your Bankers for the last 12 or 15 years been trawlers or haudline fishers? — A. They have been trawling! think about, well, 8 or 9 years. Q. Before they were hand-liners ? — A. Yes. Q. Sir Alexander Galt. Does he mean that they are now all trawl- ers? By Mr. Duna : Q. Do you mean to say that the vessels you are engaged in and have been for the last 8 or 10 years are all trawlers ? — A. All we send down to the Banks. A good many vessels fish on the Georges, and always fish over the rail. Q. But those you send to the Bank are all trawlers ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether for the last year many of your vessels have goue in for fresh bait as a practice ? — A. Well, I think they have, about all of them. Q. You have had about something like about four years' experience, then, of that practice 1 — A. Yes ;. about that. Q. Now, fresh bait is better than salt bait, is it not, for the single catch ?— A. Yes. Q. So that if two vessels are lying side by side under exactly the same circumstances, equally good fishermen, and all that, both hand-liners I or both trawlers, for the time being, the men using fresh bait would 1 have the advantage ? — A. Certainly. Q. Now I ask you a totally different question. Taking the commer- I rial results for the whole season of two vessels under equally good cir- cumstances iu all other respects, one depending upon going into New- fouudland to get fresh bait as often as necessary, and the other staying out and using salt bait and such bait as she can get there, which is the most profitable as to the commercial interests of all concerned ? You have had experience of both. — A. I think the difference would be iu favor of the vessel that lay on the ground and kept ou fishing with the salt bait. ^.m{ 2164 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How strong au opinion have yon on that point ? — A. My opinion would be strong enough to induce me to give my captains express orders not to go in for bait, which I have doue a good many times. But they go contrary to orders. Q. Do you think that the captains of the vessels are a little apt to pre- fer running into port occasionally to standing out? — A. Yes, sir; they are are very much in favor of going in. Q. You have draffs drawn upon you in consequence of those vessels going in to Newfoundland 1 — A. I have. Q. What are they entitled I What are they said to be for ? — A. Well, a good many times when we have drafts come we haven't had any bills ! accompanying them. Sometimes we let them go to protest. Q. Where there is no bill ? — A. On account of not having a bill. Q. Where you have proceeded in compelling them to present bills wbat j do they generally stand for ? What do they say the money is spent for ? — A. Well, sometimes the men will be charged with some of the money they draw for. The captains will advance the men some of the mouey, but the larger portion of it falls on the vessel. Q. There are some little dues to pay, port charges, &c. ? — A. Yes. Q. Now is the rest called bait ? — A. Yes ; the money is for bait. Q. Do you know how much of that called bait is actually bait?— A. | We have no way of knowing any more than to take their word for it. Q. Bait is the term under which this money is placed 1 — A. Yes. Q. Would you consider it an advantage or a disadvantage to the com- mercial and pecuniary interest of all concerned, the master, crew, audi owners, to have them all prohibited from going in for fresh bait ?— A. | If there was any authority to keep our vessels out, if the Canadian Gov- ernmeut had any authority to keep all vessels out, I shoald be greatly! in favor of it ; I should be willing to let them take every vessel theyj found within three miles of land. Q. Now do the cod tishers continue to do well ? You say those that| don't go in do better than those that do ? — A. Yes. Q. You say those that don'c go in do best ? — A. Yes. Q. Are they doing pretty well ? — A. No ; they haven't been doingl what I call doing well. They don't get enough to pay expenses. Q. You include those that go into port ? Do you mean only those ?— I A. Well, all our vessels that go to the Grand Banks go in for bait now| Q. They are not doing well ? — A. No. Q. You have a fixed opinion that it would be better for them not to| go in ? — A. That is my opinion. Q. If you had the sole management and could make your captains do as you wished, you would not have any doit ? — A. No. Q. Now about the mackerel business. During the last five years whad has been the amount of the mackerel-fishing in the bay ? I do not nieaj to ask you the exact amojint, but has it been largeor small compared with past years in the town of Gloucester ? — A. It has been very small conn pared with other years. Q. How many mackerel-vessels do you suppose there were from Gloiij cester in the gulf 10 years ago. Have you any notion if — A. I have noj any way of knowing, but I should Judge that there were from GloucesUJ perhaps near 200 sail of American vessels in the gulf. Q. How many are there now? — A. This year there are more than tlierd have been for the past two years. I thin4c this year there may be 50 o^ 60 sail. Q. How many were there two years previous ! — A. I don't think 1as| year there were more than 20 sail. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2165 Q. Tlie ^ear before that f— A. There might have been a few more thaa that the y jar before. Q. How do yoH account for this steady diminution, steady, that is, ex- cepting the variation of perhaps ten vessels. How do you account for this diminution down to the present year in the number of mackerel-ves- sels in the gulf from your town ?— A. Because the business 1 is not Q. How does the shore mackerel— by shore mackerel you mean mack- erel in the markets understood to be caught on the American coast ? A. Yes. Q. Those caught in British waters are called bay mackerel ?— A. Yes. Q. 2S^ow, how do the shore mackerel compare in the market as to the price they bring ? — A. Well, we have on our coast different qualities. It appears to me there is more difference in the quality on our coast than there is in the bay. Q. Well, I take No. 1 then. How do those marked as No. 1 Shore Mack- erel compare with those marked as No. 1 Bay Mackerel ?— A. Well, the bay mackerel, at least I should say the shore mackerel, has been a great deal better than the bay mackerel the last seven or eight years. Q. That is not simply an opinion, but the market prices are better? How much more do the No. 1 Shore Mackerel bring than the No. IBay Mackerel ? — A. Well, there has been $7 or 88 difference between them. Ihave seen the time when the bay mackerel was equal to our shore mackerel. It has not been for the last seven years. Q. Then as to the plentifulness or scarcity of the fish. From your experience as a dealer, how do the shore mackerel compare with the bay mackerel ? — A. It varies every year. Last year the mackerel were plenty on our coast. A great many vessels got from one to two thou- sand barrels, seining principally. Q. Here it was very scarce ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, this year, so far as the returns have come in from the bay fobery, how has it looked ? — A. Well, we have had some considerable; many vessels went into the bay about the usual time, say the 1st of I July ; but I don't know that they have had any returns yet any way. I heard there was one trip that went up on the last boat. That is all I the returns I know of. Q. Then you are not able to give any judgment as to the results ? Can I you tell us what the general impression is as to the probabilities? — A. As we haven't had any returns, I should think the prospects are poor for I the catch. Q. If there had been good results you would have heard it? — A. [ Certainly. Q. During your experience in the bay and from what you learned I afterwards, will you be so good as to tell the Commissioners what you think as to the comparison of the value between deep-sea fishing for mackerel and inshore fishing ? By inshore fishing, I mean within say three miles — one, two, and three miles off? — A. From ray experience, my judgment leads me to think that our vessels would got full as many, if I not more, by staying outside of the three-mile range altogether. By going inshore they may sometimes get a spurt of mackerel, but they are then liable to go farther into the harbors and lose a good deal of time ; Ubereas if they would fish farther off they would save a good deal of time. I think that fpr 10 or 20 years back they might have caught, well, somewhere from a 10th to a 15th part of the mackerel within the 2166 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. three-mile range. I don't know but what they have. I don't think auy. thing more than a 10th part certainly. Q. Do you include in that the Magdalens as well ? Do you mean within three miles of all tbe coast ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Magdalen Islands and all? — A. Certainly. Q. Perhaps you know tbat before the Washington Treaty we liad tlie right to fish as near as we pleased to the Magdalen Islands ? — A. Cer- tainly, we always understood that. Q. And also Labrador 1 — A. Yes. Q. What the treaty gives us is the other places. Now taking tlie rights we had, irrespective of the treaty, to use Magdalen Islands and Labrador as we pleased, do you attach much practical value to the ad- ditional privilege of going within three miles of other parts of the .gulf? — A. I would not think there was any money value ^n it. Q. Taking it through ? — A. There is not any money value there. Q. ' ^w, you have given one reason, and that is the danger of vessels being too fond of lying in port ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, how do you think the fish caught, when they are caught, com- pare with those caught in the deep waters or on the Banks? — A. Well, the fish caught along Prince Edward Island are the poorest fish caught in tlie bft ; they ire generally of small size^ ,\ ' ^ ihe ff utest and stoutest fish are catight in the autumn in the hBj ''- ". that is my experience. Q. "• v ^ ijink much of the Bend of Prince Edward Island in the autumn as a fishing-ground? — A. No, I do not; we have caught some very le mackorel down on the Cape Breton coast there off Margaiee. Q. .a . ag(r-l 'ishing-ground ? — A. Yes. Q. You get goou ' ab here in the autumn ? — A. Yes. Q. And at the ^lagtialena? — A. The Magdalens mackerel are the largest we get in the bay — up about Bird Bocks. Q. The largest and best of all are those caught on our own coast ?— A. North about Magdalen Islands and Bird Rock is the best in the bay. Q. But of all the No. 1 mackerel caught, the best, according to the market rates, are those caught off the coast of the United States ?— A. O, yes. Q. Now, I ask your attention for a moment to the subject of boat-fish- ing, including among boats anything under 20 tons. You have small open boats to begin with. Is there a great deal of day and night fish- ing near Gloucester ? — A. Yes. Q. Dory fishing ? — A. Some considerable. Q. They catch mackerel, and what else? — A. Haddock, in the winter. Q. The haddock in the winter is sent fresh into the market? — A. Yes. Q. The rest of the season's fish is also caught iu dories ? — A. Yes. Q. Take now the larger vessels, which are still called boats, havini; I a cuddy decked over, which fits them for a day or two or two or three | days' fishing. Is there a good deal of that? — A. Some considerable. Q. How do they succeed in their fishing altogether? — A. Well, the I people about Gloucester and Cape Ann do pretty well. They get a good j living. That is what we call doing well. Q. Those small vessels fish all the winter and summer? — A. Yes. Q. Has the shore fishery from Gloucester increased or diminished for| the last ten years ? — A. Increased greatly. Q. In numbers and profit, do you mean ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Is there much herring caught by your Gloucester boats and ves- sels?— A. There is a school of herring comes there about this time in I the fall, and lasts about — well, as much as three or four weeks. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2167 Q. Is it very plenty ?— A. There is a good many of them caught : thou- sands of barrels. Q. How are they caught; from the boats ?— A. With nets principally. q. How big are those nets ? Some five or six fathoms long ?— A. Twelve or fifteen fathoms long. Q. Fifty or sixty feet long ?— A. Yes. Q. More than that ?— A. Yes ; some ninety. Q. That is a very great supply ?— A. Yes ; there is any quantity of them. Q. Your Gloucester vessels that want to go and stay in the bay through the autumn— those you have had built that have been in use the last twelve or fifteen years are large sized and good vessels ?— A. Yes, sir. Q. They draw about what, when they are half full ?— A. I should think our vessels that go into the bay would draw from 8»to the bay. That makes five in the bay. Q. What has been the result of the mackerel voyages to the gulf made by your vessels since you have been in business ? — A. They have done pretty poorly. One year they did very well. The next year after the year I knocked off they did very well. Since that they have been dwindling away until we have had only one there last year. They knocked off and went seining on our own coast. Q. How many did you have the year before last? — A. I think only one. I think for the last three years they all knocked off and went seining, but that one, and she never had a seine. Q. Now, generally, what have been the results of the mackerel ves- sels on the American shores since you have been in the business? — A. Well, some of our vessels have done very well. They have always paid their bills on our own shores and cleared a little more. Q. 1 believe you had one particularly profitable seining voyage last year? — A. Yes. Q. What was that?— A. We cleared $5,000. That was the Mary Odell. Q. How long was she doing it ? — A. She began the last of April, and knocked oft' about the first of November. Q. Do you remember how many trips ? — A. No ; we conld not tell, because she rau them fresh to Boston and New York. We didn't pack any of them hardly. Q. Now take your vessels that have gone to the Gulf of St. Lawrence this year ; name them. — A. The Wild Fire, the Colonel Cook, the Kat- tler, the Griffin. Q. That only makes four. The other one you gave previously ? — A. The Falcon. The Grifflu we don't own. She fits with us. We find her barrels and provisions. Q. What is the tonnage of your schooners ? — A. Well, the Wild Fire is 108 tons, the Battler 82, the Colonel Cook abaut 60, I think, the Fal- con 71. Q. I will not bother you with details of price, because we have those in a more compact form. But generally, how many mackerel ought one of those veasels, a vessel of that size, to catch in order to make a paying voyage ? — A. Well, it is all owing to the price. Q. Would the mackerel average $10 a barrel, cleaned and packed ?— A. No, not this year. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2185 Q. What do yon think they would ?— A. Well, thftt vessel went in late and got all fat mackerel. But this year they wouhl not be over $5 a barrel average. Take out $1.75 for packing, and it doesn't leave much. Q. Does that $1.75 include the barrel ?— A. The barrel and tialt, not inspection ; that is ten cents more. Q. Well, suppose yon got 810 a barrel ; I take that as higher than the average, but as it has been named here a number of times. JIow many barrels ought these vessels to get year in and year out, to make it a paying business ?-t-A. To make it pay they should get 1,000 barrels to make money. Q. Well, that is to make money for everybody, is it not ?— A. Yes ; that makes a little something. Q. But take the cost of the voyage. We will say nothing about the interest on the vessel itself— how many barrels should she get ?— A. Well, 600 or 600. It is according to what kind of mackerel. Q. I was asking you to take them at $10. You thought that too high?— A. Well, taking $10, if they got 400 barrels the bills would be about $2,000 to run a vessel like that for four months. The other $2,000 would go to the captain and the crew. Q. Then before the owners could get anything they should run up above $4,000 ? — A. About that. It would be safe to reckon that way. Q. Now I want to ask you one or two more things about your own trips. On page 193 of the British Evidence we have the statement of James Mackay. Do you know him ! — A. No, sir. Q. You owned the Colonel Cook? — A. I owned the third part of her. Q. On page 193 of the Evidence it is stated that she was commanded by George Bass in 1872. Do you remember how many mackerel the Colonel Cook took, when Captain Bass commanded her In 1872 ? — A. I think he sent home 200 barrel;^ the first time. I won't be sure, though. Q. The second f — A. 160 I think. It may be wrong; I could not say for certain. I think that is it. Q. You have nothing by which to correct your recollection 1 — A. No. Q. Now, Mr. James Mackay says that 400 barrels were obtained each trip that year, as I understood it ? — A. 1 don't know, I never made any money. Q. Do you know whether there was 400 barrels each trip or not ? — A. No. Q. That is not correct? — A. He is mistaken. That is more than she ever got since she was built. Mr. Davies. He didn't say 400 each trip. Mr. Foster. Your construction is that the witness only meant to say 400 barrels for the two trips. It reads as 400 barrels for the second trip. Mr. Davies. He only mentions the one figure, 400 barrels. By Mr. Foster : Q. Now, here is the statement of a witness by the name of McDonald, that you got 1,600 barrels of mackerel one year in the Eattler. You say you got 1,515 barrels ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you have anything to do with the schooner Allen Forester ? — A. Yes, I and others chartered a quarter of her. Q. William McDonald's statement is, that he and you and two others were interested in that vessel. Was that right ?— A. No. Q. His statement is (page 310) that he chartered her for the trip, and [after paying $1,000 for the charter, and paying him as captain 5 per m ,;.?■ ^Jifc m ■It 2186 AWARD OF THE FISHGRY COMMISSION. Ill Ihi II cent, commission, which came out of the vesseFs half, there wa8 i|>l,o,)0 for the four who chartered her. Did you get your share of tliat J— a, I don't think I did get as much as that : I might have. It don't seem as though I did. I could not say that I did not. I thought it was nut su much as that. Q. On page 306, we seem to hear of you again from somebody. Ro- nald McDonald says he was with you in 1850 or 18G0, I believe, in tbe Battler. Do you remember him f — A.. I don't remember him. lie might have been with me ; many men have, whose names I duu't t^. member. Q. What are the prospects, if you know, of the mackerel flshinp; this year? — A. Well, I don't know; so far as 1 can hear, they are pretty poor. Our vessels have done very badly. Q. Now, suppose the mackerel were to be very plenty from this time on, is there time to make a good result T — A. No ; it is too late now. It is coming on blowy weather; and they could not do much. There might be, perhaps, some few days when they could do something. Q. When you were in the habit of fishing, was Magdalen Islands cod- fiidered safe or dangerous ? — A. It was the safest place in the bay. Q. Why? — A. You can run around it any time, day or night, souudiug with the lead, no matter what kind of weather. Q. Can you estimate the largest number of vessels from Gloucester that ever went to the gulf for mackerel ? — A. I should not think over 275, or 300 at the most. There used only to be in those times four or five hundred sail altogether; and I don't think a great many more tbau half of them went into the bay. I think there are now about 520, or thereabouts, boats and all. Q. If you were coming to the gulf to fish for mackerel, what value would you attach to the right of fishing inshore ? Explain your opinion on that point. — A. Well, some years — I have seen two or three years— I should like to have fished inshore; when the mackerel was inshore. A heavy northeast wind late in the fall drives them all in, around Mar garee Island, maybe, and a man might catch a trip of mackerel, if be could not get them anywhere else, the last thing in the fall. That is about all the advantage. In good weather^ I should not care anything about it ; but late in the fall, the last thing, I have caught 215 barrels there in two days, and I suppose I could have caught 500 if I bad a place for them. 1 never saw but two years like that. The year of the gale, in 1851, was just such a year; but I was full when I got there. By Sir Alexander Gait : Q. Are they good mackerel f — A, Nice mackerel. By Mr. Foster : Q. Which would you rather have, the right to fish inshore and have the British mackerel come in free, or be excluded and have the old duty on it ? — A. I should rather have the old duty. It is no' '"ogetberon account of the mackerel, but the herring. Q. Tell me about that.— A. If there we' j , we could ha\'e tie whole trade of selling'them in Boston, bi .on there is ■ < duty tlie English vessel can carry them cheaper tli we can. Q. The old duty was a dollar a barrel ?— A. Yes , I think so. We have lost that trade. Q. I notice that in 1873 the Colonel Cook, of Glourester, is stated by the collector at Fort Mulgrave, under the head of June 13, to have been twice through Canso — to have made two trips ; to have taken on the first trip 380 barrels, and on the second trip 320 barrels of mackerel. AWARD, OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2187 think so. We That was one of your vessels; did she ever do that?— A. That is more ItbaD she ever carried. Slie never tlttt'd for over 350 barrels. Q. Do you recollect what ohe did f— A. I thinlc that is the time she llaDtied 2U0-odd barrels. Q. 1 am not talking of the Colonel Cook when yon were in her in |l8C3, but as to the quantity she caught in 1873?— A. 1 was never in [the Colonel Cook. Q. In 1873 you were interested in her ; do you recollect what mack- rel she took 1 — A. She did not take any- such quantity as that. Q. Not 700 barrels in Bay St. Lawrence f— A. No ; because that is I more than she can carry. Q. She did not make two trips and catch 380 and 320 barrels?— A. |Sbe never carried at the most over 350 barrels; I think she did not. Q. Do you recollect what her catch was that year?— A. 1 don't I recollect. Q. Did she make any money ?— A. She never made any money since jgbe was built, hardly. 1 don't think she made any that year. Q. If the date June 13 was the date given as when she had got two I trips, that could not be correct, as no vessel could ever make two trips Ibefore June 13 in Bay St. Lawrence ?— A. She could not have gone in ill June 15. Q. I am now reading from page 20, Appendix X : » Return of United [states mackerel tishing vessels and their catch in 1873, as reckoned at Iport Mulgrave, N. S., by the collector of customs at that port." Under Ijuue 13, there appears, " Colonel Conk, Gloucester, 380, 320, total 700 Ibarrels." — A. He has made a mistake. That is when she went into the I bay. Q. Did she get 700 barrels that year ? — A. I don't think so. She never I got that many any year. By Mr. Davies : Q. Have you any recollection of the catches made by your vessel since Itou gave up fishing yourself? — A. I know pretty well what they have liuade. The bay vessels have made no money. Q. Have you a good recollection of the catches they made ? — A. No ; Jl don't recollect. I could not tell you the exact quantity, but they made I very poor trips. Q. In 1873 you owned the Wildfire ?— A. Yes. Q. Give me the catch you made that year. — A. I don't recollect what Iwe did. Q. Would you be prepared to dispute a return made by the collector lof customs at Port Mulgrave as to what her catch was ? — A. 1 could tell |souetbing near it. Q. You don't recollect at the present time what it was ? — A. I think |it was something like 600 barrels ; somewhere between 500 and GOO. Q. He returns 625 barrels. — A. I guess that is correct. Q. Was the Phcenix your vessel ? — A. No. Q. What size vessel is Colonel Cook ? — A. About 66 tons. Q. What is her capacity ? — A. When she fits for the bay, she fits for laboiit 350 barrels. Q. And will you undertake to swear that she did not get 700 barrels liQ 1873! Have you any recollection of what her catch was? — A. I Iwould not want to swear to it, but I am pretty sure she did not get pat. Q. Have you a sufficient recollection of it ? — A. I have not a suffi- teieut recollection of it. ii r m 14 H!3 Mil 2188 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. And if ycu have not, can you say that the namber was incorrect j A. It is not correct about going out at that time. Q. I think the date stands for when she was reported as entering | gulf? — A. I think so. Q. Putting the date aside, I ask you if you would undertake to dispJ the correctness of this return, if you have no recollection of the cal yourself ? — A. No more than I packed the mackerel. Q. You don't wish to contradict this return ? — A. No. Q. You think. I understood you to say, that the fishing this yeai| not very good ? — A. Yes. Q. Have you been in the gulf yourself? — A. No. Q. Yf>u don't knc' it from personal knowledge ? — A. No more tli from vessels that have come home. Q. Have you a list of the vessels that have come home and repor(| at your port ? — A. I have got no list. Q. Could you state the names of some vessels that have returnedj order to show on what you base your statement ? — A. I could tell some vess()ls that have come home with small fares. The Vulcan ha small fare. Q. What time did she come to the bay? — A. She came out of the 1 about the last of August ; somewhere about that time. Q. What is her size ? — A. 71 tons. Q. She had only 110 barrels?— A. She packed 110. The Williaml Baker came home. I believe she got nothing hardly in the bay. Q. Is she one of your vessels ? — A. No; slie belongs to the next wbj Q. Can you speak of her catch from personal knowledge f — A. owner told me she did not have anything. Q. I have got here a list of vessels which have returned to Gloiicesjj On 15th August : David F. Low, 190 barrels of mackerel. Do you kn her? — A. Yes. Q. Do you call that very bad ?— ^.. No. Q. August 16. J. F. Clarke, 240 barrels. Do you know her ? — A. Q. August 17. Hyperion, 240 barrels. Do you know her? — A. Y^ Q. August 16. Gertie Lewis, 135 barrels. Is that correct ? — A. Q. On the same day, Martha C, 250 barrels. Is that correct?- Yes. Q. August 20. George S. Low, 230 first trip and 120 second— altogetJ 350 barrels. Is that correct ? — A. Yes. I know those vessels, auq know they got those trips ; I know it because the owners told me. Q. August 25. Fred Gerring, junior, 230 barrels; refitted and m^ second trip. Have you received information that she has made a i ondtrip? — A. Yes. Q. Eastern Queen. She has not'got round, I believe, on her sec0 trip; perhaps you can give the numbers? — A. I don't know about second trip. After the first trip she came home with, I think, some ! odd barrels — I think about 240 or 250. Q. She has made two trips ? — A. I never heard that she had made mj than one. Q. She has not yet completed her second ? — A. She is on it. Q. August 30. Marion Grimes, 150 barrels. Do you know her ?- Yes. Q. Ocean King, 120 barrels; put in for repairs. Is that correct] A. Yes. Q. John We&ley, 200 barrels ;— A. The John Wesley bought the ma erel and did nut catch it. The captain told me he bought it froui bo AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 2189 [port Hood, and traded for them. He came through Canso and re- ■ted be had that many. He is Captain Pool. B, September 12. B. F. Somes, 160 barrels, refitted for second trip ? — lies. September 13. p!-A. Yes. I September 13. Yes. Ij, September 14. fl-A. Yes. k September 18. Harvest Home, 235 barrels, refitted for second Etta Gott, 225 barrels, refitted for second trip I — George B. Loring, 250 barrels, refitted for second S. L. Mayo, 150 barrels, refitted for second trip ? — I Yes. You have skipped those vessels which have not got any. k I am reading from the return. — A. Is the Ellen Crosby mentioned Ire? That is one which did not get anything. \, Foster. What is the list you are reading from ? p. Davies. From a return of vessels reported from the Gut of Canso. I understood you to say that you knew those vessels, and that the ntities were correct ? — A. Yes, as far as what the owners told me. The Cape Ann Advertiser of September 20 says : r correspondent at Port Mulf^rave writes under the date of last Monday as follows : •i my last there have been several arrivals from the bay with discouraging news, but 'the Dows has been more encouraging. The following arrivals are reported: Schrs. "tt, 226 bbls. mackerel; Harvest Home, 235; George B. Loring, 350; George S. ,t\ro trips, :^0 ; Benjamin F. Somes, 160; Idella Small, of Deer Isle, 15S. The kerel are large and fat. The Harvest Home and George B. Loring took their fares in ptur 13ay ; the Etta Gott at Bird Rock. Most of the fleet were in Cape St. George Bay toiday, doing well ; the George S. Low took 45 wash barrels that day. i^iTNESS. Those are about ten or fifteen vessels out of seventy-five ||. There are 75 sail from Gloucester in the bay ? — A. Yes ; that have I there this year. ft. I see you have given the Vulcan's catch as a poor one; she re- ped early in August ? — A. Some time in August. You don't expect a vessel to make a successful trip that early ? — iSbe was gone long enough to make a good trip. \ Have you heard lately, within the last fortnight, what catches are pe by your vessels in the bay ? — A. No. I You would not undertake, then, to say whether tho catches are 1 or not ? — A. No. [(, When the question in regard to irapojsing a duty on Canadian fish sput to you, you seemed to have a pretty strong idea on it; you ^Id prefer to have that duty imposed, would you? — A, Yes. Ill regard to herring, you want to have the herriug trade trans- from British to American bottoms, and if a duty was imposed, it Hddiive British vessels out of the trade ? — A. They could not carry B), because the duty would be about as much as the herriug is worth. Has there ever been c duty on fresh herring ? — A. Those are salt nog we get at the Magdalen Islands in spring. Are they salt herring ? — A. We never got any fresh herring there. I(get our frozen herring at Newfoundland, in Fortune Bay. 1. Would you suggest that a duty should be placed on fresh herring? — po; there never was a duty on fresh herring. I But you would propose to reimpose the old duty I — A. Yes. lu regard to mackerel, leaving herriug out, would you prefer a f on mackerel ? — A. Yes. I You speak as a fisherman ? — A. Yes. nVi-. * 'Mm t*'te 2190 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Why would you prefer a duty on mackerel ?— A. Our mackej would fetch that much more a barrel ; we lose that, you know. Q. By the duty coming off? — A. Yesj the fishermen lose it ; the go ernment does not lose it. Q. And the people who eat the fish gain it ? — A. Yes. Q. And if you were to speak to a man whose business was cousumij mackerel, you would get an opinion adverse to a duty f — A. Yes. Q. You would not object, I suppose, to run the duty up a little higL — how would that suit the fishermen! — A. I think that is about rigbl Q. When asked by Mr. Foster as to how many barrels of macker should be taken by a vessel to pay well, I understood you to say that mackerel brought $10 a barrel, the number should be 1,000 barrels?— j No ; 400 barrels. Q. Four hundred barrels would make a paying voyage ? — A. It wou make the vessel pay her bills. Q. A vessel of what size? — A. A 75 or 100 ton vessel. It would co about $2,000 to run her. Q. You say it would cost $2,000 to run the vessel ; what wou become of the other $2,00C^ i — A. The crew get half. They are not pa by wages, but on shares. If a man catches 10 barrels he has half | those, after expenses are ^}ai£en out, and so with a man who catcbea barrels. Q. A vessel of 75 or 100 tons with the fishermen going on half li^ would, if it got 400 barrels at $ 10 i barrel, pay its bills. Would it leal a fair recompense to the owners? — A. It would not leave much. Son men might run a vessel and leave something, and others would leave] in debt. Q. You have made some pretty successful tripsin your time ?—^ Well, I have got many fish, but they never fetched a great price. Q. In regard to the year when you made the wonderful voyage, Foster read you some parts of Captain Campion's testimony, aud I d] not under'^tand you to contradict it. Do you know Captain Cauipiou i A. No ; I may have seen him, but I don't know him. Q. In how many vessels are you interested ? — A. 15. Q. How many years have you been in the business? — A. I have be| in it since I owned a piece of a vessel — from 1847. Q. How many vessels had you when you commenced? — A. I hadou one-sixth part of a vessel, the whole of which cost $1,800. Q. You are now interested in 15 vessels ? — A. In 15. Q. You live in Gloucester and have a snug place besides ? — A. Yd Q. "What is the cost of one of those fishing vessels, take a vessell 90 tons, present tonnage ? — A. A vessel of 00 tons would cost, all r| ged, about $7,500. Q. When you commenced business, I suppose Gloucester was rath a small place compared with what it is now ? — A. It has growu M since. Q. How much do you mean by some? — A. About one-half. Q. In 1847, did you commence the fishery busiuess ? — A. Yes. Q. What was the population in 1847 ? — A. I cannot recollect. Q. Has it grown more than two-thirds since then — been practical built up ? — A. It has been nractically built up. Q. How many members ai-e there of your firm ? — A. Three. Q. I wish to see whether you contradict the statement of Capt^ Campion. This is what he said : Q. Were they engaged in the bay fishing?— A. Captain Andrew Layton was reportei be part owner of a vessel in ]86i2 ; and when I left there he was established with sereq eight vessels, with a firm. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2191 Yes. lect. practical Id. Due to his prosecution of the bay fishery ? — A. Yes ; in 1863 he had a vessel built at Itost of $14,000; he sold her that fall at St. Peter's, for the same amount of money, and Ideclared that he cleared in the business that year the price he had paid for this vessel. Have you any recollection of the year's business in 1863? — A. I- lis in the Kattler. ). That does not dispute the statement. Have you any recollection (the year's business. You were interested in other vessels besides ! Rattler? — A. 1 had part of two or three vessels then. IQ, He says he was informed by you, or from you indirectly, that, as I result of that year's business, you cleared the cost of that vessel? — Idou't know what he meant by the statement. I had no such ves- las that at that time. The statement was that "he declared he had cleared in the busi- that year the price he had paid for this vessel." — A. I did not have It vessel that year, only the one I went in — no new vessel. [q, Did you ever sell a vessel at St. Peter's ? — A. No. |q, Can you tell me what was the result of that year's business ? — A. oald not tell you. |Q. Can you not state what was your share of the year's business ? — I made a little something that year. Mostly every year I was in the [y I cleared some money. h. Will you contradict this statement? — A. I don't think any of it is Iht. He has got mixed up. Is it substantially correct ? — A. I had no new vessel that year. I lok I know where he is, but he has got it wrong. h Where is he? — A. He is two or three years behind. |q. Then it is substantially correct, although he has not fixed the year ectly ? — A. No ; I did not sell any vessel at St. Peter's. ). I >?ant to come to the amount of profit. Where did you sell any ?— A. I sold a vessel two years after, the Blue Jacket, in 1865. |Q. Where ? — A. In Boston, for $15,000. Perhaps that is what he was erring to. IQ. Wbat profit had you made that year — you had taken 1,070 barrels llier? — A. Yes. That would leave a pretty handsome profit? — A. A very good lir's work. Substantially his statement with regard to the year's business is Tect? — A. 1 don't understand it. II}. Did you ever make $14,000 in a one year in your business ? — iNo. _ Ij. I don't mean in the business, but in the firm ? — A. I was not in a I was fishing those times. I Did you make that much in a year at any time? — A. No. I But it was something comfortable ? — A. I always cleared a little oey every year at Newfoundland and all round. Are the fish caught off your coasts sent in the American markets I ?— A. They are packed and salted as a rule ; mackerel are mostly liked and salted. Some vessels run fresh fish to market. Before I leave the question of profits, I want to call your attentton [little book published in Gloucester by Procter Brothers, called " The tiermen's Memorial and Kecord Book." Do you know, or have you the book ? — A. I have heard of it. At page 86, under head of "Largest mackerel stock," it says : fe largest stock made in the Bay of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery was that of schooner lul Ellsworth, Capt. George Robinson, m ISSTu She was absent about five months, iHt atuck amouutiuf; to $l3,72d. The high liner's share was $558 ; cook's $582. LouiB Hit k >»i. '*'^- id 4 '^'-m ^•■Ci.iL ? fi|H| 1^9 1 pi "•''i''"iiiiiiiiMHB8iB :::vii-4:,'iiiH ''■'■''ii^v'iisiiS "'"<^iiH i I"' 2192 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. I i ll! Q. Q. Q. JSank Bradley, jibove Gaspd. Q. Did you Q. Taking t Igbore and Can lud the West £ Q. How did Iprobably got al Q. Did you f How far I Did you f Did you t What pro] iNje-half. Q, Where di llilauds. Q. So far lagreement, I shore, and w irliat year it Q. Do yoi (hipped any Q. Somej) lilt twice. ( iiiice. Q. You we Wagner, the murderer, was one of the Ellsworth crew that year. His share amounted tol $307. Owned by Rowe & Jordan. I Schooner General Grant, Captain Coas, in 1864, stocked, in two trips to the Bay of St.l Lawrence, $11,254.94 clear of all expenses. The high liner made $5()tj.24; cook's sliaref $638.17. I Schooner Norwester, Capt. Daniel Hillier, the same year, stocked $9,721.74, net, in onJ bay trip ; the high liner making $3U8.6U, and the cook $486.61. Both vessels owned bjf John Pew &, Son. I Schooner General Sherman, Capt. George W. Miner, in 1864, in a three months' trip tol the bay, packed 612 barrels of mackerel, her net stock amounting to $9,696. High liuer'sl share, $575.06. Owned by D. C. & H. Babson. Schooner Kit Carson, Capt. Horace Merry, in 1865, brought in 591 barrels of mackerell having been absent about ten weeks. Her net stock amounted to $6,542. High liuer'il share $260. Owned by Rowe & Jordan. j Schooner James G. Tarr, Capt. Robert Reeves, in 1866, stocked $5,824 in a nine \veeks| trip to the bay. Cook's share, $331 .76. Owned by Dodd, Tarr & Co. Q. Tea knew those vessels and their owners ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember the catches f — A. Yes. Q. But you think you never made as much profit any year ?— A. never wanted to get it into the papers and swell it up any. Q. You have bad a good deal of experience in the bay, but for thelasi ten years you have not been fishing f — A. No. Q. Therefore you can give no statement of the habits of the mackere during the last ten years, and whether they have been more taken in shore than formerly ? — A. I think they have. I have heard that the; catch some on the south side of Prince Edward Island, where we neve used to catch any ; that is, off Souris. We never used to catch fist WO barrels ii there. Q- Have y Q. Y'^ou have heard that they are now caught there ? — A. Yes. Q. Have you conversed much with captains in the American fleet !- A. When they come in I ask them where they caught their fish. Q. Y^ou have learnt from them that the habits of the fish are now dil ferent ? — A. They don't go on that ground at all. Q. They don't go on the old ground I — A. No. Q. Do they catch more inshore ? — A. They don't go on the o\f ground. Q. The vessels don't go on the old ground, such as Bank Bradley f- A. No. Q. They fish around the shores more ? — A. Yes. Q. You have not been there personally? — A. No. Q. I watched your evidence pretty closely, you being an experiend man, but I did not hear you mention Bay Ghaleurs. — A. I have bee| there, but I never could get any fish there. Q. Your men ory probably has failed you in regard to your haviDi caught any there? — A. No ; I have not caught any there. I never wef there much. I heard about vessels going up and getting nothing, sol never went up much. I always got my fish at the Magdalen lalauf and Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. Do you know Bonald McDonald, of Souris, farmer and fishermaij In his evidence ho s u' I he was with you in the Battler in 1859 and 18i| I will read from his ..Latement: Q. How many summers were you in that vessel ? — A. One summer. Q. Who was the captain f — A. Andrew Lay ton. Q. Where did the vessel hail from ? — A. Gloucester. Q. How many barrels did she get ?— A. About 1,000 barrels. Q. Captain Laytou is always successful apparently 7 — A. I believe he is. Q. He is one of the best fishermen in the fleet 7— A. In his time, when he was in the 1 I think he was. Q. Where did you go to fish f— A. I shipped at East Point, Prince Edward Island, we fished along to West Cape ; then up the West Shore, up to the Bay Chaleurs ; thenf [ot a little m Q. I underi lie man ? — A Q. Will yoi oard?— A. 1 an from Eai Q. You mi{ on sbipjied 1 Q. How ca lliat in 1859 isli along the radley ?— A esse! was ne Q. In 1859 |(>o9. Q. In 18G0 not. Q. You ma ink I had. Q. Will yoii e there (Ba Q. Will yoi cause I dou Q. Will yoi liu 1800?— uever got a Q. In the g ])e."~A. I evr that mi Nau who evi Q. You ha^ 138 P AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2193 Q. Q. Q. Q- bank Bradley, and afterwards at the Magdalen Islands, and away up the Canada shore, libove Gasp6. Q. Did you take fish on Bank Bradley ?— A. From 70 to 100 barrels. Q. Taking the fish you got off East Point, along Prince Edward Island, along the West ISbore and Canada shore, how far from the land did you catch them t — A, Along the island liiid the West Shore we got the principal part close to the shorp. I Q. How did you do along the West Shore ? — A. From the time we left Bay Chaleurs we Iprobably got about 200 barrels. Q, Did you fish in Bay Chaleurs? — A. Yes. How far from shore ? — A. We tried everywhere ; part of the time inshore. Did you fish much in the center of the bay ? — A. No. Did you fish somewhat there ? — A. We did. What proportion of this large catch wivs taken within three miles of shore 1 — A. About |(De-balf. Q. Where did you take the other half? — A. On Bank Bradley and at the Magdalen llsIaDds. Q. !So far as regards Bank Bradley and Magdalen Islands yoa are in lagreenient, but he states that you caught fish at Prince Edward Island lliore, and west shore, and in 13ay Chaleurs ? — A. I would like to know lirbat year it was. Q. Bo you recollect shipping a man at East Point? — A. I never pbipped any man at East Point but one, and his name was Euth. Q. Some people call Souris East Point ? — A. I never went into Souris but twice. Once I was cast away there, and I have never been there (since. Q. You were in the Rattler in 1859 and 1860 ? — A. I did not get but 10 barrels in 1S59, and 500 in 1860. Q. Have you got any statemejit of the returns with you ? — A. I have ot a little memorandum of the mackerel I have caught, within a few. Q. I understood you in your first examination to say you never knew be man ? — A. Yes. Q. Will you undertake to say you never had a man of that name on oard ? — A. I might have had a man of that name. I never shipped a an from East Point of that name. Q. You might have had a man of that liame on your vessel whether ou shipi)ed him at East Point or not ? — A. I could not say. Q. How can he possibly be mistaken when he comes here and states lliat in 1859 or 1860 he was in the Battler, and that you caught your sli along the coast of Prince Pidward Island, the West Shore, and Bank radley ? — A. He was not with me in 1859. That was the year the essel was new. Q. In 1859 or 1860 did you get any men at the island ? — A. Not in 859. Q. In 1860 1 — A. I don't know whether we had an island man in 1860 I never we* Hot. lothing, 80 Q. You may have had an island man alen Islaiijiink I had. Q. Will you swear you had not ? — A. a fishermai^e there (East Point). Q. Will you swear you had not an island man on board ? — A. No ; ecause I don't know where the men belong. Q. Will you swear that Kouald Macdonald was not on board your ves- 1 iu 1860 ? — A. No ; because I don't know where the men belong ; but uever got a man at the island and never fished round the island. Q. In the statement he made, he said, " We fished along to West ipe." — A. I never knew that vessels fished at West Cape. I never lew that mackerel ever played up West Cape. 1 would like to see man who ever caught any at West Cape. Q. You have said that mackerel have struck in at different points 138 F amounted tol } Bay of St. I look's share,! i, net, in onJ Is owned by I mths' trip tol High liuet'sl of mackerel,! High Uuer'sl \ nine vveeksl ear ? — A. for thelasll 16 mackeiej e taken inj L that the] re we nevei 0 catch flsll Yes. can fleet ?- fish, are now difl on the oil Bradley ?- experience have bee your havin m and 180 iu I860?— A. I don't hardly I will swear I never shipped I was in tie 1 irard Island, htUeurs; then 'IHIll % , 7 111 2194 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. and that captains don't fish on the old gronnds ? — A. I would lilce to seel a man who caught macicerel there during the years I was in the bay. Q. West Cape is opposite to the New Brunswiclc sliore ? — A. Yos. Q. Is not Miminegash between North Cape and West Cape ?— A. l| don't know the name. Q. Would you be surprised to know that the best fishing at Prince Edward Island this year is at Miminegash, between West Cape amll North Cape? — A. I don't know but that it may be. When I went tol the bay I never knew any mackerel caught up that way. Q. Point it out on the map. — A. The place you mention is wliat mi called French Village. There used to be mackerel iu there once iual while. The year of the gale I heard about mackerel being caught there. Q. That is within a very few miles of West Cape ? — A. From 15 to 20 miles. That is as far as I have heard of mackerel being caught up tberej except at Cape Egmont Bay, where boats take them. Q. At what parts of the island were flsh caught in your dfiy ? — A. heard of none being caught there except along the north side. Q. You heard they were caught along the north side? — A. Yes; bull I never fished there. Q. Do you wish to imply that there is the slightest doubt that fish were caught along the north side ? — A. There were fish caught ou tbg north side. I spoke vessels which had caught them there. Q. You heard that from American captains? — A. \"es. Q. Do you know Capt. Chivirie ? — A. Yes. Q. Is he a respectable man ? — A. He was with me as a boy. He \ni then eighteen or twenty years old. Q. Had he been fishing four or five years before he went with you •- A. Yes ; out of Newburyport. Q. Then he was a somewhat experienced fisherman ? — A. I dou'l know. Q. After three or four years' fishing, if a man is smart, he is coal sidered an experienced fisherman ? — A. Yes. Q. Captain Chivirie gave his testimony, and I will call your attentioij to it. He said : "In 1852 I was in the Rio del Norte." Before 1 reaj that portion of Captain Chivirie's testimony, do I understand you con rectly with regard to Margaree ? You fished several times from Clietil camp to Margaree ? — A. Yes. Q. I understood you to say that all the fish you caught there werj caught within a short distance of the shore ? — A. What I caught i those years. Q. What you caught at Margaree and on Cape Breton shore wci caught inshore ? — A. I told you what years I caught these there. Q. Did you catch what you caught there within three miles of tlil shore? — A. Those years I caught them. In the year I caught 130 ba( rels in the Rio del Norte, I caught them ofl^' shore. Q. I want to know whether the mackerel caught by you at Margaiej and along the Cape Breton coast from Cheticamp to Margaree werj taken within three miles of the shore ? — A. All of them ? No. Q. Then I misunderstood you. You stated in answer to Mr. Fosti!| I thought, that at Margaree Island in 1858, in the Queen of Clipiieri you caught 100 barrels inshore ? — A. Y^es. Q. Were all these 100 barrels taken inshore? — A. About all those. Q. And iu 1851, in the Rio del Norte, 100 barrels at Margaree \vei| taken inshore? — A. Not 100 barrels. I had 280 barrels, and I AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2195 enough to make 350. I was in a gale of wind with 280 barrels and the rest 1 tilled up at Margaree. Q. Those you caught at Margaree you caught inshore ? — A. Yes. Q. In 1856, the third trip, you caught 75 or 100 barrels inshore at I Jlargtaree ? — A. I uaught 215 barrels inshore at Margaree. Q. What year was that ?— A. In 1864, 1 think. The year I got 1,500 I barrels. Q. I am referring to 1850. You took 75 or 100 barrels inshore [at j Margaree ! — A. Yes. Q. Were all those taken at Margaree taken inshore ? — A. Yes. Q. In 1854, on the second trip, you caught 350 barrels, one-half of I which were taken at Margaree ? — A. 215 barrels. Q. Were they taken inshore ? — A. Yes. Q. Then all that were taken about Margaree, and from there to Cheti- I camp, were taken inshore ? — A. Yes ; all but that one time in Rio del Xorte. I did not take those inshore. Q. There was one exception ? — A. Yes ; that time. Q. What was the year ? — A. No man could catch any inshore that year, 1852 ; the year I lost the vessel. Q. Was there anything special about the mackerel in the gulf that year ? — A. I was only in a little while. I went in late in the fall, caught mackerel, got ashore, and lost the vessel. Q. That year — 1852 — how many did you catch in the Eio del Xorte ? — A. 130 barrels. Q. You did not come to the bay till September ? — A. Some time in September. Q. You got ashore, and abandoned the voyage ? — A. Yes. Q. Was there any conversation between you and Chivirie about his chartering a British vessel ? — A. No. Q. Can you recollect distinctly ? Do you undertake to swear distinctly there was no such conversation ? — A. Y'es. Q. Why do you recollect there was no such conversation ? —A. Because such a thing as chartering a British vessel I never thought of. Q. Were not the cutters there that year? — A. Yes. Q. Were you not kept out of the inshore limits ? — A. We were. Q. Js it a thing impossible that such a conversation should have taken place, and that you should have desired to get one of your men to charter a British vessel, and so enable you to fish inshore with impunity ? — A. There were not any mackerel inshore that year. Q. Not in 1852 ?— A. No. Q. Do you remember the catches made by different vessels in 1852 ? -A.. By the time I got in the bay it was late. I know English vessels were fishing inshore, and we fished outside the line ; and they would try inshore in the morning and come out to where we were. It was mackerel picking. Q. Did the cutters run up every day marking the three-mile line ? — . lie staid there till night every day. He would lay off where the fleet was. Q. Why did you not go away out into the bay ? — A. Because that jwas the only place where we could get any fish. Q. How large was the fleet there ? — A. Not over 30 or 40 sail. Q. Tliat was right round Port Hood ? — A. Down at Margaree. (l And he was staying at Margaree ? — A. He would run down every lomiiig — either the steamer or the schooner ; then there was a barge Broad Cove. When he ran down his distance he would heave his opsuil back and lie to till the afternoon, then go to Port Hood. '^'-m 'i'Ja'j 2196 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. When he did that, did you not cross the three-mile line ?— A. No- because if there had been any fish inshore, no doubt I would have gone! Q. Had you any scruples about crossing the line f — A. None at all! I knew that the English vessels found no flsh inshore. Q. If there were no flsh inshore and you were fishing outside and found flsh there, what necessity was there for the cutter to run down to show you the three mile line every morning? — A. He ran every day. Q. And told you he would go every day and so mark the line ?— -A. He told me he ran the three-mile line. Q. If there were no flsh inshore, where was the necessity for that?— A. He was on that station and had always to stay there. Q. You took particular notice of the line ? — A. I took notice euougli not to go inside at all. Q. How far out of it did you keep ? — A. Half a mile, perhaps a mile, perhaps a quarter of a mile ; I times. Q. You never let the bow of was there. -A. We had no occasion. There were They did not get many that might be right alongside of it some- the vessel cross it ? — A. Not when be this Commission We then Q. When he was not there ?- not many mackerel inshore or off shore, fall. Q. I will read you part of the statement made befoi by Captain Chivirie. He said : In 1852 I was in the Rio del Norte. We made one trip on the American coast, left tliat coast and came down the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. Q. And who was her captain ? — A. Andrew Layton, of Gloucester. Q. A very experienced fisherman ? — A. Yes. Q. You came down to the bay to fish ? — A. We went out on the American coast. Tho vessel was of rather small size ; she was aboi't sixty tons, I think, and this is the reasou why we went out on the American coast. We found the lish to be very small, though tlieie were a great many in that quarter. Tr. ' ' ■"■■I- i-M '■'^m 2200 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Then yon snbtrnot from that what the mackerel sold for, which leaves $12,581.87 ?— A. Yoh. Q. I SCO you have marked this, net stock ? — A. Yes. Q. What is then to be deducted out of that? — A. Out of the vessers half is to be taken the cost of salt and provisions. OneliaU' of tlic re- sult goes to the crew, and then the cost of salt, and provisions, and mu. Ding expenses of the vessel are to be paid. Q. Then you divide the 812,581.87 into two parts ?— A. Yes. Q. And out of the vessel's part come certain charges, and out of the crew's part certain other charges ? — A. Nothing comes out of tlio crew's part save the cost of ])acking. Q. Then one-half of the $12,581.87 is to be divided among the crow J — A. Yes. Q. What is to be paid out of the half which belongs to the vessel ?-- A. Well, it will cost about $2,000 to run her, I guess. It would tuko | somewhere about that sum. Q. Before anything goes to the vessel ? — A. Y^es. It may coat more I some years, but that is about a fair average, I guess. Q. Then the expression, net stock, means the proceeds of the sale of I the mackerel less the cost of packing the maclcerel and of the bait.'— | A. Yes. By Sir Alexander Gait : Q. I understand you to say that it costs about $2,000 to run the ves- self— A. Yes. By Mr. Foster : Q. What does the 82,000 which you estimate as the owner's ex- 1 penses consist of ? — A. It goes for salt and provisions, and other things | which are required to run the vessel. Q. What is needed for this besides salt and provisions? — A. You I have to buy some rigging and other things like that, which run up tol $300 or $400. Q. Taking out this $2,000 from the vessel's half, the rest goes to pay I the owner of the vessel for insurance and interest ? — A. I do not know J about insurance ; the $2,000 might cover it all. I think that this covers I the insurance for four months some years. Advantage for this purpose f is taken of a mutual oCliue, and the cost depends on the result. Q. Is that voyage, of which you have given us the particulars, one of j your best 1 — A. No ; I have done a little better than that sometimes. Q. Which voyage did you ever make which was better than this one !| — -A. In the Battler, the last year, I made a better voyage. I then got| 1,510 barrels. Q. Do you remember any other voyage which resulted better thaiil this one ? — A. No ; I could not get the particulars of the other one meu-f tioued, the man with whom I packed having gone away. He had giveaj up the fishing business, else I would have got the particulars of thatj voyage. Q. I notice some catches on the United States coast which were pretty] satisfactory to the owners and all concerned : Schooner SeddieC. Pylo, Capt. Riclmrd Warren, in 1871, packed 1,070 barrels mackerel! caught oflf this shore in addition to 18,000 southern mackerel sold fresh in New York iu tiie| Bpring. Her net stock for the year was $10,561.6(3. High-liner's share, .§491.38; cook'i Bnare, $708.52. Owned by George Friend «fc Co. A. Yes. Q. Would that be a correct statement of the voyage as far as yoii| know ? — A. Yes ; that is correct. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2201 Q. Then there was the — Schooner Gnrokn, CaptHln Kuwo, in lHii8, in six montlis miielr'8 Hharo, !(irtl).^''-2; cooit's libsre, !£(I73.7U. Owned by timitb He Uutt luid tho master. Q. Is that a correct statement apparently ? — A. Yes. Q. When you said that one of your vessels stocked i^SjOOO last year, |diftt did you mean ?— A. I cleared 8i">,0U0. * Q. What do you mean by that ? — A. I had that amount of money [clear after paying all expenses. Q. That was not tho not stock, but you made 85,000? — A. Yes; she Istocked about $17,000. Q. Then your vessel that seined last summer stocked $17,000 ? — A. Q. What was her net stock ? — A. That was about tho net stock. She Iran fresh mackerel. When you run fresh mackerel you take the cost of Ibe lee out of the whole stock — the gross stock. A vessel always has Isomething to come out of it, and that brought what was cleared down to |$5,0U(). {}. I would like yo« to tell me what is the most money you over made En your business in all its branches in any one year in your life i — A. Ilheyear I had the Blue Jacket I had another vessel, the Jlattler ; she [packed ^ little over. 1,000 barrels that year, I think. Green has it on lis books now. I sold the vessel, and I guess I likely made $ 10,000 Ihat year. Q. That was your best year; the 810,000 includes the profit you made in the sale of the vessel ; your two vessels did remarkably well that jjear, and one of them you yourself commanded ? — A. Y'^es. Q. You put in your own time ? — A. Yes. Q. What was the most money wiiich you ever made in any one year int of your catch of mackerel in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ? — A. That |ifa8 the year. Q. What is the most money you ever made out of tho catch of a ves- |(el which you commanded in one year ? — A. I could not tell you. In 1 Kattler that year I got 1,510 barrels, but I could not tell you how Imich I made out of it. If, however, I had the statement for that year, [ could do so. Q. Going outside the profit you made on the sale of your vessel, could iron give the Commission an estimate of the average which you made plug those years when you were -skipper, going for mackerel to the alf to flsh If Y'ou were a very successful fisherman, in command of kood vessels, and you had a series of lucky years ; and if you could give pe average amount of money which yon made during these years, I »ould like to have it. — A. I suppose that I may have cleared about 1(1,000 a year, all the year round, in ray^ whole business. J Q. Do you mean over and above family expenses ? — A. Yes ; about pt, and during 20 years. Q. Would you put down your family expenses, on the average, as pl,000 more a year? — A. They would be something like that, I guess. Q. Then you have made about $2,000 a year on the average, out of ^liicb you have paid your family expenses ? — A. Yes. Q. During the examination of Captain Chivirie, he was asked : I Q. You came down to the bay to fish ? — A. We went out on the American coast. Is that correct ? — A. Yes. Q. " The vessel was of rather small size ; she was about sixty tons, I |iuk, and this is the reason why we went out on the American coast." IMip iifeiir' 2202 AAVARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. What do you say about that ? — A. That is not correct. The vessel was as large as the average thou in use. I used to go to Georges Jiank it her, and everywhere. I vent in her to Georges Bank all the yeai-S round, never hauling up in December, January, or at any other iiuie. Q. " We found tlie fish to be very small, though there were a groat many in that quarter." How is that? — A. They were small and thtyl fetched a low price. Q. " In about four weeks we caught one hundred and ten barrels, audi having landed them, we had repairs made, and fitting out, came dowaf the bay, where most of the fleet was." — A. That is correct. Q. " We fished between Port Ilood and Cheticamp." — A, That is cor- rect. Q. " We made all our trip there, and were about fourteen or filteeiij days on that part of the coast." — A. That is correct. Q. '• When we first came to Port Ilood we found a cutter in the bay.' — A. That is correct. Q. "A large fleet was there, but wo did not mind the cutter or aiij*. thing else." — A. That is not correct. Q. What part of it is incorrect? — A. That which relates to not miiid-S ing the cutter. We did mind her, for if there had been no cutter there we ^rould have tried inshore. Q. Was there a large fieet there ! — A. No, not very large. There wertj about 30 sail of vessels. • Q. " The captain says, ' I am going to have mackerel.' " Do you re-j member that ? — A. No ; I do not. Q. You perhaps know rvhether you were likely to tell this young feH low of 18 or 20 your plans in that way ? — A. 1 did not do so. Q. "And we got them anyhow; and we succeeded." AYhat do you sajj to that? — A, We got 130 barrels and that was all. Q. '' In a fortnight we had caught two hundred and thirty or forty barrels. We saw the cutter for a few days several tiuies and we keplj out of Port Hood Harbor"? — A. We never went to Port Hood after wd went down. We made harbor at Margaree Island. Q. " It seemed to be in the harbor of Port Hood almost every night ?. — A. Yes ; she used to go uj) there every night unless it was very pleas] ant, when she would lay off the island. Q. " We anchored under Margaret Island and Cheticamp, and made that a habor"? — A. That is correct. Q. *' We lay under the lee of these places"? — A That is correct. Q. " We caught the fish all inshore "? — A. That is not correct. Q. "There were no mackerel outside the three-mile limit"? — A. Tliaj is not correct. There were more mackerel insside than outside the limij where the English vessels were, I think. The English vessels would try inshore in the morning, when we would boar up and run out, and aloiij| about nine or ten o'clock they would come out ^'^here we were, and tliad made me think that there were no mackerel inshore — not but that tliorfj were plenty of them inshore after the gale. Q. " There were not five hundred barrels so caught"? Q. Oiits^Je the 3-niile limit ? — A. Outside of 2 miles. Q. Tliiit \Mis in the year ISVJ.' — A. Yes. ']''h<" big nmcherel struck into the shoiv, tljoi. there wci'o nmuy small mackerel outside, but imthiug save small mackerel about 7 iiiclns iCiigtb. A. That IS wrong. Q, " I would say that five hundred barrels of Uiackerel were not caugli| by the whole fleet outside " ? — A. That is not correct. Q. " We heaved to, and we kept out of the way of the cutter ?" — A. ^j AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2203 iticamp, and maila Lpt out of tbe way of tlic cutter becjause the cutter never troubled us, Ind that was because we kept outside of the limits. Q. " When we tbrow bait and there was oil about the vessel, the iaac'kerel followed her outside"? — A. I forget such things as those. Q. " There were schools of small mackerel in this part, but of big luiiickerel we could not get one outside ; in order to catch any lish we jiad to get inshore against the bank, very close to Cape lireton"? — |i, That is wrong. Q. " We had to watch our chance to get in, when the cutter was out Ijfthe way, iu order to catch our mackerer' '?— A. There was no chance |of getting inshore at all. Q. " In 1852 we got shipwrecked running ashore at Sonris"? — A. Ilbat is correct. Q. "We crossed to the island. We made 230 barrels" i~A. That is lot correct. Q, " Our main object was to charter a British vessel and put some jsfour experienced lishermen on her, so as to fish without any fear of the Itutters"? — A. I never thought of such a thing. Q. Did you ever speak of such a thing to any human being ?— A, to. Q. Had you the means to charter an English vessel? — A. Ko. Q. And after your vessel was wrecked you say that you sent for the Indti writers and came home ? — A. Yes. Q. What did you do with your 130 barrels of mackerel ? — A. 1 shipped lliem home in another vessel. Q, Did you try to fish any more up here that year! — A. No. Q. Did you make any arrangements to do so that year? — A. Xo. [IVlien that gale of wind commenced everybody got kind of frightened. lie water was stirred up and thick, and we all gave up and went home . By Mr. Dalies : Q. I think you said that the $2,000 which you put down for the ex- |peusesof the vessel includes everything for wear and tear, rigging, sup- i|ilies, insurance, and other vessel expenses ? — A. That is only a rongh pess. Q. But that is your estimate? — A. I think that it would be about Iktj if you reckon in the charter it would be about $1,000 more. We laid $1,000 for chartering a vessel that year. I Q. This $1,000 would be additional if you chartered a vessel ? — A. Q. You mentioned in your items of expense salt and provisions? — A. lies. Q. Aiu\ $300 or $100 for rigging, wear and tear ? — A. Yes, Q. Do you include these items in the $2,000 ? — A. I think that would lover them. By Mr. Foster : i}. What wear aiul tear do you mean ? — A. A vessel on a four uionthi' mt in the bay wears out sails and rigging ; and if you charter a vessel liid i>ay $1,000 for it, the charterer does not pocket $1,000 clear, as he psto keep ais vessel iu repair, which will cost $300 oi' $100. By Mr. Davies : <,'. Would not $250 a month be a fair price for the charter of a fishing- Ifcliuoner ? — A, I think so. By Sir Alexander Gait: Q. You have had a great exi»erieiuje iu these matters; and I would i%,^m£i I ft"-^, ,; 2204 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. like to ask you whether you do not thiuk that $2,000 is not a little to high for the purposes in question ? — A. I do not know but what it is. Q. How many men would there be on board a vessel ? — A. We carrieJ from 15 to 22 in the Wildfire and Blue Jacket. The cost of silt aiil bait mounted up to a prettj^ figure then, though this is not now tii| case. Q. One of the witnesses has told us that salt costs 90 cents a barrel] — A. That is now ; but in tke war times salt was high as well as cver;5| thing else. Q. Would you put down fo ' provisions for the crew about $1.51) I week per man 1 — A. Well, I guess that would not be far out of the 'vaj Xo. 22. Thursday, September 27, 1877. The Conference met. Aabon Eiggs, master-mariner, of Gloucester, Mass., was cnllod o behalf of the Government of the United States;, sworn himI <'\uiiiiiiod By Mr. Trescot : Question. How old are you ? — Answer. 57. Q. How long have you fished in the Gulf »>f St. Lawrence 1 — A. ^^ I first went there, I was 15 years old. Q. How long have you been going there as skipper ? — .\. I first wei as skipper in 1845. Q. In what vessel ? — A. The Deposit. Q. What was your catch that year ? — A. 130 barrels. Q. Whereabouts were they taken ? — A. We fished on Bank I i. Q. That was the only trip you made that year ? — A. Yes. Q. And you caught all your fish on Bank Bradley ? — A. Yes. Q. Were you in the bay in 1847 ? — A. Yes ; in another vessel. I w; not the skipper Q. When did you go to the bay again as skipper ? — A. In 1854. Q. Where were you fishing in 1847, '8, and '9? — A. I was fishing o our shore. Q. What sort of fishing did you have there during those years, as general rule ? — A. Well, we had pretty good fishing ; one year we gi between GOO and 700 barrels. I was no*^ skipper at the time. Q. When did you next go into the Gulf of St. Lawrence ! — A. I wi there in 1854. Q. Were you not there in 1850 ? — A. Yes ; in 1850 and 1851 1 was i the bay, but I was not skipper. Q. What vessel were you in during 1850 ? — A. The Gazelle. Q. Where did you fish ?— A. We caught our fish between Point E cuminac and North Cape. Q. What did you catch? — A. Wa made 2 trips, and caught 240 or 2! barrels on the first and i75 barrels on the second. Q. Did you fish inshore on any of those occasions? — A. 'So; notwitli 3 miies of the shore. Q. Were yon in the bay in 1851 1 — A. Yes ; and made two trips. Q, Where did you catch your fish ! — A. About North Cape. Q. At what distance from it?— A. Ten or 15 miles, and maybe: miles. Q. Were you in the bay in 1852 ? — A. No. Q. Or in 1853 ?— A. No. Q. Were you there in 1854 ? — A. Y'^es. IQ. lotte ieu 1 h Q. nit? ID di' iore (Q.; ur Q. ] Irpha Q. J oil tl imel W( 1H7I lii II es. Q. ^ m 0 S.oiir fMa oil of ly thi w. Q. A *u, what propor- of your fish did you take within the 3-niile liiniL * — A. 1 could not liytliat we caught more than one-twelfth p.uL there while 1 was in the lav, Iq, What was the best fishing which you did during that time? — A. fe always did our best fishing over at the Magdalen Islands. I got as gli as 110 wash-barrels, or about 125 barrels at one time, aud 900 bar- |ls (hiring mj' best trip these years. Q. When was that ?— A. In'l8i;i. jQ. In what vessel were you at the time ? — A. The Galena. |(). How many trips did you make that year? — A. We only made one i before we landed 30u barrels in the gut. We carried them all home lii'selves. Q, And thut year you caught '••K) barrels ? — A. l>s. Iq. What was the nearest api)roiich that you nnide to that catch dur- jgtlie other years? — A. The next year we got 050 barrels. K'. Where were the 900 barrels mostly taken ? — A. To the nor'ard of le Magdalen Islands. Iq. And the next year you caught 050 barrels ?— A. Yet? ; w : ^c 350 lout iiortii west and about laiul. IQ. \Yith your exi)erience of the fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, )you attach much value to the privilege of fishing within the 3-mile anv fish within that limit save )0 aud 1851 I was! 75 miles from East Point, Prince Edward caught ait J— No ; I do not. 1 never [:y few, IQ. When fishing in the gulf, what was your experience with regard "S;:'3?S'o; I was from 10 to 15 miles oft' shore. Q. Did you never come inshore and drift off there when you had a llieeiise? — A. When I had a license we never tried inside of the three- Liile limit. The first year I had a license I only tried two or tliree times [ihere, and then went over to the Magchden Islands and Bank Bradley. Q. You never tried oft' Tignish ? — A. No. Q. Nor oft' North Cape ?— A. No. Q. Then, with one exception, when you tried inshore between the two I'liapcla, you never went within three miles of the shore at Prince Ed- jward Island to fish ? Will you make that assertion before the Commis- sion! — A. I never caught any fish there within the three-mile limit. We might have been within this limit, but I do not think that we were. Ilbree miles on the water is a short distance. Q. When you were or might have been within three miles of the jbore there, did you catch any fish '. — A No. We drifted seven or eight I miles oft'. Q. And you caught fish 7 or S niiles oft' shore ? — A. Y''es. (^ Did you draw mackerel with you from the shore ? — A. The mack- |eiel were not there in the first place when we hove to. (^ Did you ever hear of vessels coming within 1 or 1 A miles of the lislaiid, throwing out bait, drifting oft' and catching fish 1 — A. I never did l-save as to boats. Q. Did you ever hear of Auu'rican vessels running in to within 2 miles lor U miles or a mile, or about that of tlie islaiul shore with the ol)ject pt'tishing, throwing out bait, and then drifting oft', fishing as they went ? — U. No. (}, You did that once yourself off Two Chapels ? — A. I hove to and iJiilted oft', but we did not get any mackerel until we were G miles oft'. Q. And from 10 to "20 vessels were then doing the same thing ? — A. lYea. . How often did you repeat that practice the same year ? — A. We iiiglit have done so that day once or twice, and then we ran oft' to some [other place. Q. It was only one day during which you tried it ? — A. Yes. Q. And you have only bad one day's fishing within 3 miles of the Isbore of Prince Edward Island ? — A. Yes. Q. You are quizzing me about the 3 mile limit. — A. No, I am not. Q. Had you more than one day's fishing within 3 miles of the island Icoiist ? — A. I do not think that I did. . And you never caught any fish within 3 miles of Prince Edward Island ? — A. I never did, round the Island. Q. Not even the day you went inshore near Two Chapels and drifted ff.' — A. No. I call it six miles oft' whore I caught fish then. Q. Then you only tried once inshore oft' Prince Edward Island ? — A. lYfs. We were then within or about three miles oft', I calculate. . Til all your fishing experience, that was the only time when you Itiiod -.vithin three miles of the Prince Edward Ishuid shore U — A. Yes — ritiiiii what I call three miles. Q. Your three miles must be tlie same as mine? — A. Of course. I Q. Is there any ditficalty in telling when you are three miles oft' the plaiid coast ? — A. I never measured it save with my eye, and I never cal- klated getting within three miles of the land, especially when the steam- jers were there. 139 F ij^i-ii? K^k '•••V 2210 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Especially' when the cutters were there ? — A. Well, I never did so they used to riiu up and duwn, three miles oti' shore, and we used to &» outside of that. Q. During the whole term of the Keciprocity Treaty, or nearly so a all events, you were tishing in the Bay of St. Lawrence ? — A. Yos. Q. And then you had a right to tlsh within three miles of the shore ? A. Yes. Q. Do I understand you to say that during this period you neve dshecl within three miles of the island coast ? — A. Yes. Q. I understand you to say that ever since you have flaiied in tli bay, you never tished within three miles of Prince Edward Island, wit one exception ? — A. Yes. Q. Is there any doubt in your mind as to where the threeiniic lin runs ? — A. It is hard to tell where it runs unless you measure th«^ di tauce. When you do so with your eyes, you have to go by your jiulg. meut. Q. In i)oint of fiict. Captain Itiggs might have been within the tlireei mile limit, but did not think that this was the case ? — A. 1 do not thin that he was. Q. Might jou have been ? — A. I might have been if I measured it; suppose you could not tell anything about it. Q. You might have been ; but you did not measure it ; and I supposi that you would not be very particular about it if you were catdiiii fish ? — A. As long as we were catching tish I did not trouble myself aboiil it, since I knew that we were six miles off shore. The steamer used ti run up about three miles off shoie, and we always used to tish outside her. Q. But there was no steamer so running during the lleciprocit Treaty? — A. No; but we never tished round there during that tinie. Q. When von had a right to go inshore and fish you did not go '!—: No. Q. You have fished about the Cape Breton shore ? — A. Yes. Q, Tliis would be towards the fall of the year ? — A. Yes ; I biggest part of a trip there. Q When do the mackerel strike the Cape Breton shore '? — A tober. Q. Do the fleet fish much there in October ? — A. They used to do so but of late years they have not caught any tish there at ail. Q. Have you tried of late years there ; — A. No. Q. Uave you been there of late years i — A. No ; not since 1SG7. Q. Then you cannot tell whether fish are caught there or not ?— .' Well, I have never heard of anybody catching them thus. Q. But before that you did ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you catch your whole fare there « — A. Not quite. Q. How many barrels did you take there '! — A. About -*03. Qr When was this ?— A. In 1867, Q. Was thfit the ouly time that you ever caught fish there ? — A. Yei Q. Perhaps it was the only time you ever tried there f — A. No. Q. Did you try there every year f — A. No ; I may have been there dozen times from first to last. 1 cannot speak more particularly outli point. Q. Do you believe that you have tried there a dozeu times ?— A. have done so for mackerel, but I never got any there save once. Q. And that was when you caught about 200 barrels there ? — A. Yi Q. You never caught any at all there on the other occasions ?— No ; I don't recollect of having done so. got till In Od Q. ceute 110 ci make told to be AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2211 eriod you lunoi f I measured it ; shore ?— A. In Od her occasious .-A Q. Where did you try there ? — A. We used to try all the way up and dowu. We used to catch all our mackerel between East Point and the Magdalen Islands. Q. Bid j'ou try in Cape North Bay ? — A. Xo. Q. Name the places where you tried. — A. We did so about Cheticamp and Margaree. Q. Is this the place where you think you tried about twelve times ? — A. Off and on, yes, at different times. Q. IIow close to the shore did you try ? — A. Sometimes Ave and some- times four miles oft'. Q. And you never tried within the three-mile limit except once? — A. I do not think that I did. Q. And then you caught 200 barrels? — A. We caught them outside of the three-mile limit, I expect ; they were taken at a i)lace called Broad Cove. Q. That is to the southward of ^Nlargaree ? — A. Yes. (J. IIow far from the shore were you when you caught 200 barrels there? — A. We might have been 2.i or 3 miles or so off. Q. You just told me that you did not catch any withiu the three-mile limit ? — A. I do not think, however, but that we were three miles oft". Q, What, then, do you mean by telling me that you caught them 2J or 3 miles otl'? — A. Some we got outside the limits and some inside. I cannot tell exactly or give a fair statement about it ; I never measured the distance. Q. We know that no fisherman measures it ; but, as an experienced mariner, you are able to form a judgment on the matter. Now tell us fiiinkly what proportion of the 200 barrels you caught within the three- mile limit. — A. It might have been 150. Q. And the rest might have been taken outside ? — A. Yes. Q. And that was the only time when you tished there within three miles of the shore ? — A. It was. Q. And for a very short time yon fished 4 or o miles off tliQ Cape Breton shore and caught nothing ? — A. Yes ; we just tried, but did not; lish in there because there were no fish there. Q. And you have been fishing all these years in the bay, and you have never tried but once within three miles of the Prin(!e Edward Island coast ? — A. Y''es. Q. You never fished in the Bay of Chaleurs or oft' the West Shore, within three miles of the coast, and never but once within three miles of the Cape Breton shore. How -often did vou take out licenses ? — A. Twice. Q. Why did you take them out ? — A. I did so at the request of the owners, else I should not have taken them out. Q. Who were the owners ? — A. George Norwood was the owner of tbe Jolin Bright. Q. Why did the owners do so ? They must have known that you never caught any fish within the three-mile limit. — A, They wanted to be safe. Cutters were round, and they did not know where we would fish. 1 told them that it was of no use, but they insisted on it, and so I I took them out. Q. If you always fished around the Magdalen Islands, and in the I center of the Bay of Chaleurs, and on Bradley and Orphan Banks, where 110 cutters were, why did you want licenses? — A. Well, that did not make any odds. If they told me to take them out I had to do so. I told them where I commonly fished, but they said tbey wished licenses to be taken out. tm ''-ij:;,;,-!^' r 2212 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Excuse mo ; it was not where you commonly flslied, but wImmc yon invariably flslied. — A. Yes ; about every year that 1 have flshed in tlie bay, I have fished round the Magdalen Islands and on Bank liiadU'v. Q. In all your experience, you only fished twice within throe miles of the shore in the bay ; and iiotwithstainliu{j that fact you took out licenses, though you had invariably fished in the deep sea where ycii ran no risk — those two times excepted. Does not that strike you as being a little curious? — A. No; I do not think that there is anything curious about it. Q. What was the si/e of the vessels in which you fished during tlip two years when you took out licenses?— A. One was 132 tons, and tbe other, I think, 51 tons. Q. Suppose that you were cruising along the coast of Cape Breton when you had no license, and saw fine fishing within the limits, would you have kept out or would you have gone in and taken fish ? — A. I j cannot tell anything about that. Q. What is your opinion about it ? — A. I do not think I should have| gone in if the cutters were round, or any such thing as that. Q. But if the cutters were not round ? — A. I should not have gone | in ; I should not have known anything about it. Q. You would not then have measured the distance you were from the I shore to see whether the school was within three miles of the shore oi I not?— A. Yes. Q. How would you have measured it ? — A. With my eye. Q. What do you think would have been the result; would it liavcj been that you were 3 J miles from the shore ? — A. The cutters took ves sels 7 or 8 miles off. Q. Don't you thiidv that that amusing eye of yours would have niade| the distance 3^ or 3^ miles? — A. No; 1 do not think it would. Q. During the years when you came down to the bay, how niaiivl Gloucester vessels came to the Gulf of St. Lawrence? Take the tiiiiej •when the lieciprocity Treaty was in force. — A. There were 250 or 300:1 about 250, I guess, or 275, or along there ; that would be as many a^l were there. Q. Y'ou say you would prefer a duty being imposed on our mackerel to the right to fish inshore in British waters ? — A. I should. Q. Why do you want a duty on ? — A. It is no benefit to us to fish in | shore that I ever saw. Q. Why do you want it on ? — A. Well, we would have a better mar | ket for our fish. Q. Would you get a higher price for them ? — A. We should ; yes. Q. And therefore you are speaking as a fisherman ; as such yoiii would like to get the highest price you could for your fish ? — A. Cerf tainly. Q. You think that the imposition of a duty would give you a betteij market?- -A. Yes; if Canadians had to pay the duty, it is likely tbej[ would not fetch the fish in. Q. What would be the result of that? — A. We would have a higbeij price and a quicker market. Q. You would have a higher price ? — A. I do not know that would be the case, or anything about it; but it would be a quicker luaij ket for us. Q. I see that you fished chiefly in the bay ; you did not often gooij the American coast to fish ? — A. I fished there some years. Q. But very few apparently ? — A. For several years I did so, I guesi One year I was in the bay, and went out with 100 barrels; and tbei^ fished on our coast, where 1 got 500 l>arrels. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2213 I, but wlh've you A-e tisbed in the I Bank HrailU'y. II three milea of t you took out p sea where you at strike you as ere is any thing shetl duriiiK the 32 tons, aiul tbe : of Cape Breton the limits, would ,keu fish ?— A. I j nk I shouUl have | » that. I not have goue rou were from tlie I s of the shore oi | y eye. t; would it have ; cutters took ves would have luaile it would. B bay, how many e? Take the time e were 250 or 300 Id be as mauy as A on our mackerel ihould. stit to us to tisli in lave a better luai 7e should ; yes. lau ; as such you our fish ?— A. Cer give you a better y, it is likely tbey >uld have a higlie ot know that tlii li be a quicker im»i lid not ofteu go o vears. rs I did so, I gues barrels ; and tbei Q. I understand that from 1850 down to 1872 you fished invariably in the bay every year? — A. Yes; but I was not captain the whole time. Q. And during those years you were not, of course, on your own coast ? — A. Yes ; some years. Q. Between 1850 and 1872 J — A. Yes ; I fished on our coast after wo' went out of the bay. (). Every year ? — A. No; not every year. Q. But some, years you did so ? — A. Yes. Q. What catches did you there make in the fall after you loft tho bay '? — A. One fall we got 200 barrels. i}. Is that a high or low catch for the fall ?— A. ft was just about an average catch that fall, I think. Q. Possibly; but is that a fair average of the catches you made dur- ing different falls on the American coast ? — A. Well, no. Q. Would 00 barrels be under the average !— A. Xo ; I guess about 10(t barrels would be an average catch there in October. (}. Did you ever fish about Grand ^lanan ? — A. No. (}. You were never on that coast at all ?— -A. No. (i>. Have you ever heard of the fisheries there '. — A. I have heard tell of lishiiig on the Grand ]\[anan Banks. {}. What was said about it i — A. I heard of the catch of codfish there. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg: (}. You said during cross-examination, there was one time when you were in the bay, but stayed only a short time and went out. I under- stood you to say tiiat you remained there about three weeks / — A. Yes. (}. When did you then leave the bay ? — A. The first of September. Q. Did you do so because you did not catch any fish .' — A. Yes ; wo went in with a seine. (}. Did you ever fish off Rustico ? — A. No ; not broad off. Q. Have you ever been in the neighborhood of Kustico Bay ? — A. No. (^ Where do they fish oil' Kustico generally .' — A. The boats there fisU close inshore. Q. Where do the vessels fish there ? — A. I do not know. I do not know anything about the fishing oti' there. Q. Is it within the means of fishermen in the waters there to obtain intelligence about the fishing at thedift'erent localities which the mack- eiel frequent, without visiting these places themselves J If you were, tor instance, at the mouth of the Bay of Chaleurs, or in it, could you hear one day after another whether mackerel were to bo caught in cer- tain localities without visiting them ? — A. Yes. (J. Whether this is true or not as to the coast generally, is there not a sort of fisherman's telegraph passing intelligence from one vessel to another with respect to the different localities where the fish are ? — A. Yes, sometimes this is the case. Q. So you can learn whether the mackerel are in certain localities without visiting them ? — A. Yes; we speak with other vessels, and they will give us such information. No. 23. John J. Roave, fisherman, of Gloucester, was called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Dana : Question. W^ere you born in Gloucester ? — Answer. Y^'es. Q. When did you first go fishing ? — A. Somewhere in 1811 or 184:2, I ili"Hii, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // <^^ 1.0 I.I '•• Bi a 2.2 u& IIIIIM 1.8 1.25 ||.4 i^ < 6" - ► Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 145B0 (716) 872-4503 31 f/i 2214 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. think. I was bat a youngster at the time, and I went fishing on our | Q shore. Q. How did you do that year ? — A. Not much of anything. Prob- ably during the whole season '"^e got 150 or 200 barrels; the mackerel were not very plentiful that year. The next voyage I made was iu 1842 in the bay, in the Tremont. Q. IIow much did you then take ? — A. VVe packed out 47 barrels. Q. For how many did you tit out ? — A. About 250 barrels. Q. What was the trouble ? — A. There were no fish in tlie bay. Q. How long did you stay there ? — A. We went out on the 8th of July, and we arrived home on the 8th of November. Q. Where did you try in the bay ? — A. W« tried in every possible part of the bay where the fish went ; then we did not go up above Gaspt^, but around Banks Bradley and Orphan. Q. And the Magdalen Islands? — A. Tes; and to all the oft'sliore grounds where the fish were generally found. Q. Were there many American vessels in the bay then ? — A. The fleet was very few in number. Q. They had not begun to send large fleets into the bay at that time? — A. O, no ; very few Gloucester vessels were then there iu my recol- lection. ► Q. And the American vessels then in the bay were not very many ?— A. They were very few. Most of the American vessels which were then sent to the bay came from Newburyport. Our fleet had not begim to increase much then. Q. Where were you fishing from 1843 to 1854 ? — A. On our shore. Q. How did you do on the whole? — A. We did generally a fair busi- ness ; the fishery there was better then than it is now. Q. What did you catch ? — A. Mackerel and codfish ; during the early part of the season we fished for cod on George's Bank, and during the latter part of it we fished round our coast. Q. Did you try in the bay at all during those 11 years from 1S43 to 1854 ? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Between 1843 and 1854, did you go into the bay at all ? — A. [ did. Q. When did you do so ? — A. In 1851. Q. Were you there at the tiui« of the gale? — A. Yes; I was there with James Pattillo. Q. How much did you take that year? — A. We packed out somewhere about 480 barrels. Q. Where were they caught ? — A. Sorue of them broad off Gaspe and on Banks BraUey and Orphan, and along there. We fished more to the nor'ard then than now ; I do not think we caught any of them at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Where were you at the time of the gale? — A. In the bight of the island ; we got about 7 leagues from the shore that night before the gale came on. It was all of that distance off, and we were in 27 fathoms of water. Q. That gave you an effing of over twentv miles ? — A. Yes ; we were right off St. Peter's. Q. What did you do when the gale came on ? — A. That morning when it was blowing heaviest we laid to under a reefed foresail. We found that the tide, which was running fast, was taking us into the *>ight of the island, and we laid to under a two-reef foresail. Q. Is there only a tworeef foresail ? — A. We have what is called a second, third, and first reef. And y |j>D(l. Q. What Irind makes IjDto the bigl Q. So besi [Tes ; right i cttrrent. Q. How is General thinj Cape and Ca |o9 so shoal. Q. Is there [mile bar at tl fathoms of w Q. Taking Ifeet of water, leather ? — A il Is it sal 'there ?— A. I loft North Cai Itlien. i). How fai ISiturday nigi Q. What w Iheaditig to th and that was were seen uea lofthem was t )() barrels of lafterwards foi Q. Would : do not thini Q. Did you Ifor running th Sdotian by bii over the brea [or 13 fathoms Tlje w.nd was Q. IIow ma Q. What di rels, which W( Q. And on rels. Q. Were ar isb around P Banks, and u Q. In what Wla, I think, Q. How dii Q. When d Q. How ma Q. How mil 1240 or 250 bai Q. Did you Did you AWARD OF THE FISHER K COMMISSION. 2215 Q. And you drifted !— A. We kept driftiug and dragging in on the lland. Q. What is the effect of the wind on the tide tliere ?— A. When the ■find inalces right in from the east, northeast, and east, it sets the tide liDto tlie bight of the island. (J. So besides the wind you have a tide running into the bight ? — A. iTes ; right in. The wind drives the water right in and creates a strong [current. (J. How is the shore there, shoal or deep? — A. It is very shoal as a Ifeneral thing along: the whole of Prince Edward Island ; between North jcape and Cape Kih«;«r ; you cannot anchor within a mile of land, it runs iff so shoal. Q. Is there a bar up off North Cape ? — A. There is what we call a three- hile bar at this point; and outside of that it is shoal, there being Ave Ifatlioms of water. Q. Taking one of our largo ships of 100 tons, drawing from 8 to 12 Ifeet of water, is it safe for them to go rear North Capo in time of heavy Iiieatiier? — A. A 100-ton vessel now draws from 12 to 14 feet of water. (^>. Is it safe for a vessel . How many seasons ? — A. Eight seasons. (^ From 1807 to 1874 inclusive ?— A. Yes. Q. Were you in the bay every year of those years ? — A. I was not. In 1870 and 1871 I was on our own shore. Q. In 1870 jon were on the American coast. How much did you ake there If — A. We got somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 sea- Jairels — say 800 packed barrels. Q.' In 1871 what did you get ?— A. We caught about 700. Q. Which did you do l»est in, there or in the bay ? How did those I'fo years on your own shore comiiare with the average in the bay ? — A. •"'•■"^l. mi ;»i;iC,| 2218 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. We got more stock out of those two years than any seasons I went iu that vessel. Q. But still you went back to the bay ? — A. Well, yes. I had every thing to contend with on our own shores after that. The seiners would go on the ground, and I would not have as good a chance. So we took a trip in the fall iu the bay. A number of these years I only went one trip. Q. Because you had ninde yonr first trip on our coast? — A. Yes. Q. In 1872, for instance, you made but one trip, I believe i — V. 'f.uu was the year of the gale. Q. Where did you go? — A. In '72? Where diil we make liurbor ? At the Magdalens we lost our cables and anchors, and went to Port Hood. Q. You could get into Port Hood ? — A. We ran ashore on the bench. We had to beach her, as we had nothing to anchor her with. Q. Now, in 1874 — that was, I believe, the last year you fished, was it not I You got how many barrels f — A. I think somewhere about — . | Q. Take the first trip ? — A. That was somewheres about 290 barrels. The second trip was something about 220. Q. Were you in the bend of Prince Edward Island at all ? — A. We | fished that year around Prince Edward Island altogether — from Fish ermcn's Bank, between that and Margaree, on the outlying ground. Q. Not within three miles ? — A. No. Q. You were not in the bend of the island? — A. What we call tlip| bend of the island is Malpeque. That is the deepest part of the island, Q. Did you fish within three miles in 1874 ? — A. Yes ; I did some- times. Q. Excepting that year did you? — A. I don't recollect catching fish I anywhere within the three-mile limit except that year. Q. How were the fish you did catch there ? — A. Well, out of 3()(i| headed barrels almost, at least 290 barrels, we only had 30 barrels of yo,| ones. Q. What season was that ? — A. It was in August, in the best season, | when they should have been good fish. Q. Since 1874 what have you been doing? — A. Working ashore. Q. Now, you have had an experience of eighteen seasons? — A. Eight I een seasons, and two seasons that I was home, made twenty that 1 wasj master. Q. And several seasons before you were master ? — A. O, yes ; I weut| on the water 3.5 years. Q. You must be well acquainted with that subject. What is the safcsti part of the gulf as respects vessels in storms or gales ? — A. The safest! ground to fi.sh in is the Magdalen Islands. Q. Is that u settled opinion, do you think ? — A. That is the settled! opinion of any reasonable man that ever took any notice of the lay of the land. There is no place anywhere around there that you can geJ caught in there quick, to make trouble. There is always a chance, aa we say, to scout. We can always run in under some lee or other. Thef extent of land from North Cape to East Point is OOodd miles. Bjj striking a line from North Cape to East Point you have a bend of 23j miles. Q. It is the fixed opinion that the Magdalens is the safest place ?— A^ Of course. Q. Now, what is the objection to the bend of Prince Edward Island except, perhaps, in midsummer, when there is no wind ? — A. It is onj of the hardest places. If you get caught in there, let a gale coiueoij AWARD OF THE FISUERV COMMISSION. 2219 mldcnly, east-northeant, or northeast, and the vessel that gets out there, jit is a long gale, has to have something more than sails. Q. Suppose she is five or six miles from land ; do yon include that! — Well, I do, if it conies on a sudden gale. It is impossible for her to iftont if there is a sudden gale. If that gale of 1872 had happened fith the fleet there that was at Magdalen Islands there would not have en less than seventy-five or eighty sail lost. It began about 9 o'clock mil by 12 it was blowing a hurricane. {}. i)o you know anything about what they call harbors of refuge? — Malpeque and Cascunipeque. Cascuniiieijue is no harbur. No Amer- All vessel of any si/.e will go in it. Q. Take the American vessels as they have been built for a number fvears past. Suppose they are loa7 to the present time, they draw all the way froui eight or tea to |iiirtt'en feet of water. I Q. in a gale of wind how would the bar Ite ? — A. You could not go. ^ssoon as the breeze begins to come up, three or four hours after it ^gins to blow, you cannot go into Cascunipeque at all. It is not safe lira vessel drawing over seven feet of water. Malpetpie is better. It a very fail harbor compared with the other. Within the last eight mine years it has become dangerous. Ciround has made up exactly itiie middle of the channel. There is only nine feet of water in it. I iriicU on there once. Iq. Does the bar shift ? — A. Xo ; but very little. At Cascunipeque it joes. [q. How do tiie people at Cascunipeque account for it shifting ? — A. k northeast wind changes the shape of the bar. K». Does icei attect it ? — A. 1 could not say. JQ. Now, when the mackerel attend inshore within three miles or so, llmt is that a sign of as to the fishing getierally ?— A. Well, when we pi tiieni right in among the rocks, we calculate to have a poor run mackerel. As a generfil thing, whdi they are that way, the boats get them when they cannot get enough for breakfast. The lisher- |eii have a way of calling them eclgrass mackerel. ]Q. Is the fact of mackerel setting in the sign of a poor year ? — A. It I as a general thing. When we get good catches we get them in deep later — a good fair depth. JQ. Did you buy any license ? — A. I never did. \(i. Why did you not ? — A. I thought the ditferen(!e was not worth the loiiey. I owned the half of one vosspl and the whole of another. There expenses enough without anything extra attached to the vessel. IQ. And you didn't try to ttsh inshore until after the Treaty of Wash- Igtou wentintooperatiou ? — A. No; therewasnothingto tempt inetofish pie. 1 have never known any flsh except those last years I was flsh- K there. IQ. That was .after the Treaty of Washington. Vou say the flsh you Iff there were poor ? — A. Yes. I would state the amount of stock we It ort" these two trips. I didn't tell you about this last year. It was 1,82(1 the vessel had, after all expenses of the voyage were paid, that ] paying for salt and bait, provisions, and everything. There was a jtle over $900 to pay for her expenses. JQ. Do you include insurance ? — A. No; insurance is not included. |Q. That left you $900 odd to divide ?— A. She had 1900 odd to pay r provisions, salt, insurance, and commission, provided the vessel was |aed by outside parties, but she was owned by myself, and therefore '■*; •'V: ':* 2220 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. I I take the commiH8ion out. I hud a oatch of 104 barrels — I and one of my boys. I lost $500 besideH the inuckerel thrown in. She lost $74H), Q. Now, when you speak of what a vessul nets at the time she divider! then half goes to the owner. He has to calculate not only insuruncJ and repairs, if there are any — the average rate of repairs and sails— youl have to have a new suit of sails once in two years, haven't yon .'— A,| Generally. Q. Now, take the cables. Yon tised hemp. How long do they last' A. Sometimes on the (.Icornes they do not last over a year. We sav two years ; sometimes a little more. Q. How long are they ? — A. We had l.'iO fathoms. We should nod trust the whole of that over two seasons, i'art of it would bu good auij the rest bad. Q. It would be between two and three years that it would last in tli^ bay ? — A. Yes. Q. Besides the expense, there is interest on the cost of the vessel, ami there is depreciation. Can you give the Commission some idea wbal the depreciation of those vessels is If Take any vessel — an average o| vessels. I do not care about your own particularly, but you can Jiid from that. — A. AVell, I run my own more economically. Q. Well, take them as they are, managed with average i)ruden('e,aii(j employed steadily, coming into the bay for a portion of the year, aiiij for the rest of the year on the coast. How much is the natural depie elation .' — A. I think 15 per cent. That is reckoning low. 1 leckoij that, providing a vesscj costs >f(i5 a ton, and you could build the saiuj kind of a vessel for ii!(»5 at the end of live years. But if you were goiiil to reckon that a vessel cost )?(i5 a t()n when she was built, and then taki the vessel at the end of five years, when the building-material had {,'ouj down to about -*45, she has depreciated one-half. Q. I don't mean to count that ; suppose the price of material has rel mained the same, say it is lo per cent. It is a short life .' — A. \vi everything is giving out. Q. You have been cod tishing on the fished was on the Georges. Q. With hand-lines t — A. Y'es. Q. Where did you get your bait ? — A. Well, the first year we usodl get bait on the Baidis ourselves. Latterly it got to be the custitiutj get it at Grand Manan and in Newfoundland. Q. That is early in the season ! — A. Then we have the Grand ^lanau the bait does not last a long while. Q. Have you been yourself to Grand iNIanan to buy bait ? — A. 1 liai been there to buy herring, but never to buy buit. Q. You mean herring to sell again ? — A. Yes; frozen herring to selli| New York. Q. Y'ou were never there to get bait ? — A. No. ii,. The vessels you have been in took bait from home and caiiKii it? — A. As a general thing\ Q. You catch some bait going and coming and on the Banks?— ^ We do along the summer months, in May and June. Q. You have no personal knowledge about Grand IVIanan ? — A. All| have about it is from going down to buy fro-^en herring. Q. You know nothing about it as a place for fishing, for the piupoi of getting bait for fishing ? — A. No. I only know ray vessels go dowuj one vessel would in the season. She would go there once between ti| time of the frozen herring and the time of what we call the pogy i son. Georges ? — A. Yes ; all 1 ova POg.v. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2221 iiul oaugl 5iiuks ?- Q. You flinl those pogies on the AmericaucoaHt?— A. Yes; about the llOtli to the 12th of May. It conliiii:r>s to the fall of the yvar. We get Itbem as late as November iu Prorincetowu ; sometimes ns late as the |!!.)th. By Mr. Davies : Q. The mode of supplying themselves with bait has changed, I under- Istooil you to say, of late years! — A. Yes, it has, of course. Q. How is it now on the Banks? — A. I don't tish on the Banks. Q. How is it with those that do f — A. Some, I suppose, go into New- IfoutuUand. I was down year before last. One man belonging to Bev- Itrly hadn't been in there at all. He made a remark to me that this Igoiug in for bait was a kind of a bother. One man that spoke to me jabout it — he was a little temperate, I believe — he said if we could get (along without coming in for bait we would do bettor. Q. You know one man that didn't go in f — A. Yes. Q. He was looked upon as a rather singular man ? — A. Yes, iu one |K:«|)ect. He got 2,20U quintals of codtlsh. Q. I didn't ask you what he got. — A. I didn't know 1 was limited in Imy answer. Q. You volunteered some conversation you had had with a j>articular ■person, and I asked if he was looked upon as a singular man in not Iconiing in ? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Why was he selected from all the rest and spoken of as not having tome in? — A. The reison was tliat he ! ; have you a memorandum in Ijour pocket .' — A. I have it in my head. (^ I asked you if vou had it in your pocket — you have it on paper ? — I A. Yes. Q. Will you give it to me ? Witness produces meniorandum, from which Mr. Davies reads: In 1802 vou caught 590 barrels ; in 1803, 500 barrels ; in 1804, 50(>; liu imr}, 280 ; iu 1800, 200 ; in 1807, 4.59 ; iu 1808,150 ; 1809,221 ; in 1872, |2o;i: in 1873, 410; in 1874, 498. Q. Now, captain, in the vear when you too^ 570 barrels you lost 8700 ? I-A. That is 1872. Q. I thought it was 1874 ? — A. Yes, 1874 ; you are right ; the very last lyeiir I went. Q. You lost your cables in 1872 ? — A. l"es. Q. I am correct f — A. Y'es. Q. In 1874 you lost 8700. I presume that you are a poor man. I don't faut to ask impertinent questions, but I presume you must be a very oor man. — A. How poor do you think 1 Q. 1 would not like to say, because if you lost 8700 with a catch of lilO barrels, I don't know how much you lost when you caught only 130. Xk^ '4:! m a 2224 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. — A. Well, would yon sny a man who lias followed the sea for thirtyflvel years waa rich at $4,000 ! Q. No. — A. Well that is what I am worth. The last year sati.sfl«d| me I was losing what little 1 had, and 1 gave it up. Q. I dare say you will understand presently why you were loHing.l In 1874 you knew you had a right to fish anywhere f — A. Yes; I did. Q. Did you exercise that right ? — A. I did. Q. You fished inshore and out of shore f — A. Yes. Q. I understood you to answer Mr. Dana that in 1874 you cnuglit yoiirl fish around Margaree and in the bend of the is.and f — A. I did notsiiyf any such thing. I told him I got 150 that year inshore. Q. I didn't aslv you with reference to innhore at all I understood yonl to say you fished altogether around Prince Edward Island and Mur I garen in 1874 T— A. Yes ; I believe it was 1874. Q. I was right f — A. Yes. Q. In that year yon caught all your tish around Prince Edw.ird Ishimll and Margaree f — A. Yes; sometimes in sight of Margaree. Q. Y'ou had a right to go where you liked. Now, did you or did youl not pay any attention to the quantities you took inshore or outside iuf that particular year f — A. I did not. Q. And have you had any reason to divide the quantity you Ciiu{;lit| inside from that caught outside ; there has been nothing to induce youT to recollect what you caught inside as against those taken outside ?— aJ I didn't keep any account. All I noticed Q. You cannot keep them separate ? — A. All I noticed was that thosi we caught inshore werd a good deal poorer than those we took outsidej Whenever we caught close in we got a poor quality. Q. Would you like to swear that you didn't get three-fourths witbiii three miles f — A. I would swear to it. Q. Although you had no reason to watch ? — A. Of course. Is it nnl natural we should take notice where we were? For instance I can telf you we caught such and such a trip at such and such a place. WJ would notice where we got good catches, and would probably go tben again. Q. Give me the proportion you caught within three miles ?— A. I thJDil we got 150 barrels within the three-mile limit. Q. Don't you think moref — A. I think not. Q. How many did you get about Margaree t — A. Very few. NearlJ all around Prince Edward Island. What we call Fisherman's Bank i Second Chapel. Once we were in Malpeque Harbor. That was ud very stormy that year. We had the wind easterly around the point. | Q. Although you were there that year you returned all right. Yd were not drowned. — A. That does not signify. Q. As a matter of fact your vessel did actually escape that year!-| A. Yes. That does not signify it is not dangerous. Q. Not at all. Do you^now any vessel that got ashore that yearc that dangerous coast T — A. Don't they often go ashore in satfe and pleai ant weather 1 Anybody can get ofl^^ then. Q. Do you know any vessel that got ashore that year in Prince ward Island f — A. Not to my I'ecollection. There might have bt>eu| dozen. Q. Why do yon say there might have been I — A. A vessel wool likely go ashore there in calm, in misty or foggy weather, she migbtj ashore any time. Q. You think it is very likely ?— A. Yes. Q. Would you not have seen a report of it if any of your vessels I AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2225 Kone nsUoref— A. There was other vessels iu the bay beside Aincrioan IreoBels. Q. Did you bear of any flsbiiig-vesscls dfoiiig ashore that year on the |i«laiidf — A. I might liave heard it ; I don't recollect. Q. You were not Ashing there any other year on the island coast ex- |(ept 1874 f — A. The year before we fished around there, but oft' shore. Q. Did you tisli around the island in 1873 T — A. Wo did some, part of I the year. Q. Did you catch any inshore? — A. No. Q. In 1873 you lost your cables and anchors at the Magdalons, that Icalm and beautiful place where it does not blow at allf — A. Well, it |oiay not be so moderate. Q. Is it as moderate as i'rinco £dward Island! — A. In the latter I part. Q. Take it all through T — A. There is very little dift'erence. Q. You don't think it is more boisterous f— A. I don't think. There lire plenty of times you can fish at the Magdalens when you can't at IPrince Edward Island. Q. Did you say you were around the Prince Edward Island shore any lotber year than 1873 f— A. Not to my knowledge. I might probably go Itbere once in a while. Q. During all the years you were in the bay, from 1851 downward, Ido you know of any American vessels going ashore, leaving out the gale {of 1851 ? — A. There was another gale in 18G1. That is the Y'ankee gale. Q. No, that is the gale of 1851. Did you or did you not know of any American vessels being lost on the Prince Edward Island coast from 52 to 1874 ?— A. That includes the last gale. Q. Not the gale of 1851 ?— A. It includes 1861. You say from 1852 |o when ? Q. To the time you went out of the gulf. — A. That includes — that Ifould be to 1874. Yes, I do. Q. American vessels t Give the names. — A. I could not exactly say |he names. One vessel went ashore right close to the point. The other was the Atwood, I think, owned by Ayers & Co. She went ashore. j)De of them was got off by parties iu Souris. And the other was sold |o parties there. Q. Those are the two ! — A. Yes. Q. And these are all you know of? — A. I don't know of any others, phere might be a dozen ; I don't know. Q. I asked you simply what you knew. You know for the last 25 Jears of two vessels, one of which was got ott* — both of which were got Gf, and one of them sold. Do yon know of any going ashore in 1861 f — Yes, a number. The Crolden Rule. Q. I speak of being lost f — A. I could not say whether she was lost or lot. I Q. I don't mean to speak of vessels touching the shore, but driving shore and being lost. — A. Well, I don't know what you mean by touch- k the shore. I guess if you were the owner you would not speak of pern as touching the shore. IQ. Were you there fishing I — A. I was in the bend of the Island. IQ. Fishing? You told me before you never fished in Prince Edward kland. — A. I never told you so. I said when I was skipper. JQ. I asked you most distinctly whether you had ever fished around be Prince Edward Island shore except in 1874 and 1873, and you told |e you didn't. You denied it. — A. I didn't deny it. You were question- 140 F . m |i:: ,»i 'ki ,**'"»■>;! \ 2226 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ing me as to the time vrhen I was skipper. I deny anytbii.g of that description. Q. Do you deny you were skipper iu 1801 ! — A. I deny I was skipnerl in 1861. Q. Then deny that you were skipper of the Hiram Powers in 18(il ?-.{ A. I have got thin^^s mixed now — 1801 — No, I don't. I was tbiukiuL' of 1851. •* Q. You were wrong 10 years. That is just what I thought. — A. Ia| 1851 1 told you I knew vessels going ashore. Q. In 1801 you were master of the Hiram Powers ? — A. That is right. I got a little mixed up. Q. Then you were fishing in the bend of the island ? — A. No, I wa: not. ; Q. In 1851, were you in the Hiram Powers at all ? — A. I was in an other schooner, the Alexander. Q. Now, you said you never took out a license? — A. I never did. Q. Your reason was that it was not worth while ? — A. No, I did noi "want to go to the expense. Q. It was not worth while, and the privilege it would confer you did] not consider worth what it would cost. Are you of that opinion now! A. Y'es. Q. Was that opinion shared by the American fleet generally ? — A. Th opinion of the American vessels was that it was no benefit, the three mile line, that is, the privilege of fishing within the three-mile line. Q. Have you any doubt about that ? — A. No. Q. Would you be surprised to know the opinion was directly the op posite of what you state ? — A. I would be surprised. Q. Very much ? — A. Yes. Q. Well, I will surprise you. In that year, 1800, there were takeul out by American vessels 592 licenses. So 592 captains there seem ti have eutertoiued a diflerent opinion from yours. — A. That was only fo safety. Q. How do you know ? Did you consult each one of those captain and ask if that was the general opinion ? — A. I came iu contact wit those men every day T was in Gloucester. Q. W^hat do you mean when j'ou say they took those licenses foi safety ? — A. If they were three, four, or Ave miles oft* they would nol know for a certainty whether they were five or three miles. If then was a cutter coming in and they had a license there would be no trouble but if she hiippened to make up her mind they were within she woul bother them. Q. Do you think a cutter would capture a vessel five miles out ?- .\Jiiess of the to Q. Can yoi might say it was five miles, when another would not think it was. Mhm might b( Q. But if the vessels flshed where you described, on Bradley am Q- It has b Orphans and at the Magdalens, hardly within sight of land ! — A. Well times the fish probably other vessels went inshore. Q- The Gh Q. Do you believe other vessels did go in? — A. I don't believe anj ibout four hu thing about it. As a general thing, those years I was there the heft o our vessels were at the Magdalens. Q. Do you think any of these vessels that took licenses didn't go in shore ? — A. I think so. Q. Can you name one that did not ? — A. Well, when a vessel woiili come along we would ask if he had been to the Bend, he would say yes We would ask if he found anything there, and he would answer no Q. Was that the invariable answer? — A. No; of course not. Q. When erally ; we 1 Q. When vou were ma -A. What Q. I don't Island the h Q. Butyo Q. Do yoi the fishing v Of course I Q. Did yo sbore. Q. Did yoi little ; in the Q. Then it fleet were in there myself. Q. Why d bad fished ?- and catne oi tffice. One on Miscou Bi Q. Did yoi (lid. Q. Therefo jou never ci irithin three only a few, b Q. You to said on Misi t«een Miscou Q. You sa than it is nov Ito 1854, and pu the Georg |l35 miles ott: Q. In 1842 eet to speak Q. Was it ivas then. It Q. lio they (l Have tl ore or less Q. What n I liey have. I lit you migh Q. If you tc AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2227 Q. When the answer was favorable did you run over I — A. Not gen- erally ; we kept around the Magdalens. Q. When you heard it reported that they were doing well, although jon were making such very small catches in the gulf, did you not run overt -A. What particular year do you mean I Q. I don't care what year. — A. We never fished in Prince Edward Island the latter part of the season. Q. But you have given us your catches ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you wish this Commission to understand that when you heard the fishing was good at Prince Edward Island you would not go ? — A. Of course I would go if I know there was better fishing. Q. Did you never know it was better fishing until '74?— A. Never in- shore. Q. Did you ever hear of good fishing in the Bay Chaleurs ? — A. Very little; in the spring we would sometimes. Q. Then it would surprise you also to know that a large number of the fleet were in the habit of frequenting Bay Chaleurs? — A. I have been there myself. Q. Why didn't you give Bay Chaleurs among the places where you bad fished ? — A. We never fished there, but probably staid a day or two, and came out. I have been there in the course of my being skipper twice. One season we fished at the mouth oi' Bay Chaleur, at Miscou — on Miscou Bank. Q. Did you ever fish in B.vy Chaleur within three miles ? — A. I never did. Q. Therefore you never saw any fish there ? When you fished outside Toii never caught any fish in the Bay Chaleur ? When you fished within three miles in the bay did you catch any fish ? — A. I never did, only a few, because we never fished there. Q. You told me you were there one season ? — \. I didn't say so ; I said on Miscou. I recollect for instance catching a few half-way be- tween Miscou and , 15 wash barrels. Q. You say your business on the American coast used to be better than it is now, You said you were on the American coast from 1843 to 1854, and that it was a better business then than now. You fished on the Georges Baak. You call that the American shore ? — A. That is 135 miles ott*. Q. In 1842, when you commenced to fish, Gloucester, you say, had no fleet to speak of? — A. It was very small. Q. Was it a small town in 1842 ? — A. I could not say how large it was then. It is 19,000 now. I can tell you something about the busi- 8 out ?- .\JDess of the town. Q. Can you give us an idea of what it was then ? — A. The population hen might be 3,000 and it might be 0,000. Q. It has been built up since then? — A. Yes. I suppose there are six inies the fishing firms now that there were then. Q. The Gloucester fleet now numbers how many ? — A. Somewhere elieve aujJl>oiit four hundred sail of fishermen. (^ Do they freciuent the Bay of St. Lawrence ? — A. Some of them. (}. Have they been in the habit of frequenting the bay ? — A. Yes ; Bore or less every year. Q. Whatnumber have they averaged? 300 or 400? — A. I don't think hey have. I don't think over 175 vessels from the bay at one time. g of that! IS skipper n 18(51 ? J thinkiugl it.— A. iJ it is right.l No, I was was in an- »r did. , I did not er you on now!- ?— A. The the three- e line. tly the op (vere taken re seem t( as only fo; se captain ntact witt icenses fo would no If then no trouble she wou One luai was. radley am '—A. Well the het't o idn't «o ill "!*.,. J essel woiili . lid sayyei nit you might know exactly, while I would not. wer no. Q- If you tell me that you have not the means of forming an opinion ot. '4!is m 2228 AWAHD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ih in that will be tbe end of it. — A. I should say there were 175 some years i the bay. Q. Did you ever take means to ascertain whether that is correct or not? — A. No ; I judge from what I have seen. Q. Bow many have you seen in one spot together ? — A. At Port Ilood I have seen as many as 200 sail. Q. Mostly Americans ? — A. All descriptions. Q. Were they or were they not mostly Americans ? — A. Probably a hundred and fifty sail were Americans. Q. What were they doing at Port Hood? I thought you always fished about the Magdalens and Bradley Bank ? — A. We don't always. Wlieu there is a gale of wind probably Q. What ? Would you leave this fine, safe place and run down iu a| gale of wind? Would you leave this harbor of refuge and come down to Cape Breton to get a harbor ? — A. No, I did not. They did not run across exactly to make harbor. They gather from different points.! Probably they would find the fish scarce, and go in to get fittings audj make a I arbor. Q. Could they get fittings there? — A. They could get anything tliey want there, water, wood, or any little thing. Q. What do you mean by fittings ? — A. Wood and water. Q. Do you class them as'fittings ? Did you mean that when you inadi use of the word "fittings"? — A. Yes; that is part of the fittings. Q. Didn't you mean rigging, sails, and things of that kind ? — A. No. Q. Where would they be fishing when they would run into Pen Hood ? — A. OflF Margaree, probably. Q. Were you among them when tLay were fishing off Margaree?— A, Sometimes. In the latter part of the season we would be fishing be tween Margaree and Cheticamp, and, if it was stormy, work into Pon Hood. Q. In the latter part of the season you would probably be fishing be tween Margaree and Cheticamp and then work up into Port Hood? A. Yes. Q. And yon say that would probably be the case ? — A. Probably ii would. Q. And then not one of them ever was fishing within three miles! A. It is not very often they fished in so near as three miles. The fisi would not attend. Q. How often have you been fishing between Margaree and Cbeti] camp ? — A. Never but very little. I fished there once in the Henry. Q. When were yon again between Margaree and Cheticamp?— J That is all, to my knowledge, I ever fished. Q. If you have never been there but once how can you hazard tb statement that the fish would not be there? How do you know if yoi did not go there to fish ? — A. I am judging from what I heard from pai ties. The general report was that they never caught any fish. The; fished right off what we call the northeast part of the island. Q. Y'^ou knew Captain Lay ton ? — A. Yes. Q. He said that with the exception of one time he caught all tbefisi he took at Margaree within three miles ? — A. Probably he might. Q. How so, if they are not there ? — A. They might be there. As general thing they are not within three miles. Q. How do you know if you were not there ? — A. Other vessels go and say, probably, they are not there. Q. Tell me a man who told you that fi.sh wore not taken within tbn AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 222^^ ne years in miles of Margaree ? — A. I bave probably heard it a dozen times, but never bring it to mind. Q. Now, perhaps we can reconcile this. Perhaps your statement can be reconciled with that of Captain Layton. I include, when I speak of three miles, three miles from Margaree Island, as well as three miles from the mainland. Do you mean that ? — A. When we fish we fish four or five or ten miles from the back side of Margaree. Q. When you say they didn't fish within three miles, did you include Jlargaree Island as well as the mainland ? — A. Of course I did. Q. You base it upon hearsay ? — A. That is the general opinion. We go by the boats as much as anything else, and they would not go off the northwest part of Margaree for fish if there was any mackerel inshore. It would not be necessary. Q. How far from shore do they fish ? From the island ? — A. All the ny from two and three miles up towards Broad Cave. Q. Don't they fish within a quarter of a mile ? — A. They come right Id, for all I know. Q. Now, you stated that on your shore you had everything to contend ffith some years — that the seiners occupied the ground ? — A. Yes ; the last year I was there. Q. Why were they a nuisance to you? — A. I have always fished with book and line, being a little behind the times. I did not care, being aloDg in years — I thought if I could get along without using the seine I would do so. Q. Why were the seines objectionable? — A. Because they fished where we did. They occupied all the grounds. They were setting seines where we were. Is the purse seine a destructive kind of fishing or not ?— A. It catches the fish up very fast. Q. Is it destructive to the fisheries ? — A. I think it is the worst thing ^" "tV'" J r that ever could be for mackerel, lore iiooii .-m Q ig i^ yQ,^j. opinion t^at it destroys the fishery ?— A. I think it 063. Q. It kills a good many fish ? — A. Yes. Q. When a man fishes with the hook he has everything to contend with with the seiners? — A. I think it kills the fish up and makes them icarce. Q. Do I understand that in your opinion, it destroys the fishing [round ? — A. It makes the fish scarcer, yes. By Mr. Dana : Q. In the year 1874 you told me you caught 278 barrels in the first 3 corrector Portllooa Probably a] ways fished lys. Wheu n down iu a come (lowiil did not ruul rent points. fittings audj lything they en you made ttings. ,d ?— A. No. m into Porl irgaree ?— A >e fishing be Drk into Pori )e fishing be Probably il iree miles !- es. The flsl e and Gbeti he Henry, iticamp ?— A u hazard tbi it all the fls might, there. As within thre^ rip; and in the second how many, do you remember? — A. I think know if yoi omewhere about 200. We packed 498 barrels that season. Very ard from par q. How many of those did you catch at the Magdalens ?— A. fish. The; ew. I was there once, d. Q. State as nearly as you can. — A. I should think twenty barrels. (i. Now, taking twenty from 498 barrels, where were the rest caught I -A. At Prince Edward Island — off around what they call Fisherman's ank, and East Point the second trip. Once I was at Malpeque Ilar- w. That is all, bat didn't catch any fish that way. Q. What parts of Prince Edward Island did you say you caught fish ? vessels goi^A. At Fisherman's Bank. That is abroad off Georgetown, some eight irten miles, some a little farther down, what they call E^ist Point, east- utheast from the point, then at Second Chapel. Q. You were asked some questions about the general opinion as to ''1;|(| u 2230 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. licenses or the value of licenses. What do you say was the generall opinion of the masters as to having licenses? — A. They didn't thinkl they were any value at all — only to protect themselves in case theyl were not dealt with just squarely. They thought they were best to be oq| the sure side. Q. Now, you have heard this talked over aud the reasons given, hare| you? — A. Yes; I have. Q. Those, who did think it safe to have them, or convenient to have them, didn't consider them really as of much value 1 — A. They though^ it would save them from trouble when they came into collisiou with the cutters. They were uncertain how far they were off. Q. Now, is It difficult at sea to determine your distance from the land? — A. It is, especially with high land. It is very deceiving. Q. Explain how that is, and to what extent an honest man, \rlia wishes to know how far he can go with safety to his vessel — I don't mean from cutters — may be deceived by the appearance of the land ?— aJ Plenty of men have thought they were within three or four miles when they were not within six or seven. Q. Take your own experience. If you have high land, have you bad experience of being deceived in that way, thinking yourself very neaq and finding yourself double the distance you supposed ? — A. Yes, have. Q. Is that common with seamen ? — A. Yes; it is common. Thecoasli of Gape Breton is 'jold, aud at Prince Edward Island it runs up prett; abruptly at Malpeque. Q. Suppose the land is low, a sandy beach and low-lying country, ami you have your vessel near, are you liable to make a mistake, and whici way ? — A. Well, you can generally tell pretty near how far you are o Q. If you make a mistake, which way will it be likely to be if thi land is low ? — A. We would think we were too far off, when we woul be too nigh. Q. Is the liability to mistakes a common and recognized thing?— A It is. I will state an instance. We were fishing off East Point the lasl year before the treaty, 1872, was it not ? and were catching fish iu tin morning. I supposed for a certainty I was not much more than tbn miles off, aud I saw a steamer coming along. I didn't know whether was safe or not. I did not know what to think. I had no license, au felt afraid. When he came along he went outside of us over a mile. Q. Did he say anything to you ? — A. He never said a word. Q. And you don't know now whether he was running on the three-raili line or not ? — A. He was not running on the three-mile line. Q. Mr. Davies said your catches in the bay had been very small am yet you had not tried to go inside. Are those catches very small ?— A No ; they are a fair average. Q. Do you call that catch in 18G2, when you caught 290 and 280 bar rels, a small one f — A. I do not. That was a good catch. Q. In 1863 you had 280 and 215. Was that very small ?— A. No. Q. In 1864, 284 and 215, how was that ?— A. That is the very bes year. Q. In 1865 you had 285 and 215 ? Mr. Davies. That is not the statement he gave me. Mr. Dana. Look at 1865. Take the paper or your memory, I don' care which, only give me a correct answer. How many trips did yoi make in 1865 T— A. Two. Q. What did you catch ? — A. I think about 500 barrels. Q. Is that very small ?— A. No. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2231 Q. Take 1866, 280 and 220. That is jast 500.— A. That is for tlie season. That is pretty good. Q. In 1868 you went in late ? — A. I made only one trip. Q. In 1872 you made one trip ? — A. Yes. Q. In 1873 you took 480 in two trips. Is that a very small catch ? — A. That was a good fair catch in proportion to the rest. Q. In 1874, so far as numbers were concerned, you had 408 barrels. Is that very small ? — A. It was called a very good catch for the season. Q. Now, I have been over every trip from 1800 to 1874. There is no one you call a very small catch f — A. Not for the season. I always got a very fair catch for the fleet. Q. Now, Mr. Davies having based a question upon tliat, do you say that the catches have been very small in the bay ? — A. I do not. Always, as a general thing, I got good fair catches of fish. Q. One point more. You say you went to Miscou Bank. Is that in Bay Chaleurs ? — A. It is not in Bay Ghaleurs at all. Q. Where is it f — A. It lies right oil' Miscou Point, one of the points of Bay Chaleurs. Q. Then you don't see any inconsistency in saying that when in Mis- cou Bank you were not in Bay Chaleurs ! You were not up Bay Chal- ears ! — A. I don't recollect it. Q. Did you say you knew of no fish caught inside of three miles off llargaree ? — A. I did not. Q. Did you say anything like that ! — A. No, I said very likely there vas mackerel caught within three miles. They might be right on the rocks for all I know, but I never caught any. Q. One more question. Were you conscious of intentionally evad- ing qnestions put by Mr. Davies ? — A. I came here to tell the truth. Q. Were you conscious of intentionally evading questions putby him ? — i. Not at all. I came here to tell as near the truth as I can tell. Q. Did you always understand his questions in the form put ? — A. No, talked to me so sharp. It is the first time I was before a court, and it is difBcult for a person, especially where a man is trying to bore right into you. Q. You were supposing the questions to be put for the purpose ? — A. [They were put to bother me and disconcert me. Q. I only asked if you understood his questions ? — A. I did not. I how what a cross-questioning means. Q. Look at the paper and tell what is the correct catch as regards 865?— A. About 500 barrels. Q. That is not what is there. — A, In 18G5 280 barrels. If I had been asked the years in the bay in succession, I could have given every one promptly, but when you take certain years and cross-examine a person, it is different. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg : Q. You spoke of a line from North Cape to East Cape and the distance roiu the Magdalen Islands down to the deepest bend of Prince Edward Island. What is it ?— A. I think about 22 miles. No. 24. John H. Gale, of Gloucester, Mass., packer and deputy inspector of mackerel for the city of Gloucester, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Foster : Question. How old are you ?- "":(«y -Answer. Forty-three j-ears. 'm M '. -^i 2232 AWARD OF THE FI8HEBY COMMISSION. Q. ADd your busiuess of late years has been that of deputy inspector of mackerel ? — A. Packer and inspector of mackerel. Q. Have you some of your books with you f — A. I have. Q. Turn to the account of the trip of the James Seward in isr>7. i will ask you, before you begin to read the trip, if you know Wm. McDon- nell ! — A. I know him well. Q. By what name did he go on board ? — A. Bill Mack. Q. You have no doubt about the man ? — A. Not in the least. Q. He was on board the James Seward ? — A. Yes, my memory is per- fectly clear about the man. Q. Bead the entry of the trip from your book. — A. Schooner James Seward, September 8, 1867, packed 242J barrels of mackerel. Wm. Mack caught of that trip 21 barrels No. 1 mackerel, 85 pounds of l^o. 2, and 10 pounds No. 3. These were packed barrels. Q. What is the difference, on an average, between sea barrels and packed barrels ? — A. We reckon ten per cent. Q. McDonnell's statement was that James Seward was a 300- barrel vessel, and got two full fares. Did James Seward make a second trip ? — A. Yes, two trips that year. Q. What was the second trip ? — A. She packed out on November 20^ 1857, two hundred and five and three-quarters packed barrels. Q. We will now take the Mohenia, of which Macdonnell was captain in 1865 ? — A. I have the statement. Q. Give it. — A. The Mohenia packed, September 2, 1858, 162^ packed barrels. William Mack was captain. Q. Take the second trip of the Mohenia that year ? — A. On December 4, 1858, she packed out 154J packed barrels. Wm. Mack captain. Q. McDonnell's statement about the Mohenia was as follows : Q. What fares did you take ? — A. I think about 150 barrels the first trip and perhaps 300 barrels the second trip. It was a 300-barrel vessel and we generally got fares. Mr. Dayies asked how the statement of McDonnell fixed the year. Mr. Foster said the testimony of McDounc 1 was as follows : Q. You afterwards became captain of the vessel 7 — A. Yes. Q. What vessel f— A. The Mohenia. Q. What was the size of the vessel ? — A. About 75 tons, I think. Q. How many trips did you make 7 — A. Two. Q. What fares did you make f — A. I think about 250 barrels the first trip, and about '.] barrels the second trip. It was a HOO-barrel vessel and we generally got fares. The fair inference is it was the first year he was captain. That is what I assume. Witness. Those two years are the only two Macdonnell was captain of the Mohenia. I owned part of her and my partner the rest. Q. Take 1859, the same schooner. — A. I have the statement. Q. Eead the result. — A. November 25, 1859, Mohenia packed 193| packed barrels. Q. Did she make in 1859 more than one trip? — A. Only one trip; mackerel were very scarce that year. Q. Macdonnell's statement reads: Q. The next year, I believe, you went again in the Mohenia?— A. Yes, we made two trips. Q. With similar results to those of the previous year ? — A. About the same. Witness. The first year he was to ray knowledge skipper of the Mo henia he went two trips to the bay with the result stated, and the uext year one trip in the bay. He was never afterward, or before, master of the Mohenia. Q. Turn 1 I in regard t€ I fished in tb I aext year I wai Q. Give I ber 9, 1866, Q. Doyoi ite recollect Q. Did si 9 the trip ^ irith him. Q. You hi of the settle Q. As yoi actly what i tlement of o distinctly, I Witness r Schooner RattU 69 barrels slivei 1 barrels clams, Filling water . . Hoops and Hagt Labor on bait.. Storage ou bait. That sum expenses wh cook by turn for years, to we make up comes out c was made up vessel, he ha ByH< Q. Was it Gloucester ei and own vesi the firm shot Newburyporl capacity and custom is dif By Ml Q. Will vo -A. IwiUts AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 2233 Peter Deagle's statement 300- barrel a secoud ember 20^ as captain 2^ packed December tain. \ perhaps 300 be year. ■8: ud about ;iO0 lat is wbat as captain it. eked 193| one trip; e made two ►f tbe Mo [1 tbe next I master ofl Q. Turn to tbe S. A. Farkhurst, in 18G6. I jQ regard to it was as follows : I fished in the Safrouia from Oloucester, and that season we caufi^ht 700 barrels. The I next year I was iu the S. A. Parkhurst, and we caught GOO barrels. Q. Give me the voyage of tbe S. A. Tackburst in 18G6. — A. Novem- ber 9, 1866, scboooer S. A. Farkburst packed 310^^ packed barrels. Q. Do you know Deagle ? — A. I did know him. " 1 have no very defin- ite recollection of him. Q. Did she make more than one trip that year ? — A. No. On Nov. 9 tbe trip was packed. That is correct with the settlement we made \rith him. Q. You have a statement of tbe settlement of Deagle and a statement of tbe settlement of William Mack 1 — A. Yes. Q. As you are mackerel inspector I should like to have you state ex- actly what net stock is. As you have shown me in your books tbe set- tlement of one of Captain Layton's voyages in tbe Rattler stated very distinctly, I will ask you to read it and put in a copy. Witness read following statement froia*his book : Gloucesteh, Novemhcr 4, lrio5. Schooner Rattler packed : r>7 bbls. 80 lbs. mess mackerel, at $20.... $1,148 00 441 bbl8.5.') lbs. No. 1 mackerel at 17.... 7,501 (i? J6bbl8.551bs. No. 1 mackerel, at Hi.... 211 :t7 9 bbls. — lbs. No. 3 mackerel , at 1 0 ... . UO 00 .S-'.or.i 04 Packing at $2 per barrel 1,047 90 {9 barrels sliver, at $7 483 00 : barrels clams, at $10 70 00 Filling water 70 Hoops and flags 3 00 Labor on bait 2 50 Storage ou bait 1 50 7,903 14 500 70 2)7,342 44 3,671 22 That sum of $3,671.22 is divided among the crew. There are other expenses which come out of tbe crew. Originally the crews used to cook by turns. Now they agree among themselves, and have done so for years, to have a man to cook and engage to pay him, so that when we make up the trip we have to take off the pay of the cook, which comes out of the crew and not out of the vessel. Tbe statement was made up by me in order to settle with tbe crew of Captain Layton's vessel, he having packed the Battler with me. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg : Q. Was it made up by you as inspector ? — A. No ; as packer. In Gloucester each firm has its own inspector when they carry on business and own vessels and pack other vessels, as it is necessary that one of the firm should inspect in order to take care of their own mackerel. In Xewburyport there is a State inspector, who goes about in his official capacity and inspects mackerel for everybody, but in Gloucester tbe custom is different. By Mr. Foster : Q. Will you now take a settlement with one of tbe crew and read it ? I-A. I willtake the settlement with Captain Bearse. f *'m; 2234 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Does the captain have one man's share ? — A. Yes ; «rith a per centage for being captain. Q. That percentage comes out of the vessel ? — A. Yes. Q. He has an advantage in the place from which to fish ? — A. Yes. Q. What is that ?— A. He has the first pick of the berths to fish from. Q. Explain it. — A. Of course the captain has the choice of the place where he will stand and fish from, and he takes the best place. He also throws the bait, which is additional trouble. The others draw lots for choice. Q. Take the captain's settlement ; I suppose those of the rest of the crew are just like it ? — A. Yes ; every man gets half of the price of tbe mackerel he catches, after expenses are taken out. Witness then read the following statement : Gloucester, Norember 4, 1805. Schooner Rattler (Benjamin Boarse) packed 4 bbis, 105 lbs., mess mackerel, at $20. j^[)0 ')0 25 bbls., JG5 lbs.. No 1 mackerel, at J7. 439 1)2 f)0 lbs., No. 2 mackerel, at 13. ;! 9o _ 100 lbs. No. 3 mackerel, at 10. 5 Ou Packing, at $2. 5:W 42 238 OG Bait and cook 26 83 j 211 23 1 Q. How much is received by the owners of the vessel for the whole voyage?— A. $3,071.22. Q. What have the owners to pay out of that, or what has been paid ? — A. They have to pay for the vessel, wear and tear, insurance, fitting | ont, provisions, and all other expenses that a vessel is liable to incur. Q. What do you mean by fitting out ? — A. Provisions, Manila rope, j anchors, &c. Q. They pay for the charter of the vessel ? — A. The use of the vessel. I Q. The owner has to pay for wear and tear, insurance, fitting out, which includes provisions, and what else ? — A. Ship's tackling, sails, | anchors, ropes, cooking-utensils, and everything that is used. Q. How is the salt paid for ? — A. The salt which is put on board tbe | vessel is paid for by the vessel, and is included in the outfit. Q. No part of that is included in packing ? — A. No. When we repack! the mackerel from sea barrels to barrels for market we use salt, wbiclil is included in the $2 per barrel for packing; but the salt which goes oul board to keep the mackerel until they come in port is paid for by tbe| owners. Q. That particular voyage was settled on when? — A. November 4.1 1865. Q. Does it represent the number caught for the whole season?— A,| No, there was another trip in the same vessel. Q. That was a great year ? — A. Yes. Q. The Battler made another trip the same year? — A. There wa3| another trip which the Battler made the same year. Q. That was the end of the season ?— A. This is the trip which sbe| brought home. Q. Was that an uncommonly profitable voyage ? — A. It was. It was| an uncommonly profitable year and voyage. Q. It was an extraordinary voyage? — A. Yes, an extraordinary voyj age. AWAHD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2235 . :5 90 . 5 00 538 il 02 30 J) 476 n 238 06 , 26 83 By Mr. Davies : Q. What position did you bold in Gloucester at the time of which you are speaking? — A. I was a packer and inspector of mackerel. Q. In Mr. Layton's firm f — A. No. Q. You had no connection with Mr. Lay ton's business ?— A. No, ex- cept packing his mackerel. Q. Was packing and inspecting fish a distinct branch of the fishing business, and had Mr. Lay ton no interest in it! — A. No interest at all. Q. These are your own books as a packer and inspector 1 — A. At that time I was in the employ of D. A. Farkhurst as his clerk ; he was inspector. Q. Is it the custom for men to inspect their own fish there ? — A. Yes. Q. When you get fish in from the bay, you inspect and mark them Ncl, 2, and 3?— A. Yes. Q. You put your own brand on. them? — A. The inspector inspects the mackerel from vessels in which lie is connected. Q. When your vessels come in from Bay St. Lawrence with mackerel how do you brand them ? — A. We brand them with a hot iron, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to the quality. Q. Do they appear by your inspectors to be bay mackerel or shore mackerel ? — A. They do not by the inspection. Q. You put them on the market rs Nos, 1, 2, 3, or 4, irrespective of where ,they were caught? — A. They are branded irrespective of where caught. Q. Do I understand you that you put them on the market in that way ? — A. The buyers usually inquire whether they are bay or shore, and buy accordingly, but nothing is branded on them which shows any (liflference. Q. Nothing on the barrels themselves? — A. No; nothing. Q. You have been inspector of mackerel yourself? — A. Yes ; for 10 years. Q. Can you name all the different kinds of mackerel ? — A. I can name the different brands. Q. Name them. — A. Nos. 1, 2, 3 large, 3, and 4. There are five differ ent legal brands. Q. Do you make any distinction between mackerel caught inshore and off shore? — A. Not in culling them. Q. Suppose there was a barrel full of mackerel, could you tell what were taken inshore and Avhat out; what were taken within three miles and what 4, 5, or 6 miles out ? — A* No ; I could not. Q. Do you as inspector know a particular kind of mackerel as ill- grass mackerel, as distinct from any other? — A. We don't make any such distinction. Q. Do you know of any such distinction ? — A. No; not in our brand- ing or inspection. Q. Do you know any mackerel as ill-grass mackerel in your inspec- tion?— A. I never heard of any as inspector. Q. During the ten years j'ou have been inspector you never heard of that? — A. Not as inspector. Q. Practically, it is not known among inspectors? — A. No. Q. In regard to No. 1 mess mackerel, I suppose there is such a thing from the bay? — A. Yes; when you cut off their heads and fix them. Q. Do No. 1 mess mackerel from the bay range as high as No. 1 mess mackerel, say from Georges Bank ? — A. For the last two years 1 should say that our shore mackerel were the better mackerel. m :Tr!-^-!*««; mm ,'ra *, m i^ ^ 2236 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Aod previous to that f— A. I should say they would average to be so when we got large mackerel off our shores. Q. That is not a very clear answer. — A. Mess mackerel is supposed to be the first quality, and, to be marketable, must be large, with the Im.uh cut off, cleaned and prepared to be " mess mackerel." The larger and fatter the mackerel, the better mess mackerel they are. I don't think that the mess mackerel from the bay are considered as good, or have been during the last eight or ten years, as those got off our shores when we have got large mackerel off our shores. Q. Were they considered as good previously ? — A. That covers niy time as inspector. Q. From your knowledge, do you know whether No. 1 mess mackerel from the bay was considered as good or inferior to No. 1 mess shore mackerel ? — A. The better qualities of shore mackerel usually ranged higher than the better qualities of bay mackerel. Q. Before this limit of time, was Bay No. 1 mess mackerel equal or superior to No. 1 mess mackerel caught on the American coast ? — A. I don't care to state about that, because I was not inspector. Q. As you do not personally know, you do not care to state ? — A. Xo. Q. Is there much difference between No. 1 mess from the bay and No. 1 mess from Georges Bank ? — A. The larger kinds of mackerel from our shores have fetched considerably more than No. 1 from the bay this present year. Q. Are you not aware that No. 1 are not taken in the bay to any ex- tent until fall ? — A. Not large mackerel. Fat mackerel are not taken anywhere till late in the year. Q. Is there any appreciable difference in price between No. 1 Bay and No. 1 from Georges Banks? — A. We have not had many mackerel this year from Georges Banks. Georges Bank is a very small place ou our shores. Q. I will take the mackerel caught off' the United States coast ?— A. They have been of better quality during the last two years, and fetched j a higher price. Q. Did the No. 2 or No. 1 not mess bring higher prices 1 — A. As re- gards No. 1 not mess, the only difference is that one quality had the | heads cut off*. Q. Did those caught on the American coast bring a higher price?- A. Yes, this year. Q. Taking a run of years ? — A. I think so. Q. And in regard to No. 21— A. There is a great variation in No."' mackerel. Q. I want to know whether mackerel caught on the American coast I sold at higher prices in the American market than the same brands ofl mackerel caught in the bay? — A. I would like to explain in regard toj No. 2 mackerel. The law under which I inspect requires that No. ll shall be 13 inches long, and no matter how fat the mackerel may be, itj it is a quarter of an inch short, it is nothing but No. 2. Consequently,! a great number of mackerel, when mackerel are mixed, lack a tride of| 13 inches, though they are just as good as No. 1, and are branded Xo.| 2. So there is a great difference in No. 2 mackerel about the quality,! although they are the same brand. No. 2 may be as fat mackerel asl was ever in the sea, but as it is only 13 inches, it can only be No. 2,1 Therefore No. 2 quality is inspected by buyers more particularly than| any other brand according to the value and quality of the fish. Q. That extends generally over all mackerel ? -A. Yes. AWARD OF THE FISHKRY COMMISSION. 2237 Q, What 18 the differenco in price between No. I mess bay, uiid No. 1 mess shore mackerel ? — A. This year it lias been Q. I don't asic you this year because No. 1 has not come in from the bny yet. What has been the dill'ereuce for the last four, live, or six yeai'H f — A. There has to be some judgment exercised because the price varies at different times according to the market. Q. Is there really any difference in the price of bay and shore raack- I erel of the same brands, so that if mackerel wont up a dollar or down a I dollar the same difference would continue? — A. We don't know the iinturo or kind of mackerel caught in the bay or off our shore until some arc brou};ht in. Mackerel vary in kind and quality in the bay and on our shore every year, and we, the inspectors, have to have some from the bay and shore in order to judge what mackerel are going to be dur- I ing the season. (J. A fisherman stated yesterday that there was a difference of $7 per I barrel between mackerel caught in the bay St. Lawrence and your shore. Is that true ? — A. That is true today. Q. I ask you what is the difference between No. 1 bay and No. 1 I caught on your coast?— A. Eight dollars, to day. Q, Have you had any No. 1 mackerel from the bay up to the present [time this yearf — A. Yes; I have packed them. Q. How many ? — A. I packed 25 barrels of one trip. Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand that your opinion, as jiuspcctor of mackerel at Gloucester, is that there is a difference of $8 per barrel between No. 1 mess mackcrei from the bay and No. 1 mess caught on your shores? — A. I wish to give the Commission to under- stand distinctly that there is, to my personal knowledge, from mackerel sold under my observation within three weeks, $8 differenco between I No. 1 bay mackerel and No. 1 shore mackerel. Q. Is there, to your knowledge, any recognized distinction in the price I paid for No. 1 mess-mackerel caught in the bay and No. 1 mess caught I ou your coast ? — A. There is. Q. How much ? — A. Eight dollars, today. Q. You consider that to be a fair answer ? — A. I certainly do. By Sir Alexander Gait : Q. Are we to consider that there is usually a difference of $8 ? — A. I I didn't say that. Q. Could you not tell us what the difference is 1 — A. I did not under- |staud it that way. By Mr. Davies : Q. Is there any difference usually ? — A. Yes. Q. How much?— A. We have to judge, as mackerel vary in price I from day to day. I should judge, from my knowledge of the last four I or five years, there is $5 difference. Q. Did that dilierence exist in 18G5? — A. I think not so much as that. Q. How much was it in 1865 ? 1 see that No. 1 mess, in the Kat- I tier, brought $20 that year?— A. Yes. Q. Can you tell what No. 1 mess-mackerel from your coast brought [that y^ar? Is there one barrel No. 1 entered in your book as caught on lyour shores that year ? — A. One hundred and twenty-nine barrels No. |l, $21 per barrel. I think that would be a fair price that year, for it pas a good year in the bay. Q. Can you give us any entries to show what the difference was in [any other year ? — A. Not before 1865. Q. Tell me the difference in 18(56 and 1867, and jsjive me the names of '1?S I0i 2238 AWARD OP THE FISUEBY COMMISSION. the two vessels you take the amounts from t— A. In order to t'ortn a correct judgment on these matters, you must have sales of mackerel ou the same day. Q. Were those you gave sold on the same day f — A. No. Q. Then the dift'erence in price might have arisen (Vom the mnckcrol having gone up f — A. Yes ; I have said the price of mackerel variesi from day to day. Q. Give two cases from your book f — A. On October 17, 18G0, Sarah Elwell, 14G barrels, $18 per barrel. October 20, Eastern Clipper, L'O packed barrels, $18.50. They were in both cases caught ou our Hliores. Q. Can you give the price obtained for bay mackerel about that timef — A. November 5, 18U0, 11. M. Woodward $18 per barrel. That came from the bay. Q. The rise and fall of the market has something to do with the price? — A. It has everything to do with it. Q. In regard to the information you gave about packing, did 1 under- stand you to say you charge $2 a barrel for packing? — A. Yes. Q. That is charged against the vessel ? — A. That is charged against the mackerel. Q. Has the ship-owner anything to do with it? — A. He has uotliing to do with that. Q. If a firm of shipowners send out three or four vessels, have they not the mackerel packed in their own establisiiment? — A. Yes; when they pack their own mackerel, but they sometimes pack for other peo pie. Q. I am supposing that a firm send out three or four vessels, do they not generally pack their own mackerel ? — A. Certainly. Q. They charge $3 per barrel against the mackerel ? — A. Yes. Q. What is that charge composed of? — A. It includes barrels. Q. How much do barrels cost ? — A. The price varies according to the market value, from 50 to 81) cents, I suppose. I know one year $ I was paid. Q. What year was that? — A. It was paid by Battler in 180). Q. What has been the average value of a barrel? — A. During the last seven or eight years it has been about 00 cents. Q. What are the other items ? — A. Another item is salt. Q. How much does salt cost per bushel? — A. $1.50 a hogshead nt Gloucester. At that time, 1805, 1 know salt was $0 per hogshead. Q. How many barrels of mackerel will a hogshead pack ? — A. We put half a bushel of salt in a barrel. Q. What was the duty on salt then ? — A. I doi't know. Q. How many bushels are there to a hogshead ? — A. Eight. Q. When salt was $6 per hogshead, that would be 30c. per barrel ?— A. Yes. Q. Is there a drawback on salt used in that way ?— A. There was no! drawback at that time. We paid a duty at that time. Q. There is a drawback now ? — A. Yes. Q. What else is there ? — A. We cull and salt the mackerel. Q. That is labor ?— A. Yes. Q. Does not the $2 per barrel for packing and salt leave a verjj liaud- some profit ? — A. It leaves a profit or we would not carry on the busi ness. Q. Does it leave a handsome profit ? — A. I don't know your defiiiitiou of the word " handsome." Q. 1 will omit " very." Does it leave a handsome profit ? — A. It leaves a profit. AWARD OF THE FISIIKRY COMMISSION. 223U Q. Will yon Btnto what tho profit ih ?— A. That varies auuonliiig to tlio price of the ditl'oreiit articles, of uoitrHu. I hIioii1<1 Jiid};u it leaves » profit of 00c. a barrel. There is considerable labor in it. We have to hire cnllcrs and pay them fiOe. an honr — at that time. Q. Is it OUc. clear of all expenses? — A. Yes ; at that time. Q. When you spoke of the berths, I did not nnderstand whether the captain charged the men for the berths T — A. That is optional with the captain ; there is no rnle. The captain makes his own arrangements ftbout the berths ; it is not a matter for tho owners. Q. Is the selling of berths a perqnisite of the captain f — A. It belongs to the captain. Q. Your statement with regard to the schooner Mohenia differs some- what from the statement of Macdonnell. Vou say she made one trip only in 1859. Turn ui» your book and show me how you are able to swear to that from your book ? — A. All the trips and settlements with tlie crews are put in this book, and there is only one trip entered. She started late for the bay and it was a very hard year for mackerel. Q. Do you speak from your personal knowledge or do you simi)ly form your opinion from the book ? — A. Both. I have a very distinct recollection of tho voyage. I was part owner of the vessel. Q. Principally from tho book ? — A. I spoke from recollection, and also from the book. Q. Are you enabled to contradict Macdonnell from recollection ? — A. 1 find there is no account of any other voyage in tho book, and I know by refreshing my memory that he did not do it. Q. I suppose you did not see the book. Are you able from memory alone to contradict Macdonnell? — A. Not so firmly as I can now. My memory is refreshed by the whole book. Q. I am drawing your attention to ISfilJ. — A. There is a trip for cod- fish July 1, 1859, schooner Mohenia. That is the lust trip she made before she went to the bay. It took about one week and a half to lit out. Q. On July 1, 1859, she came in with a catch of codflsh ? — A. Yes. (.},. On November L'5 she packed tho trip of mackerel of which you have spoken ? — A. Yes. Q. How are you able to state that she did not niake'a trip before that? — A. Because she did not bring any home, and because slie was not put in the book. Q. If the trip was packed by somebody else, vouldit necessarily ap- pear in that book ? — A. Yes. I part owner. (I, Did you pack all Captain Livytou's vessels .' — A. Two-fifths of theui. Q. You owned part of the vessel ? — A. Yes. Q. You are of opinion there was only one tiip inaik' that ye.;. '. — A. Yes; I have no doubt of it. Q. Does the book show the number of wash-baorels? — A. No; the uuiiiber of packed barrels. By Mr. Foster : These are the wholesale prices current of mackerel, frooi the Boston Daily Advertiser, of September 24, 1877. They are as follows : Mackerel, bay : 3s, $8 and 810; Is, $10 and .f 18 ; L's, $11 and $13. Mackerel, shore : Is, $17 and $L'0; L's, $11 and $13 ; 3s, $7 and $8. Q. Will you tell me how the people, who make up i)rice8 current, find whether a particular lot of mackQ;el are bay or shore mackerel ? — A. They generally know where the vessels have been, but they decide on tliC quality by examination. .fWP Hi 41 I'il^li f} m^ r^jhiiSlfe 2240 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Do they not in Boston sometimes put on a stencil mark, "Bay," or "Shore"?— A. Yes. Q. That is no part of the inspector's duty ? — A. Fo. Q. It is nothing that the law requires to be done officially ?— A. No. Q. It is done for the purpose of informing buyers whether it is bay or shore? — A. It is done in nearly all cases where it is shipped. Q. Shipped from the wharf ?--A. Yes. Q. Then all over the country those two kinds of mackerel are known ? — A. Yes. They are known by the st< ncil plates. I think it is the uui- vessel practice to pat on " Shore" and "Bay," to whicherer they belong. Q. Can a person accustomed to mackerel easily tell by looking at mackerel whether they come from the bay or shore ? — A. I think they can after they have culled a trip from each place daring the year. Q. A person who has culled or inspected them can do so ? — A. Yes ; after they have packed a single lot from each place. The mackerel that come in from the*bay and from shore are of different character every year in each case. So it is necessary for the inspector to see a trip from each ])lace, and he can afterwards decide. Q. Is there any practice by which the captain is allowed to sell the choice of berths among the crew ? — A. Personally 1 never heard of it. The choice I understand is by lot. I have usually heard it spoken of as drawing for berths. f Q. Something was said about people packing all their own mackerel. Is a sharesman obliged to have the owner of the vessel pack out his I mackerel, and is he liable to be cheated about it? Explain. — A. When j the vessel is at the wharf the crew's duty is to throw the mackerel from the barrels into the kid, from which they are sorted. One of the crew I stands at one side of the tub to see there is fair weight, and the owner appoints a man who stands on the other side and sees there is a fair I thing, and if there is any dissatisfaction the crew generally speak aboat it and ask if it is a fair cull. It is a mere matter of opinion, for the in- spector culls the mackerel to the best of his judgment and according to| law. Q. Now, about the price charged for packing and inspection; is it I always $2? — A. No; only during those high years. It is $1.75 this! year. Q. It varies with the price of barrels ? — A. With the cost of packing. | Q. You said there was a clear profit of 50 cents a barrel on the pack- ing f — A. I thought there was at the time. I was speaking of the Bat- tler. Q. Will you state what, in your judgment, is the usual profit on thel packing of mackerel ? — A. I should say from 30 cents to 40 cents a| barrel. Q. What does the packer have to furnish ; what capital has he tol invest in the busiiess? — A. He has to furnish a wharf on which to| pack the mackerel. Q. And you gave us the items of barrels, salt, and labor ? — A. Ye8:| they are included in the $2. Q. What else? — A. Scales and all the materials with which to pack] them. Q. Does he get any payment for the wharf f— A. No. Q. All those items come in the price of packing, which now is '^l.'ioi per barrel ? — A. Y'es ; and a wharf costs quite a sum at Gloucester. Q. What becomes of the sea barrels ? — A. When we fit a vessel wel furnish barrels. They belong to the owner, and are not charged to aiiyj AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2241 oae ; and when the vessel retarns we take the barrels back and store them away. By Mr. Davies : Q. Do you mean to say that the average profit on packing is 30 or 40 I cents per barrel ? — A. I should say the average profit is 40 cents. No. 25. Friday, Septenther 28, 1877. The Conference met. John S. Evitt, residing at the Bay of Islands, Newfoundland, master I mariner and dealer in fish, called on behalf of the Government of the I United States, sworn and examined. Bj"^ Mr. Poster : Question. How old are yon ? — Answer. 37 years. Q. You were born in the State of Maryland f — A. Yes. Q. You have fished in Gloucester vessels ? — A. Yes. Q. And have lived at Salem, Mass., and are now at the Bay of Isl- lauds, Newfoundland, in the employment of a Salem fishing firm, as their agent? — A. I am not now. I was, up to the Isfc June this year. I I am now for myself. Q. In what years have you fished for mackerel in the Gulf of Saint I Lawrence ? — A. From 1862 to 1809, excepting 1808. That is to say, I part of some of the years. Q. You were not master of a schooner at that time ? — A. No. Q. Wliat was the first schooner in which you came for mackerel to I the gulf? — A. Bell Brandon. Q. Who was her captain 1 — A. Captain Walker. Q. From Gloucester? — A. From Southport, Me. Q. How* many barrels of mackerel were taken ? — A. About 200 sea- I barrels. Q. And where were they caught ? — A. In the vicinity of North Cape, I Prince Edward Island, ofl: Bradley, and that way. Q. Do you recollect whether any portion of them was caught within [three miles of the shore? Have you any particular recollection about that J — A. No; at that time the matter was not agitated, and unless Itbere was something to make a person recollect, he could not recollect, I and could not form any idea of it. Q. You don't recollect ? — A. No, Q. In the next year, 1863, what schooner were you in ? — A. General [Buruside, of Gloucester, Captain Solomon Fry. Q. What was the tonnage of the vessel ? — A. About 168 tons, car^en- |ter's tonnage. Q. How many men were on board ? — A. 20. Q. How many barrels of mackerel did she get ? — A. Between 800 and |9lH) sea barrels. Q. Where were they caught ?— A. We caught most of them at Mag- Idaleu Islaniis, Banks Bradley and Orphan and in that vicinity, with the lexceptiou of 250 we caught round Sydney, near Flint Island, Cape Bre- |tou. Q. Were those 250 barrels taken inshore or out ? — A. I should think Itbat they were taken inshore. I don't recollect, but I should judge most |of them were taken within the three-mile limit. Q. Where was the rest of the catch of 800 or 900 barrels taken — ia ■shore or offshore ?— A. Offshore altogether, I have no doubt. 141 F ii wtsiii sir'^^ ;;r«i»* M m^ '^'\' 2242 AWAED OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Were you in the same vessel the following year, 1864 ? — A. yio, Q. Do you happen to know from iuformat.ion received, and if so, wbo | told you, what the catch of that vessel was in 1804 ? — A. I was well ac- quainted with the captain, and was on board the vessel a good many times. Going home he said they had about 500 sea barrels on the vessel ; 530 they were reported to have. Q. What vessel were you in during 18G4 ?— A. Lauy Franklin, of Glou- 1 cester. Q. On the first trip ?— A. No. Q. What time did you go in her ? — A. In September. Q. What was the captain's name ? — A. Elias Olsen. Q. How many barrels did she take ? — A. 2G0 sea barrels. ' Q. Where were they taken ? — A. They were taken j-ouud Port Hood,, Margaree, and towards the island, generally there. Q. AVhat portion of them, if any, was taken inshore? — A. I could not| say, probably one-half. Q. In 18C5 what vessel were you in ? — A. General Grant. Q. Who was her captain ? — A. William Coombes. Q. What was her tonnage ? — A. 80 tons odd ; about 85, 1 suppose. Q. How many years were you in her? — A. Three years in succession ;| only part of the third year. Q. Two whole years and part of a third ? — A. Yes. Q. In 1865, your first year, how many barrels of mackerel did the| General Grant catch ? — A. About 1,200 sea barrels. Q. How many trips did she make ? — A. Two. Q. How many did you catch on the first trip ? — A. Something about 500 sea barrels ; 520 if I recollect rightly. ^^ Q. What did you do with them ? — A. Landed them at Gloucester. Q. Then did you return to the bay ? — A. We did. ' Q. How many barrels did you take the second trip ? — A. Enough to| make up the complement — about 1,200 barrels. • Q. Did you land any of the second trip f — A. I think we lauded about 200 barrels at Canso. Q. Do you remember whether you shipped them up or carried then home ? — A. The impression 1 have is that they were freighted up. Q. Can j'ou tell the Commission where the 1,200 barrels were taken 1 —A. They were all taken between Magdalen Islands and North Caiw and on Bank Bradley and in that vicinity. Q. Was any portion taken within three miles of the shore ? — A. I dou'lj think there was any, because we generally fished just in sight of land] The land was very low there, and we were probably six, eight or tea miles off. Q. What laud was it ? — A. Tignish and Cascumpeque. Q. In 1866 you were in the same vessel ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you happen to know whether the vessel was licensed in 186G| — A. She was. Q. How many barrels were taken in 1866 ? — A. About 600 barrels. Q. How many trips were made ? — A. Two. Q. Where were those two trips of mackerel taken ? — A. On the saui^ fishing ground. Q. Kepeat it? — A. At Bank Bradley, North Cape, and Magdaleij Islands. Q. Was any portion taken within three miles of the shore ? — A. I dou'l think there was, because we did not visit the shores. That year we lia| a license. For my own satisfaction I used to take observations m cross-bearings to find out whether we were inshore. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2243 Q. In 18G7, were you in the same vessel ? — A. Yes ; the first trip. Q. What did the General Grant catch the lirst tripf — A. About 200 [barrels. Q. Where were they taken ? — A. On the same grounds — at Magdalen [Islands, off North Cape, and at Bank Bradley ; that is, the bulk of theiu. Q. Was any portion taken iusliore ? — A. I don't think so. There light possible have been a few, but not to amount to anything. We li(lnot fish inshore at all in that vessel. Q. Not during any of the years ? — A. No; we never fished inshore. Q. You say you took cross-bearings ? — A. Y\'8 ; for my owu satisfac- Ition. Q. Did you do it for the captain 1 — A. No ; for my own satisfaction. Q. What reason had you for doing so ? — A. So that if at any time we Isliould be fishing inshore, I would know we were within the three miles. Q. Did you then understand navigation 1 — A. I was learning it. Q. By yourself? — A. By myself. Q. Y^ou say you were on the General Grant one trip in 18G7 ? — A. lies. Q. Were you on any other schooner the latter part of that year? — A. |0u the Ruth Groves, of Gloucester, Captain David Gathney. Q. How many barrels did she get ? — A. About 120 barrels, I think. Q. Where were they taken i — A. Round Prince Edward Island. We Igoc so few, and they were so scattered, we could hardly tell where we |ot them. Q. Did you get any portion inshore ? — A. We might have ; I could loot say. Q. In stating the number of years you were in the gulf, you said you Iwe not there in 1808. What were you doing then ? — A. Halibut ttsh- \m- Q. Where ? — A. At Grand Banks, St. Peter's Bank, and the Western Q. In 1869, were you in the gulf? — A. Yes; one trip in the fall. Q. In what schooner ? — A. Samuel E. Sawyer, Captain M. C. Web- ier. Q. How many barrels did she take ? — A. About 120 sea barrels. Q. Where were they taken ? — A. Round the bend of Prince Edward |l8laud, principally. Q. In shore or out ? — A. I could nofc say positively. Q. In 1866, 1867, and 1869, you were fishing in the Gulf of St. Law- ■ence at different places. Two of those years, the whole of 1866 and the Irst part of 1867, your vessel was licensed. Do you recollect whether |lie Ruth Groves was licensed ? — A. I don't recollect. Q. Were any cutters there in 1809? — A. I never saw a Canadian cut- jler under sail in ray life ; not to know her. Q. In what harbors in Prince Edward Island have you been ? — A. [Cascumpeque, Alalpeque, Souris, and Georgetown. Q. Have you been in those harbors often ? — A. No ; very seldom. ft'e did not frequent the harbors. Q. Is the bend of the island regarded by American fishermen as a fcafe or a dangerous place f — A. It is considered a very dangerous place |o the fall. Q. Did you ever fish in Bay Chaleuvs ? — A. Y'"es, we fished there, but \i never caught any mackerel there. We tried to flsii. Q. What year did you ever try to fish there ? — A. We were there in 1805 and 1869. We might have been there other years. I don't re- peinbor. W'^-i t ISs'K' '■■'■:. * .i...i.ii;; I'rCIM.Iiii m 'M 2244 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. What barbors did you go into most often f — A. Port Daniel aud Paspebiac. Q. Where is Port Daniel ? — A. Bight across from Point Miscou, ai the mouth of Bay Chaleurs. Paspebiac is thirty miles from Port Dnniel] and on the same shore. Q. In 1868 you say yon were halibut fishing ; where ? — A. At Grand Banks, St. Peter's Banlc, and Western Banks. Q. What were you doing in 1870 ? — A. I was halibut fishing. Q. And in 1871 and 1872 ? — A. The same, in the same vessel, the i H. Price, of idalem. Q. Were you captain ? — A. I was. Q. When did you begin to go as captain ? — A. In 1870. Q. How have you supplied yourself with bait for halibut fishing ?— ^ I have got it on the Nova Scotia shore at times. Q. Have you caught it or bought it? — A. Bought it always; I uevej caught any. Q. Where ? — A. At Prospect, Strait of Causo, or Little Canso, an^ Shelburne. I was in at Dover once. Q. Did you ever buy any on the American coast ? — A. No ; I reve did, except in the winter. I have bought frozen herring and taken thed home. We get our bait principally at Newfoundland, at Fortune Ba^ or St. Peter'o Island. Q. You know about the island of St. Peter's?— A. Yes. Q. Do yon know about cod-fishing at Newfoundland and the GranI Banks?— A. Yes. Q. Do you know about the bait that is used by codfishermen ?— J Yes. Q. What bait do the French use ? — A. Salt bait, except what the catch on the Banks. Salt herring, caplin, and squid. Q. Always salt bait? — A. Yes, except what they catch themselves ( the Banks. Q. Do they fish with trawls ? — A. Altogether. Q. Is there a supply of bait procurable aud purchasable at St. P| ter's?— A. There always is when it is in season. If you can get iti Fortune Bay you can get it there. Q. What proportion of your bait did you buy at St. Peter's?— A. j could not say. I have been a number of times there. Sometimes would hire a vessel to go to Fortune Bay. We generally hired a ve sel at St. Peter's to get bait. Q. Since you left off fishing yourself, which was, I understand,! 1873, what have you been doing ? — A. I was agent for Whaleu & C^ Salem. Q. Where were you located ? — A. Bay of Islands. Q. Doing what ? — A. Selling goods and taking all kinds of flsU aij produce in exchange. Q. I want to ask you with regard to estimating distances by tbee]j at sea, looking from the sea to the shore, looking trom one vessel another, and looking from the shore to a vessel out at sea. Is it ea to estimate the distance accurately, aud if there is a liability to err, I a man more likely to overestimate or to underestimate the distance | A. He is more liable to underestimate the distance looking toward land. Q. How when looking from the land ? — A. Looking toward a ves Q. Yes. — A. I don't think he is liable to err one way or the otU unless he is a long way from her. Then it would be according to t height of the vessel. If you knew the vessel yoa could judge better.! AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2245 Q. But on looking nt a schooner from the land, how will it be ? — A. lit you err at all, you will be nearer than what you seem ; the schooner Ivonld look farther out than what she was. Q. Have you any opinion as regards the comparative value of salt [bait and fresh bait for cod-fishing J If so, state what it is, and give Ivour reasons. — A. I think, of course, that with fresh bait you catch more m\i for the time being , there is no doubt about that. But the time that i/lost iu the vessel running in after bait, as a general thing, would be kore than counterbalanced by continuous fishing with salt bait. I know Itliat from experience. Q. Would that be the case with trawls as well as with hand-lines ? — |A. I don't know anything about hand-line fishing. By Mr. Davies: Q. Looking from the shore at a vessel, the liability to err would be Ibout equal ? — A. I should think you would be more liable to underes- limtite the distance if looking to the shore. I should not like to say Ipositively. Q. You took out a license two years ? — A. I did not say two years. Itook out a license one year, and I am not siire about the other year. Mr. Foster said the list showed that a license had been taken out Idiu'iug two years. By Mr. Davies : Q. You were master of the vessel at that time ? — A. No. Q. That was in 18C6 and 1867 ?— A. Yes. Q. In 1802 you caught 200 barrels at North Cape, Bank Bradley ; but |ioff nea'r the shore you have no idea ? — A. Because the matter was not kgitated. Q. Some were taken inshore ? — A. Yes. Q. In 1803 you were in the General Burnside, and made a pretty good latch. I understood you to say you got 250 barrels near Flint Island. — Yes. Q. Most of the fish taken around Sydney and Cape Breton are taken jiishore ? — A. Round Sydney tliey were that time. I don't know any- thing about it other years, because I never fished there. Q. You never fished there except that one time ? — A. No. Q. Were many American vessels fishing there besides your vessel kben you got those 250 barrels ?-;-A. There were a good many there; fat they left before they caught a great many. They caught a good nany. Q. They fished inside? — A. They fished where we did. No doubt ome were taken off shore and some inshore ; that is, of those we caught liere. Q. The other vessels would take the mackerel about the same place \m did f — A. Yes; at the time we were there. Q. Where did you get the other 550 barrels I Did you fish that year, |863, along Prince Edward Island shore ? — A. Not at all. Q. Nor in Bay Chaleurs? — A. No. Q. Where did you take the rest of the trip ? — A. At Bank Bradley, |round Magdalen Islands, and at Bank Orphan. Q. You did not go near the shore at all ? — A. Not when we caught liaekerel. Q. Did you try fishing there ? — A. I don't recollect whether we did or ot. I know we did not catch any. We did not visit the shores and larbors ; we staid out all the time. :i ,lHttil|1«lt Will •»"'!>- ?"•*! :i:;i:;|]||^ ^ ■ ! iiitj''^ v'.fr i 2246 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. You (lou't recollect whether you tried or not 1 — A. No ; probably we did try. Q. Your memory is not sufficiently clear to recollect ?— A. No ; I ami well satisfied we did not catch any, because I can recollect our catcliesi pretty well. Q. In 18G4, you were in the Lady Franklin, and got 260 barrels roimdl Port Hood, Margaree, and toward Prince Edward Island ? — A. Yes. Q. Those you got at Port Hood and Margaree were taken inshore?— I A. I should say one-half of them, probably. We fished from East! Point to Port Hood, and round Margaree, and off Cape St. George. Q. Have you fished between Margaree Island and the shore? — A, l| never did ; I never was there but once. Q. Did you see any other vessels fishing there when you were there ?-.| A. Yes. Q. Many ? — A. Whatever the rteet was. Q. The.v were fishing there ? — A. Yes. Q. In 1863 ?— A. Yes. Q. How many, in round numbers, would be fishing at Margaree, Cbet- icamp, and round there? — A. From 50 to 60. Sometimes there wouUll not be any for weeks; they were coming and going all the time. Q. Would there be as many as 100 there at any time ? — A. It is likelyj there would be. Q. Fishing round the Cape Breton shore? — A. Yes. Q. Then you fished sometimes that year around Prince Edward IslJ and? — A. Yes. Q. Up and down the bight of the island ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you follow the custom of some of the vessels, go inshore andj drift out? — A. We fished generally where the fleet did. Q. Was that the general custom when you were there? — A. ThatI would depend on how the wind was. Q. Suppose the v.ind is oft" shore? — A. That is the way. Q. Y^ou rnti in shore, throw out bait, and drift off? — A. I don't kuowl what you term inshore. We might not run inshore. Q. How near would you go ? — A. I would not like to say. Probablyl we would go inside of three miles ; most likely we would. Q. Suppose the wind was blowing off shore, would you not run within three miles of the shore, heave to, throw out bait, and drift off ?— A] We would in certain cases. When mackerelmen fish they stand \]\\ near the shore ; they are as liable to heave to ten miles out as three. Q. How near did you go to the shore ? — A. I could not say. Q. Cannot you form an idea? — A. I cannot form any opinion. Q. I think you can, if you try. How close have you gone to try tol fish and drifted out? — A. The nearest I ever was was at Flint Island j probably within one mile or half a mile of the shore. Q. You never went within one mile of the Prince Edward Islandl shore ? — A. No ; at the bight of the island the water is pretty shalios within a mile of the shore. Q. Or any part of the island, or oft' East Point or the Two Chapels ?- A. I never fished there at all. Q. Is your memory sufficiently clear on the point to enable you t«l state that you did not catch throe-fourths of your mackerel that year i the Lady Franklin within three miles of the shore? You say you probj ably caught one-half there. — A. I could not give aoy definite statemeDt| I don't believe anybody could. I cannot. Q. Then it may have been three-fourths or one-half? — A. It migbt b^ one-fourth. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2247 Q. It might bo three-fonrths ? — A. I say I cannot tell you how many. Q. DoP8 your memory enable you to say that tlie portion taken I insliore was not three fourths ? — A. It was not the whole. That is as I near as I can come to it. I can give you no just idea. Q. In 1865, in General Grant, you seem to have fished in different I places from other years ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you ever, during that year, try any inshore fishing ? — A. Yes; I we did. Q. Where ? — A. We tried up in Bay Chaleurs. Q. Did you try near the shore '? — A. Yes ; wo tried right in the I mouth of Port Daniel Harbor. (}. In Port Daniel Harbor, near the mouth of Bay Chaleurs '? — A. |Yes ; it is right across to the north of Capo Gaspe. Q. That is hardly in Bay Chaleurs ? — A. It is in the mouth of it. It I is termed Bay Chaleurs. Q. Did you ever go up the bay? — A. As far asPaspebiac. Q. Did you fish within the limits ? — A. I don't recollect. It is likely I we did. I was very seldom there ; I did not take any notice. (J. You had the right to fish there ? — A. I don't recollect. (}. If you don't recollect whether you fished inshore, how can you Irecollect whether you took any fish or not? — A. I know we did not take jaiiy fish in Bay Chaleurs ; I never helped to catch ten barrels there. Q. Did you fish in Bay Chaleurs more than once ? — A. Yes ; we tried I sometimes, in the Satnuel E. Sawyer, in 18G9. Q. Did you go within three miles of the shore? — A. I think wo did; Irouud Point Miscou we did. (ij. Did your fishermen generally try within three miles of the shore ? |-A. I cannot say. Q. Did you see any others trying to fish there ? — A. Yes; off Miscou, leight or ten vessels. (J. All trying at the same place? — A. Yes; but they tried as much land more offshore, and in the middle of the bay. Q. You caught 1,200 barrels in the General Grant ?— A. About 1,200 Iseabarrels. Q. They would pack 1,100? — A. I don't recollect. I remember how [niany I packed. Q. Did you not try round Cape Breton that year ? — A. Yes ; wo tried ion our way running up. We tried right along. We hove to off Port |Hood and Margaree. (). Were American vessels fishing there ? — A. Yes. ii. When you took your fish you were off Tignish ? — A. Yes. (ij. Did you never run in there close to the shore ? — A. We never tried Inside of three miles ; we never took any fish inside of three miles. I |am sure of that. Q. You were right off ?•— A. I will tell you why I recollect it. There jwas not any agitation about the matter then ; but we several times — it Iffas calm weather — put out our boat, and she has rowed out of our [sight. Q. That is the mode you took of going ? — A. Yes ; that is how I ecollect. They caught some in the boat, although the vessel could have feoiie inshore. Q. Did you go inshore to catch some ? — A. Yes, I was iu the boat. riie catch did not amount to anything. Q. How close did you go in with the boat to get mackerel ? Did you ko where the other boats were fishing? — A. Xo other boats were there. ";.w*3 m ii'tmit^i \^:,^% 2248 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. We went iu to get mackerel. We got about one barrel among seven or eight men. It was more for tbe sport than for the llsh. Q. It did not occur to you to run the vessel inshore? — A. No. Q. Why ? — A. Because the captain did not care for the shores, ami did not think it worth while. Q. That year when you got 1,200 barrels you caught them all outside, and the very next year the captain went inshore ? — A. The reason be did it was to avoid any trouble whatever. Q. In 1865 you never fished iu sight of the shore; there was no trouble then ? — A. He would get fish for mackerel if they were to be caught. Q. You never ran iu to see? — A. We went in to see, but none were caught inshore. Q. I am confining myself to 1805 ? — A. Most likely we did go in and try. Q. From all you can remember to the contrary, you did go in and fish ? — A. I don't recollect that we were inside of the three miles when fishing on that vessel. Q. It seems curious that when you caught the large catch outside, the next year you should take out a license? — A. There is a diflference in men. Some did not take out any license, but other men, law-abiding citizens, when they found the law required thera to do so, took them out. Q. A good many did not take out licenses 1 — A. Some. Q. How many ? — A. I could not form any idea. Q. You knew there were some*? — A. I don't know any more than what they have said. Q. From what they told you, you understood there were some who did not take out licenses ? — A. Yes. Q. There was a large fleet which did take out licenses that year ? — A. 1 know we took out a license one year. Q. Mr. Foster has said you had licenses two years? — A. I did not know it. Q. In 186G you made two trips in the same vessel ; where did yoii catch your fish ? — A. On the same flshing-gound as in 18G5 ; at Magda len Islands and North Cape. Q. Any inshore ? — A. I think not. I never remember trying inshore that year, although we had a license. Q. Did you go inshore that year at all ? — A. It is likely we did. Q. Whereabouts ? — A. I could not say that we ever did, because tbat year I used to take bearings to form an idea how far we were from land. There used to be arguments with the crew and captain as to how far we were off, and we were always further off land by the cross- bearings than they estimated. Q. How far off did you appear to be by the cross-bearings ? — A. From five to ten miles. Q. Off what land ?— A. Off North Cape. Q. Were some of the crew disputing as to whether you were not within three miles of the shore? — A. Y'es. Q. Was that when you were ten miles off? — A. Not when we were ten miles off, but when we were different distances. Q. From five to ten miles ? — A. I think the closest I ever found us by cross-bearings was four miles. Q. And you took them for your own satisfaction I — A. Yes. Q. You had no doubt in your mind that you were outside of three miles ? — A. I was studying navigation ; I did it for practice and tor several purposes. Q. Did kept a ki Q. Jul Edward I Q. You 120 barre peque. Q. Hov only in li Q. Dur tbe shore uot been ( Q. You Q. You -A. Not Q. You island ?— . bend of tl Q. Will —A. I mi] caught so We visite* Q. You Q. Whe Wt' saw vi Q. You (i. Nor Q. You caught aui Q. Did \ way, one steamers. Q. They Q. Whe Banks prii Q. Not Q. Do Q. Do ^ tbiuk they Q. Hav( do not? — Island. T Q. You By Q. You ii. How went agair Q. You neatly. I of resident Q. You J subject, bi Q. How three year Grand, St. AWARD OP 'I HE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2249 f seven or [o. lores, and 11 outside, reason be no trouble canj;ht. none were go in and go in and iiiles wheu utside, the Efereuce in iw-abiding c them out. 1 tban wbat some wlio year I — A. . I did not sre did you at Magda iDg iu shore e did. ecause that from land. to how far ss-bearing!i ?— A. From a were not en we were Found us by ie of three I ice and tot Q. Did you keep any memorandum of the bearings ? — A. 1 did. I kept a kind of journal, bnt £ have not got it here. Q. In 1867 you caught mackerel in the Ruth Groves round Prince Edward Island? — A. Yes. Q. You cannot say how many you took inshore ? — A. No. We caught 120 barrels, 1 think. Seventy barrels we took in sight of land at Mal- peque. Q. How far off were you at that time? — A. I don't know. It was only in 1800 I took cross- bearings. Q. During the last year or two have mackerel been found closer to the shore than formerly ? — A. I don't know anything about that ; I have uot been there. Q. You were there in 1869?— A. Y'es. Q. You caught all your catch in the bend of Prince Edward Island? —A. Not all of it. We caught part at Magdalen Islands. Q. You said, generally, that you caught them at the bend of the ishind ? — A. I said that we caught them at Magdalen Islands and the bend of the island. Q. Will you swear you caught any part of them at Magdalen Islands ? —A. I might have omitted that. Speaking in general terms, I said we caught so few mackerel that it was hard to tell where they were taken. We visited the whole bay that year. Q. You went up and down, tishing inshore and outside? — A. Y'es. Q. Where were the other vessels Ashing, inshore and outshore f — A. We saw vessels all round where we were fishing. Q. You never fished up at Seven Islands ? — A. Never. Q. Nor up St. Lawrence River ? — A. No. Q. You cannot tell where you fished in Bay Chaleurs? — A. I never caught any there. Q. Did you see some English war vessels ? — A. I have vseen, on the way, one or two lying at Port Hood which appeared to be English steam t-rs. Q. They did not interfere much with you ? — A. Not with us. Q. Where were you fishing halibut in 1872? — A. At the Grand Banks principally and at the Banks of Newfoundland. Q. Not down the Nova Scotia Coast ?-^A. No. Q. Do you know Cape Sable Island? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know that the halibut fleet go there and fish ? — A. I don't tbiuk they do ; I never went there. Q. Have you suflflcient information to enable you to state that they do not? — A. I never heard of anybody catching fish close to Sable Island. They might do so. Q. You don't know? — A. I don't know anything about it. By Mr. Whiteway : Q. You live at the Bay of Seven Islands now ? — A. Y'^es. (iJ. How long have you lived there ? — A. I went there first in 1874. I went again in 1875. Q. Y^ou now reside there permanently ? — A. I don't call it perma- nently. I have been there for three years, but I don't call it my place of residence. ^ Q. You are an American citizen ? — A. I am uot a naturalized British subject, but an American citizen. Q. How long have you been fishing on the Banks? — A. I was for three years captain of the 0. H. Price, of Salem. We fished on the Grand, St. Peter's, and Western Banks. 2250 AWARD OE THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. During what years ?— A. 1870, 1871, and 1872. Q. And what have you been doing siuco f — A. 1 have been at the r>ay of Islands. Q. Were you Ashing on the Grand Banks for cod or halibut 1 — A. For both. Q. During those years you caught your fish with fresh bait ?— A. Mostly. Q. You went to St. Peter's and hired parties there to go to Fortune Bay and fish ? — A. I did at times. I sometimes ran right up to the bay, Q. You had no experience at the Grand Banks prior to 1870 ! — A. No. Q. Other American vessels pursued the same course you adopted ?— A. I don't know anything about other vessels. I know what I have done. I have seen other vessels where I was. Q. Did you ever flah with salt bait i — A. Yes ; one trip for cod ; not for halibut. We always fish with salt bait if the fresh gives out. Q. When was that trip 1—A. In 1870. Q. Where did you get the salt bait ? — A. We took it from Salem. Q. What quantity did you take with you I — A. I don't remember. Q. You left Salem, and went from there to where ? — A. To Grand Banks. Q. You fished with salt bait, and continued there how long ? — A. Till the latter part of October. Q. You were absent about six weeks ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you then return to Salem, or did you go in for fresh bait ? — A. I never went in for fresh bait. Q. What fish did you take ?— A. Cod and halibut. Q. How much ? — A. About 75,000 pounds. Q. Do you remember how much cod and how much halibut ? — A. Be- tween 8,000 and 10,000 pounds of flitched halibut, salted. Q. You remember distinctly that was the quantity ? — A. Between 8,000 and 10,000 pounds ; I don't exactly recollect. Q. You were only absent a period of six weeks ? — A. We left homeiu September,'and we left the Banks about 20th October. Q. The fish were very plentiful about that time? — A. I never found them very plentiful ; some did. Q. To get so large a quantity in so short a time, they must have been very plentiful ? — A. We don't call fish very plentiful to catch that quan- tity in six weeks' trawling ; we did not then. I have known vessels catch double the quantity in half the time. Q. That is your only experience in fishing with salt bait? — A. Yes; beyond what I'have seen among the French. Q. Have you ever fished in French vessels ? — A. No; but I have been on board those vessels and seen the men fish, and seen them take bait. Q. You say they always fish with salt bait ? — A. All I have ever seen. Q. How many vessels have you been on board of? — A. A dozen. Q. What year? — A. Every year I have been there. Q. Where were you, on the Banks ? — A. Yes. Q. Can you say that they ever fish with fresh bait ? — A. I never saw | them fish with fresh bait, anything more than what they caught them- selves. Q. Don't you know that of late they are beginning to use fresh bait?— | A. They may be. Q. Don't you know that they are beginning to use fresh bait in conse- quence of Americans using fresh bait in such large quantities on the j AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2251 Banks ? — A, 1 bave not been on the Banks sinco 1873. I have not heard it. t^. The French flsh with trawla ?— A. Altojyether. Q. You fished with trawls ?— A. Altoj^ether. Q. Did j'ou know any Frenchmen fishing with hand lines ? — A. Some of them, towards the rocks. Q. Very few, I believe f — A. No ; there are a jjood many. Q. Those who fish with hand-lines, do they fish in vessels or in do- ries ? — A. In dories, principally. Q. In a vessel fishing with dories and hand-lines, how many will com- pose the crew f— A. I don't know ; it will bo according to the size of the vessel. Q. Say for a vessel of 70 or 80 tons ?— A. I don't know. Q. Take a vessel of that size fishing with trawls, what will be the number of her crew ? — A. About 13 men all told. ii. How many dories will she have ?— A. Four, five, or six. (}. Taking a vessel of that size, what do you consider would be a fair trip of codfish ? — A. 150,000 pounds of fish. She would not lose any- thing with that, if she did the voyage in a reasonable time, and the fish brought a fair price. That would bo a fair goo limit? — A. No; though wo tried inshore all round. By ]\Ir. Davies : Q. You were only fishing in vessels ? — A. Yes. Q. In 1852, 1853, and 1850 ; I suppose that you were in the war after- ward?—A. Yes; in 1861. Q. How long were you in the Army ? — A. A little over three years. Q. You state that you were under the impression that mackerel-fish- ing in the gulf had decreased of late years, and rather increased ou your own shore ? — A. Yes. Q. Over what period of time would you like to make that statement extend ? — A. Say from 1807 or 1808, for about 10 years ; I will state that positively. Q. You have examined statistics, 1 hope, before you have made this statement ? — A. I know all about it ; it is my business to mix myself up in these matters. Q. What percentage of increase would you say there has been in the fishing on the American coast during the period to which you allude, since 1867 ? — A. I think the increase there has more than corresponded with the decrease in the bay. Q. Can you give an idea as to the percentage of the increase and de- crease ? — A. I could not. They fish with seines ou our shore and get a great amount of mackerel, and they cannot use these seiues in the bay, from what I have heard. Q. Suppose we leave out of present consideration the years 1875 and 1870, would you then state that the fishing from 1807 to 1871 on the American coast increased materially ? — A. I am not prepared to ansv^er that (luestiou. I never considered it, save as to the last teu years. Q. Then I understand your answer to relate more especially to the years 1875 and 1870 ?— A. No. Q. Suppose that the years 1875 and 1870 are struck out from our con- sideratiou altogether, would you then be prepared to state to the Coiii' mission that the fishing along the American shore had materially in creased from 1807 to 1874 ? — A. I think it did — until this year, perhaps. Q. Materially ? — A. I should think so. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2255 le of the et (lid not iisbore all J years, ikerel-tish- reased ou statement will state made this myself up )een in tbe ou allude, responded se and de- an d get a n the bay, years 1875 to 1874 ou repared to] e last teu dly to the I jra our coil' ;o the Com- terially in| ir, perhaps. Q. Do you know whether that opinion is coincided in by eminent writers on the fisheries ? — A. I do not know what eminent writers think about them at all. Q. You do not know whether Professor Baird agrees with that opin- ion ? — A. No ; I have talked with Professor liaird, but I do not know bis opinion in this regard. Q. Are you able to state whether the statistics bear out that opin- ion ? — A. No, I cannot say. Q. How do you form your impression that between 1807 and 1874 your fishing on the American coast increased materially ? — A. 1 do not know as I said so. I said that during the last ten years the fishing business had increased on our shore and decreased in the bay. Q. I then wish to put to you a different proposition. Suppose you eliminate the years 1875 and 1870 from consideration, do you think "tliat the fisheries on the American coaat increased from 1807 to 1874 ? — A. I do not know about that. I am not obliged to answer it. Q. You decline to answer, do you ? — A. 1 say that during the last ten years Q. Stop a moment, please. Do you decline to answer that ques- tion ? I understand so.. — A. I do not decline to answer anything 1 un- derstand. Q. Has this year been a good fishing y«'or on the American coast 1 — A. In the spring, out south, there waj a large amount of mackerel ; and late this fall, when we were coming from home recently, the mack- erel had appeared iq large quantities from Mount Desert down to Block Island; but during the middle of the summer they seem to have sunk or disappeared. Q. Has the catch this season been up to the average ? — A. It has not. Q. Has it been much below the average ? — A. The catch has been be- low the average, I think ; but the mackerel have been lately about the ' same. Q. The reports are good as to the appearance of mackerel now ? — A. Yes. Q. And the catch has been much below the average? — A. I do not know about that, but I think so. Q. Has the catch in the Gulf of St. Lawrence this year been above or belo\v the average ? — A. I should think that the catch there has been a little above the average, because a great many vessels have gone there this year, being induced to do so' by false reports sent to show that there was a large quantity of mackerel down there. Q. You think that these reports were sent with a motive ? — A. I know that one vessel went down to the bay and came home with 30 barrels of mackerel, and 7 barrels of these were taken while coming home, near Mount Desert. Q. Do you think it possible that the absence of mackerel ofif the Ameri- I can coast had anything to do with the American fleet going to the bay this year ? — A. I think that they were led to go there by the dispatches I saw ; quite a number of them were stuck up in the insurance ottice in- forming the Gloucester fishermen that plenty of mackerel — largo (juan- tities of them — were in the bay ; which did not prove to be so. Q. Do you think that the absence of the maclairel and the failure of the catch on the American coast in the sj)ring had anything to <1() with the fleet going down to the gulf? — A. I think it might; that is during the first part of the season, combined with tL ose inducements which were 1 held out to the fishermen. Q. Do you think that one element which weighed with the American 'i^iii i^M 2256 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. I 't mackerel-flshingvessel owners and the captains of the vessels was the failare of the catch on their own coast ? — A. I did not say so. Q. You tliinii that this had nothing to do with it ? — A. I say it is not a failure ; the fishing on tlie American coast this year has not been a failure, but dispatches received induced vessels to go to the bay. Q. 1 understand you to say that during the first part of the season the fishery was a failure on your coast ? — A. I said that during the first part of the year off Block Island, and out south, there was an abundance of fish. Q. You stated that the catch on your coast during the first part of the season, up to the Ist of July, was below the average? — A. Yes. Q. Uj you think that this fact had anything to do with your vessels coming down to the Bay of St. Lawrence? — A. I do not think so. I think that they would have made a good catch this year on our shore, had not the mackerel schooled during the night instead of during the day, as has been their usual custom. Q. Do you think that the lying dispatches had anything to do with their coming to the bay? Will you be kind enough to state from whom these lying dispatches came, and who posted them up ? — A. I cau not tell you anything about it. I did not say that lying dispatches were sent. Q. You said fjilse dispatches were posted up with the intention of in- ducing your fishermen to come to the bay ; did you not say that false dispatches were posted up with the intention of inducing your people to come to the bay ? — A, That is not what I meant to say. Q. Did you not say so? — A. I would not say exactly that this was what I said. Q. Now, I want to see what you do mean. You understand there were false dispatches posted up in the reading-room in Gloucester ? — A. Dispatches which proved to be false. Q. Can you state who they were from ?— A. I cannot. I think they were from those who sold supplies to American fishermen in Canso. Q. What makes you think so? — A. Well, I think I saw one stuck up on the bulletin board in the reading-room in Gloucester. Q. Were they published in any Gloucester newspapers? — A. No. Generally when they had any dispatch as to bait or fish in any direc tion they telegraphed to Gloucester, and it was stuck up in the read- ing-room. Q. Can you state from whom any one of those dispatches came ?— A I could not. Q. You cannot give any one name ? — A. I could not. Q. Did you see any more than one dispatch that turned out to hi false ? — A. I don't know that I did. Q. Can you give me the tenor or purport of that dispatch ?— ^ " Plenty of mackerel in the North Bay." It was that, or words to tbiil effect. Q. Are you prepared to say that the substance of that was false, ai they sent it that year? — A. 1 know the result has shown it so. Tin letters that have come home have reported a difi'erent story. Q. You are not prepared to say whether at that date there wei plenty or not ? — A. There might have been ; I don't know. Q. Do you know what the catch has been this year in the gulf ?— I do not. Q. Have you taken the trouble to inform yourself from statistics whi have been the results, or what have been the importations into tki United ual cas( Q. W assert i cor 'ect. Q. A] tics ? — J who ba\ Q. W Q. Is enough Q. W Q. Ar seiners ( will be a Q. Do general ( Q. An do with i inshore ; Q. Nol any diffe Q. It i Americai Q. Car shore, at could on Q. Can Q. Ha) Q. The best of y( American will not s thing abo Q. Ant coast has this year Q. Whi il You Q. You Q. How to the nor Q. How Q. Thei area?— -A. Q. I wo year's fish lilidn't cat( Q. Wha never saw '>el during Q. But Ikuow. It Q. I sup [as I could 142 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2257 (Is was the vy it is not not been a )ay. tbe season ig tlie first abuutlauce rst part of k. Yes. our vessels hink 80. I our shore, duriug the to do with state tVoiu I — A. lean- ; dispatches jntioD of in- by that false your people lat this was rstaud there icester ? — A. I think they n Canso. ane stuck up jrs'? — A. No. in any direc in the read] ;s came ?— A ed out tobd ispatch !— Aj nrords to tha was false, aj 1 it so. Tli<| y- e there wen begulf?-iS Itatistics wh! lious iuto till United States from the bay ? — A. I have not, unless it was an individ- ual case. Q. Well, although yon have not taken that trouble, you venture to assert that this telegram was false ? — A. I venture to say it was not cor 'ect. Q. Although you have not taken the trouble to examine the statis- tics ? — A. Not the statistics, but the vessels arriving home, and owners who bave received word from their vessels. Q. What vessels?— A. The Ellen M.Crosby. Q. Is there any other? — A. She caught seven barrels of mackerel and enough to make up 30 coming home. So the crew told me. Q. Was she a seiner or a liner ? — A. A seiner. Q. Are you aware whether or not the mackerel are so close in that seiners cannot catch them ? — A. I think the seining business in the bay will be a failure altogether. Q. Do you know the reason ? — A. The rocks and rough bottoms, as a general thing. Q. And has the fact that the mackerel are too close in anything to do with it ? — A. I should not think so ; I should think they would ttsh inshore as well as out. Q. Notwithstanding the depth of the seine? — A. That does not make any difference. Q. Tt doesn't ? Do you know the depth of the seines used on the American coast? — A. Yes. Q. Can one of those be used with advantage on the Cape Breton shore, at Prince Edward Island or Bay Chaleurs? — A. I think they could on the Cape Breton shore. Q. Can they on the other shores ? — A. On some they could. Q. Have you ever tried? — A. No; I have never been seining myself. Q. Therefore you don't know. Now, will you swear, or state to the best of your knowledge, that there were 50,000 barrels caught on the American coast before the first of Julj'' this season alone ? — A. No ; I will not swear there were more than 100,000 caught. I don't know any- thing about it. Q. And you venture to assert that the mackerel-fishing along that coast has been increasing. Did you mean this year? — A. I said that this year the mackerel had not been so plenty on our shores. Q. What year were you at Margaree ?— A. 1854. (J. You were there in boats ?— A. Y"e8. Q. You were in Margaree ? — A. Yes. (i. How far would you go from it in boats ? — A. AH around the island to the northward. Q. How far from the coast ? — A. 3, 4, and 5 miles. (|J. Then your experience during that time will be limited to that area? — A. We could see down Margaree Island, Cheticamp, and Mabou. (J. I would like to have you state again what is the result of that [year's fishing, 1854 — I don't mean your own experiment, because you [ilidn't catch but 25 apiece ? — A. Twelve apiece^ Q. What was the result of the catch on the part of the fleet ? — A. I [never saw a vessel that had got a spurt of 10 barrels — not any one ves- [sel during the year. Q. But that is speaking with reference to what you saw. — A. Well, I |know. It was my business to be out early in the morning. (J. I suppose you would not extend that to Port Hood? — A. As far |as I could see. 142 p !:1:^*i ii nm 22'8 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. But yon could not see Port Hood T — A. No ; we could see as far as Cheticamp. Q. That was tbe only year you tried there ? — A. Yes. Q. Were there many boats that tried ? — A. About thirty for codfish. Q. Any boats for mackerel ? — A. No. They tried once in a while, and it was not a success. Q. In 1852 and 1853 did you try in Prince Edward Island ?— A. Yes. Q. Where ? — A. At Malpeque — abroad oft Malpeque. Q. Not within ten miles ? — A. No. Q. You didn't go inshore at all ?— A. No. Q. Did you go along the island shore within 3 miles trying to fish?— A. Yes. Q. Was that the j ear reciprocity came into force ? — A. I don't know when it came into force. Q. Did you in 1852 try to go along inshore ? — A. Yes. Q. Were you not afraid of cutters ? — A. No. Q. Did you know you had no right? — A. I don't know whether I bad the right or not. Q. You tried ? — A. Yes. If we didn't try we ran by vessels that were trying. Q. Did you try Bay Chaleur ? — A- I never was in Bay Chaleur. Q. You never were along the west coast of New Brunswick. You caught them in 1852 at Malpeque, on the Magdalens, and Bradley. Did you in 1852 try Margaree and Cheticamp ? — A. Yes ; all those yearf;. Q. And that particular year ? — A. Yes. Q. With what result?— A. Nothing. Q. Were there no mackerel there in 1852 ? Do you pretend to say there were none? — A. I pretend to say I heard of none being caught there, and we caught none. Q. How often did you try? — A. Well, I suppiose we ran round two or three times in the year. Q. Are you prepared to state whether other vessels took large catches or not in 1852? — A. 1 don't know. They might. If we had heard we would probably go there. Q. In 1853 was the result the same ? — A. I don't know whether the others caught any or not. Q. In 1853 you were in the bay and caught 275 barrels ; you dou't know whether the other vessels caught around the coast or not, but you didn't!— A. We fished with the fleet. Q. Now I ask you whether in 1852 and 1853 the fleet caught any fish around Margaree ? — A. We never caught any there. I could not say for the fleet. Q. If they fished with you you would know ? — A. They fished with us Q. You would know, would you not ? — A. If we were up in Bradley. Q. You said the fleet fished with you around Margaree in 1852 and] 1853? — A. Y'es; there might be one ten miles and another fifteen miles, Q. But there was no fleet ? — A. It is hard to tell what you consider aj fleet of vessels. Q. Do you consider that a fair answer, that it is hard work to tell| what you consider a fleet? — A. Yes; it is hard work to tell. Q. Was the fleet fishing with you or not around Margaree shore I A. There might be perhaps a dozen trying with us ; that is all. Q. That is all. Then they were not with you ? — A. They were scattere all round the bay trying to find mackerel. Q. You say there might be six vessels at a distance off? Is that all I A. I cannot remember whether there were six, eight, or ten. WARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2259 s far as codfish. I lile, and A. Yes. Q't know I ler I bad that were | eur. ck. You ley. Did! I year^;. nd to say] i)g caught ind two or ye catches] leard we' etber the' you dou't >t, but you any fisli not say d witb us.] Bradley. 1852 andl ;een miles, consider a Q. I understand the impression you wish to leave la that the fleet were not fishing with you ? — A. The vessels were lying around from one place to another, but there might be six or a dozen at the same tin>«i when we hove to. Q. What impression do you want to leave as to whether the fleet w'as fishing around you at Margaree or not? — A. We didn't fish there long. Q. I do not care whether you fished there a day or a week. You can- not tell? — A. How can I tell whether they were fishing; there might be a whole fleet. Q. The reason I want to know is that I have the evidence here of men who did fish there. I want to see whether you state that fish were not caught there that year. — A. I say when we tried there was none. Q. You will not state whether the fleet was fishing with you ? — A. A part might be. Q. What number? — A. A dozen vessels might run by us when we liove to, and they would not heave to if they saw we were catching [nothing. Q. When were you first inspector of customs in Gloucester? — A. 18G5, II think. Q. Have you been so ever since ?— A. I'es. Q. What was the number of the fleet in 1865? — A. There were 525 to |9i5 registered vessels. Q. From Gloucester alone? — A. Yes. Q. Fishing-vessels, 1 mean ? — A. No. Perhaps 400 fishing- vessels, lam not positive about that. Q. Are there as many to-day ? — A. Gloucester, as I speak of it now, Includes Eockport, Essex^ and Manchester. Q. Say what it includes. — A. Eockport, Manchester, and Essex. here is one vessel or two in Manchester and none in Essex. Q. Then 398 is the number for Gloucester. Has that fleet increased ir not ? — A. It has decreased since that time, I think. Q. To any material extent ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What would you say ? — A. Perhaps 10 or 15 vessels fall off, and then catch up again. Q. Does it now range about the same as it then did ? — A. I should dge it had fallen off'. Q. How much ? — A. I don't know. I did not take the pains to inform yself. I might have easily done so. Q. I refer to the fishing-vessels. How much have they fallen off; ten irtifteen ? — A. I should not like to say, because I don't know. Mr. Dana. You are inquiring as to the whole fishing-fleet ? Mr. Davies. I am speaking generally first. Q. I see here in a list of vessels belonging to Gloucester, published by lohn S. E. Sogers — do you know him ? — A. Yes. Q. Is he a reliable authority? — A. I suppose he calculates to be as near he can get. Q. He says : irk to tell| shore '- : scattered [The foregoing list of vessels euroUed in the district of Gloucester is made up to August, !76, and comprises tbe names of five hundred and thirteen vessels, of an aggregate tonnage f 31,841.07 tons, which is an increase of fourteen vessels and 1,706.31 tons, as compared ^ith tlie list of 187.'). The new vessels which have come into the district average larger Ian those which have gone out, consequently the increase of tonnage is much larger, in loportion to tbe increase of number of vessels, than the average tonnage of the whole dis- '^''Htk ,;,;«jlWiiiieiiJ^, ''-mm '^^K fi!|i^ iiil that all ^ 2260 AWARD OP THE FISHEBY COMMISSION. trict. Tho following is a statemeut of the aggregate of the whole number of vessels audj tonnage in the district : VeniJeU. Tonnage, 445 sehocmers :.. 30, 1.V2. I5| 3 yachts lf*5.47J 12 sloops 818. 78J 5 steamers 145 Tt; I 48 boats oil. 91 f 513. 31,841.07 They are divided among the five sections of the district as follows: (iLOUCESTER HAKBOR. Vegaela. Tonnage. 401 schooners 27, &')!., Ml 1 yacht '27.1)71 2 sloops lKi.r.i)| r> steamers 14'i.76| 27 boats :Wl.e7l 436.... 28,!i37.(17| i If that Ri it'"^ » ■ I is correct, the total number of vessels would not ap pear to Lave ducivased from the time yon began to be inspector?— A If I am al'jwed to explain, I remember one time I asked the clerk tbej number 01 - ""^tere«' ^"^ssels, and I understood him to say 555 ves8els.| My impression \ .is in. t th'^ fishing fleet had decreased, but I think larger vessels were buiii, a:: ^ so the tonnage was about the same. Q. YoQ never examined the statistics for yourself, personally ?— A. No. Q. So, you can't say, except from hearsay. Being inspector of cus toms I thought you were called officially to speak with accuracy ?— A, No, I cannot. Q. You never examined them at all, and don't speak with any accii racy, and don't pretend to 1 — A. As to what part ? Q. The number of vessels, and whether they have increased or not?- A. My general impression is (J. But I am asking you whether you speak with reference to actua knowledge acquired from official documents ? — A. No. Q. Now, in answer to my question as to vessels from Gloucester tba returned with bad fares, you picked out one, the Helen M. Crosby, wbicli got 30 barrels. She went home the 2d of August 1 — A. You have that wrong. I was informed by the crew of the Helen M. Crosby that tbe; brought home 30 barrels, 7 of which were got in the bay, and the resi around Mount Desert on the way home. Q. That is correct, that is what I have here, at least except as to tbi place where they were caught ; I didn't know that, but August 2d sin went home, didn't she, from the bay ? — A. I don't know. Q. Do you know anything about other vessels ? Some have got ai many as 270 barrels, from that down. I will read you from the returns The Macleod got 170 barrels, the Flying Cloud 205, the Alice 235, tli Hyperion 240, the C. C. Davis 90, the J. J. Clarke 240, the Cayenne SOflj the Alice M. Lewis 200, the Marion Grimes 150, the Fredk. Gerriug, jr, 330, the George B. Loring 250, the Fleetwood 90, the Falcon supposi 60, the Eastern Queen 120, the Amos Cutter 180, the Eambler 270, thi Harvest Home 235, the Martha C. 170, the E. A. Horton 235, the Gertii Lewis 127, the John Wesley 190, the Idella Small 150, the Flash 85,tlii Onward 117i, the Miantinomah 101, the David F. Low 220, the Xellii AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2261 f vessels auj| Tonnage, .. 30, l.Vi.lul 818.:8| 145.76 541.91 .. 3I,H41.U7| follows : Tonnage. 27,Gr,i.r.i •27.971 shi.mI 145. 761 3-21. e7 1 I More 70, the Lilly Dale 130, tbe Eben Dale 88, the Setb Stoekbridge uoue, tbe T. L. Mago 150, tbe B. F. Some 100, tbe Maggie Power 90, tbe Clara L. Dyer 90, the Ocean King 110, tbe Eunice P. Newconib 85, tbe Oasis 60, the Challenger 170, tbe Ellen M. Crosby 30, tbe Lottie E. Hop- kins 150, the Etta Gott 220, tbe Kattler 170, the M. J. Elliott CO, the Edmund Burke 230, the A. C. Newhall 140, the Koger Williams 80, tbe Lillian M. Warren 120, the Vidette 125, tbe Wm. A. Pew, 100, the Lizzie Pcor 150, tbe Lady Woodbury 220, the Martha A. Brewer, 150, the Geo. B. McClellan, 150, the Waterfall 85, the Gray Eagle 16, the Madawaska JIaid none, tbe Cyreua Ann 60, the Alice M. Gould uoue, the Fred P. |Forye 5, the Eleanor B. Con well 85. 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. (Ex- I plains, iu answer to Mr. Foster, that these are returns of vessels that have been in tbe 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 1 — A. I have beard of some of these vessels writing home. Q. Have the returns you have beard accorded with those I have read f —A. I should think not. Q. You don't know whether these returns are correct or not? — A. I (lou'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 know anything about it. Q. But supposing it correct, if it turns out to be correct, from com- parison with published returns in Gloucester papers ? — A. Well, they might perhaps have the same information upon which that is based. Q. You would consider tbe reports in Gloucester papers to be incor- rect ? — A. 1 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 tbe Gloucester papers might have the same information as that I have read? — A. The crews some- times report more than they actually catch. Q. Then we cannot believe tbe reports we see in those papers ? — A. Well, there is a ditterence between sea barrels and packed barrels. Perhaps tbe mackerel would fall short. Q. That is by the dilfereuce between sea barrels and packed barrels? -A. Yes. Q. But could not any person easily allow for that ? Hon. Mr. KELLoaa asks if tbe returns just read are ofiScial. Mr. Davies explains that the returns are those which the vessels make as they pass through the Gut of Canso — that they are not oflicial, but that tbe information is gathered by persons engaged by tbe inspec- tor to ascertain the catch from the captains. By Mr. Trescot : Q. Mr. Davies asked you a very simple question, which I am satisfied Gerriug,jr, y^y goyi^ answer if it bad not been prefaced by a remark which would ??_5 o'i^A^!k "stound any man. He asked you if you could turn back the wheels of time. I confess I could not do that. You said you were inspector from 1865 up to tbe present time ?— A. Yes. Qo I asked you this question : whether in that time, with your knowl- ... 28,a;}7.fi7l mid not ap- lector ?— aJ e clerk tbej 555 vessels.! 3ut I thiuki same, mally?— A.| stor of cusi uracy ?— A.j 1 any accul id or not l-l ;e to actual ucester tbat osby, wbicb u have thai y that thej lud the resi pt as to th( igust 2d sht have got a the returns lice 235, tlif Cayenne 300 bier 270, th , the Gerti ?la8h8o,th 50, the y -"s. l! ' 2262 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. edge of the business of Gloucetiter, you thought the mackerel-fishiDg had iucreased or dimiuished. You said that it had dimiuished iu the gulf, but increased on the coast. Now, what he wants to know is this, whether you saw that diminution from 18G5 to 1874 ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. As inspector, you could see from 18G5 to 1874 — leaving out the last two years — could you or could you not see that there was a diminution in that number of years i That is all be wants to know. What is the answer? — A. I have. Q. Now, there is only another question. Mr. Davies was very anxious to know how it was when you were off Margaree that you could uot answer whether the fleet was with you fishing. Now, I propose to read to you an account given by a gentleman whose reports have been before us and have been referred to several times, his description of the mode in which you fish, and I think that will explain to the Commission exactly what was meant. It is from the report of Dr. Fortin, in December, 1S59, I think. He says: For this purpose they cfuise with their vessels, as I have said already, in certain places, from sunrise to sunset, and I should add that in fair weather they stop every half hour, anj sometimes oftener, to throw bait into the water, in the hope that some shoals of mackerel may see it and allow themselves to be attracted by it to the surface. The mackerel-fishing schooners, which are almost all ^ood sailers, often sail from sixty to a hundred miles in a day ou a cruise of this kind, and they may cruise for a week at a time, and sometimes longer, without takine a single fish. I met many of those schooners during my cruise in the gulf, and as I make it my duty to obtain all the information I can from them, I have often been told by captains who had been fishing a great part of the season that they bad uot taken fish enough to pay for the board of their hands, while others have informed me that they had loaded their vessels in the space of a fortnight or three weeks. Now, the reasou he cannot describe the fleet is because it scatters. Just ex-plain now, without leading questions, how it is you cannot answer whether the fleet was fishing with you or not ? — A. Every one knows that in the absence of fish they try all over the bay, and just as soon as one vessel finds them, all the fleet are around to charge for them. ByMr. Davies: Q. With reference to these years that you say the fleet decreased iu the gulf and increased ou the coast, did you ever examine the statistics to ascertain whether you were correct or uot ? — A. I saw from the Glou- cester papers. Q. You never went to the custom-house to examine the register there? — A. I thought you asked me to state whether between the dates you referred to the catch had iucreased in the bay. 1 referred to the catch. Q. You didn't want to speak with reference to the number of vessels, but solely as to the catch ! — A. Yes. No. 27. Edwin Smith, of Gloucester, 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 ; of Eock port, five miles from Gloucester. Q. It is included iu the custom-house district of Gloucester?—!. Yes. Q. What is your age ? — A. Forty-one. Q. How long have you been fishing I — A. Ever since I was 15 years of age. Q. How I was first Q. Wha Q. Wha recollect ti Q. In w Q. You Q. How Q. Wha Qiackerel i Q. Wha barrels tht Q. Confl Q. You ollect ? — A il Wert Q. Doy rels. Q. Whei Magdalens Q. Then Q. How I expect. Q. Whei t^. Were got them a iBank Brad call Fisheri Q. Were Q. In wl Q. How Q. How forty the fi Q. Whei Q. Were landed one I think, ab don't take Q. In 18 got 40 ban Q. Whei Q. What teniber. Q. Were (.1 Well, iiig within Q. Well, of?--A. W pretty goot take much Q. You barrels wit Q. Wher of it. It is Q. And AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2263 •el-flshing | ed iu the >w is this, I, sir. it tlie last iiniuution hat is the I •y anxious could uoti se to read Ben before the mode on exactly iber, 1859, ^rtain places, alf hour, and I of mackerel ikerel-fishing I 3d miles in & d sometimes I my cruise in them, I have hat tiiey had informed me t scatters. not answer one knows as soon as ten). creased iu e statistics a the Glou- le register n the dates red to the of vessels, ernmeut of 3; ofKock- jester ?— A. Q. How long have you been a master ? — A. It is about 18 years since I was first. Q. What have you been fishing for 7 — A. Mackerel and cod. Q. What year was it that you were first out as master ? — A. I don't recollect the date. It was about 18 years ago. Q. In what vessel ?— A. The Ada. Q. You fished in the gulf that year ? — A. Yes. Q. How many trips did you make ? — A. Two. Q. What was your catch and where did you fish ? — A. We caught uiackerel at the Magdaleus most of the time. Q. What was the catch 1 Just state the quantity. — A. About 150 barrels the fir.>t trip, and about 120 the second. Q. Confined to what places ? — A. The Magdalens mostly. Q> You did not fish within three miles on that occasion, that you rec- ollect?— A. No. il. Were you fishing in 18G0 ? — A. Yes; mackerel-fishing. Q. Do you recollect what you did that year f — A. Got about 800 bar- rels. Q. Where ?— A. At the Magdalens and Bird Rocks. I call it all Magdalens. Q. Then you were fishing steadily? — A. Yes; right straight along. Q. How far can your recollection go back ? — A. Not further than 1872, I expect. Q. Where were you fishing in 1872 ? — A. In the bay. Q. Were you in command in 1872 1 — A. Yes ; in the Etta Gott. We got them at Bradley. The second trip we picked up all round, a few at iBank Bradley, a few at the Magdalens, some ott" Cape George, what we call Fisherman's Bank. Q. Were you fishing in 1873 ? — A. Yes. Q. In what vessel ?— A. The Etta Gott. Q. How many trips did you make that year ? — A. Two. Q. How many did you get? — A. We took about one hundred and forty the first trip, and about two hundred the second. Q. Where did you get them ?— A. At the Magdalens. Q. Were you fishing in 1871? — A. Yes, in the same vessel. lauded one trip and went back, and got about 100 barrels. We We had, I think, about 200 the first trip ; that is, we landed 200. Sometimes we don't take them all out. Q. In 1875 where were you ? — A. I was part of the year fishing, and got 40 barrels. Q. Whereabouts ? — A. Down about the Magdalens. Q. What was the matter ? Did you go in late ? — A. Yes, iu Sep- tember. Q. Were you there in 187G ? — A. No, not since that. Q. Well, then, during your fishing, you haven't had any inshore fish- ing within the limits that you have known? — A. None to speak of. Q. Well, what do you mean when you say you had none to speak of? — A. Well, if I was catching fifty or sixty barrels, I would call it a pretty good catch ; but if it was only two or three barrels I would not take much notice of it. Q. You mean that you have at times got as much as fifty or sixty barrels withiul — A. At Limbo Cove I caught seventy-five barrels. Q. Where is that ? — A. Well, Cape St. Lawrence makes the east side of it. It is on Cape Breton Island, the north side. 18 15 yearsB Q. And you say you got these seventy-five barrels within ? — A. I iFluiiliSlh '■m iir*-^- |i 2264 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. would not say that. That is the nearest to the shore that I caught them. Q. IIow near ? — A. About five miles ott". Q. Could you tell without any ditticulty how many miles off you were when you have undertaken to guess? — A. 1 could tell with most land, I would be mistaken sometimes. Q. Where ? — A. Off Cape Mabou. I stopped for water and lowereil ray boats. I thought I was so near that I could scull ashore, but I fouuil my mistake. It was very high land. Q. How near did you think you were to the shore then ? — A. I thougbt I was about two and a half or three miles. Q. What did you find it to be f — A. I think I was all of five miles, Then when I went up on a hill and looked down my vessel seemed to be right in. When I went down she was a mere speck to what she would be if she was in there. But you can most always judge around Prince Edward Island ; the land is lower and leveler. Q. I would like to know, in this testimony, as to your experience of your fishing ; were you fishing generally with the fleet ? — A. Yes, sir ; with the Gloucester fleet. Q. Were you with them all the time ? — A. Most of the time. Q. Without undertaking to say whether each vessel of the fleet had the same experience as yours, your general impression is that your ex- perience was that of the fleet 1 — ^A. Yes ; they most all fished arouud where 1 fished. Q. With your experience in the mackerel-fishing, do you think it in falling oft'? — A. A. I think it is getting less profitable. I went as long as I could stand it. Q. Do you mean in the bay or on the coast, or both ? — A. I can't say on the coast. The last year was about as good as we have had on the coast. Q. Can you tell how much a sea barrel shrinks in packing? — A. We allow that they shrink one in ten. Q. Now, with your experience in 1873, 1874, and 1875, what would a barrel of mackerel fetch clear of the expense of packing ? — A. Well about $9, clear of all expenses. Q. With your experience as a fisherman of Gloucester, and your knowledge of the industry, what do you think is the opinion of those who know and are familiar with the industry, as to whether they would rather have the privilege of coming within three miles of the Britisli shores to fish or have the old duties on the fish that come into competi tion with theirs ? — A. They would sooner have the duty and give us our own market for our fish. By Mr. Davies : Q. Why would you rather have the duty ? — A. I think we would get more for our fish. Q. You speak as a fisherman ; you want to get the most you cau. How much do you think you would get ! — A. As much as the duty. Q. I don't know but you are rifiht. Perhaps you would like to have a little more on. Supposing a duty of $3 was put on, I suppose it would still have the effect of raising the price of fish ?— A. I think it would kill us. No ; let me see. I don't know anything about that. I think by keeping the English fish out, our fish would bring a better price. Q. Did I understand you to say you had been fishing from 1859 to 1875 every year consecutively ? — A. Well, most every year. I would not go over the different years. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2265 I cauiibt you were jost lauil. d lowered it I t'ouud I thought five miles, med to be she would nd Prince erience of Yes, sir ; e tieet bad t your ex- ed arouud :bink it is I )ut as long I I can't say ! had on the ;?— A. Wei lat wouldaj -A. Well and your I on of those they would the British | I to competi- give us our e would get 3t you cau. lie duty, ike to have ose it would it would kill I think by price. Tom 1S59 to ir. I would Q. You haven't fished very much on the American coast, have you 1 — A. No, sir. Well, at times I have. Q. But you didn't fish there so persistently as you have fished in the bay?— A. No. Q. How often have you been on the American coast ? — A. One whole season, and probably six or seven other seasons, part of the season. Q. That would be one trip a season ? — A. A number of trips on our own coast. Perhaps eight or ten trips. Q. Well, you seem to have preferred bay fishing, and during your ex- perience you came every year ? — A. No ; I was sent there. We have such a number of vessels for the bay, such a number for our own shores, and such a number for the Grand Bank. Q. Your owners preferred to send you to the bay ? — A. They gen- erally sent those best acquainted ; those that fished there most. Some skippers have never been there. Q. They preferred sending you to the bay rather than on your coast ? — A. Yes. Q. Can you remember the seasons between 1860 and 1872 ? — A. No ; nothing reliable. I could remember some circumstances, perhaps. Q. But you cannot remember sufficiently accurately to give the Com- mission any information upon which to rely ?— ^A. I was in a vessel from Rockport, the Ellen and Mary. Q. You don't remember the year ? — A. No. Q. Do you remember how much you got? — A. 120 barrels for the year. Q. That was a poor catch ? — A. Yes. Q. Very poor, wasn't it ? — A. Yes. Q. Is that the poorest you ever made ? — A. No. Q. What is the poorest H — A. Forty barrels. Q. What year? — A. 1 have known plenty get less than that. Q. But was 120 the poorest you made, or was it a fair average ? — A. It was a little poorer than every year. Q. It was a little poorer than the average of years ? — A. Y'es. Q. Would I be correct in putting the average at 140 barrels ? — ^A. Yes, I should say so. Q. You have fished generally at the Magdalens and Bradley and Or- phan Bank ?— A. Yes. Q. You have not fished in Bay Chaleurs much? — A. No. Q. I don't think I heard you mention it ? — A. I have been there try- ing. I never caught any fish. Q. How often have you been trying? — A. Three times. Q. You have never made it a rendezvous ?— A. No ; I was driven out the last time. The cutter drove me out, and I have never been there since. Q. Three times you have been in, and once you were driven out. The other twice did you fish within three miles ? — A. No. Q. Are you quite sure f— A. No. Q. Then you caught no fish ? — A. Very few; 7 or 8 barrels. Q. What year were you driven out ? — A. I would not pretend to say. I think it was somewhere about 1867, or along there. Q. Did you take a license at all ? — A. No. Q. No years ? — A. One year. Q. Which year ? — A. When I was in the Ellen and Mary. Q. You can't remember the year you took a license ? — A. No. Q. Have you ever fished along Prince Edward Island shore to any extent f — A. No. % 'm :"liN»iiii|iil ^■%f ''--if. ,■: i H'ii; :!(■»' M 2266 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Perhaps you never were tliere at all any year T — A. Ye.s; 1 hiivo beeu up and down the islauil often. I never stopped to fish niuuli. Q. What times of the year did you generally go ? — A. July or An- gust. Q. What were you doing going up and down if you never tislied .'-. A. Coming from Bank Dradley. Q. Does it necessarily follow that you must go up and down the isl- and within three miles? — A. No; we never go within that distance when we go up and down. We were just in sight of land. Q. You speak of passing the island going to the Magdalens ami Bradhy. What I speak of is going there purfwsely to fish i — A. No Q. You have never gone there any time for that purpose f — A. No ; not to tlsb. Q. As a matter of fact, have you ever fished within three miles ? — A. Yes; 1 suppose I have caught half a barrel within three miles. Q. Well, down about the Cape Breton shore, you never went there very much J — A. Yes ; I have been there. Q. Did you fish around Margaree and Cheti<;amp ? — A. No. (J. You never fished there at all ? — A. I might have got a barrel or a couple of barrels. Q. Practically, then, no quantity of your fish has beeu taken around any of those shores If — A. I got 75 barrels. Q. Those you say were caught five miles oft ? — A. Well, I call that on the shore. If I am nearer Cape Breton than the Magdalens, I say I am on Cape Breton. Q. You didn't even get a half barrel of those 75 barrels on the Cape Breton shore within ? — A. I said that down about Margaree £ hav«> caught two or three barrels. Q. Have you fished at Seven Islands ? — A. No. Q. Nor along the shores of the 8t. Lawrence Kiver at Gaspe and Bouaventure? — A. No. Q. You have confined yourself to the Magdalens and Bank Bradley ? — A. Yes. Q. Have 3'ou heard of any American fishing- vessels fishing at those places I have mentioned ? — A. Yes. Q. Have you heard them spoken of as fishing grounds? — A. Yes. Q. Which of them ? — A. I have heard of vessels fishing at Prince Edward Island. When we heard of vessels fishing there we didn't hear whether it was two or ten miles off that they fished. They might be seven or eight miles. Q. Then yon never were there, and you can't tell whether the fish were caught within three miles or outside. You don't profess to say that ? — A. No, I never was there. Q. Well, you never were there except but once when you caught halt' a barrel ? — A. I said I was several times up and down. Q. But that was outside ? — A. Yes. Q. But inside I am speaking of ? — A. I never heard of vessels making any large catches inside of three miles. Q. Did you ever hear it spoken of, when you heard of vessels having caught fish at Prince Edward Island, whether it was inside or outside ?— A. No. Q. You have heard of Prince Edward Island as a fishing resort? — A. Yes, I have heard of that, but I never fished. Q. But you have heard it spoken of as a fishing ground ? — A. Well, nothing more than any other part of the bay. Q. Uii Yes. Q. Ge Q. Yo there at Q. I s q. Th ever hea Island f- Q. Tw uever fis Q. Bu favorite , Q. Cai should ni Q. lai of bavin Q. Wl Q. Thii Q. Yoi A. Yes, I Q. Do different Q. Uo\ be 20 sail Q. Not Q. Ho\ A. No. Q. Nov A. Yes. Q. Wh Q. For q. Wh (lalen Isl home, on Q. Yon grounds Q. Thel A. Yes. Q. Did Magdalet Q. Itv tioually, tbe last Q. Wh miles?— i Q. But side?— A and takic Q. Did I have he that if I Q. Can taken wit of. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2267 ; 1 hiivo null. y or An- Isheil ?- I tho isl- (listtuice ens and — A. No -A. No; lies f— A. Mit tbtre irrel or a )ii around call that s, I say I the Cape e I have ns]}6 and Bradley ? ■ at those . Yes. at Prince (lu't hear might be r the tish sss to say lught halt' Is making )l8 having )ut8ide ?— )sort ? — A. -A. Well, Q. Have you ever beard it spoken of as a resort for tlsUermeu t — A. Yes. Q. Generally among the fleet 1 — A. No, by very few. Q. Your opinion is that very few of tho Gloucester men ever went there at all f — A. Yes. Q. 1 suppose there might be two or three ? — A. Yes. Q. Those places down about the Ca\w Breton shore — what have you ever heard about them 1 Are they more frequented than Prince Edward Island 1 — A. Well, about the same. Q. Two or three vessels 1 — A. There might be more than that. I never fished there much myself. Q. But speaking of what you have heard ? — A. I don't think it is a favorite ground. Q. Cape Breton is not a favorite ground 7 — A. No, 1 don't think ; I should not go there myself. Q. I ask you whether you have heard any of the mackerel Heet speak of having gone ? — A. O, yes. Q. What numbers ? — A. Fifteen or twenty sail. Q. That would be about what you woultl think i — A. Yes. Q. You say you were generally fishing with the Gloucester fleet? — A. Yes, sir. Q. J)o you mean that to refer to all the times you were in the bay — difl'erent years ? — A. Most all the times. Q. Uow many were there in this fleet If — A. Sometimes there would be 20 sail, and sometimes, perhaps, 130. Q. Not more ? — A. No. Q. How many were there in 1876? You were not there in 1870? — A. No. Q. Now, in the fall of the year, have you ever been in Port Hood ? — A. Yes. Q. What were you doing in there? — A. I was there for a harbor. Q. For the night ? — A. Yes. Q. Why would you go all the way down from Bradley Bank or Mag- dalen Islands for a harbor ? — A. It was near the time we were going home, on the way home. We fished oft' East Point and Port Hood. Q. Yon never mentioned that, did you? — A. There are plenty of grounds I haven't mentioned that I fished on in the bay. Q. Then you used to fish down between East Point and Port Hood ? — A. Yes. Q. Didn't you chiefly fish there in the fall ? — A. No ; I staid at the Magdalens until it got pretty late. Q. It was a mere accident that you went there, or did you go iuteu- tionally, knowing it was a good fishing-ground ?— A. We went I'lere lor the last catch. We would try along there befoi-e we went home. Q. What induced you to take a license if you never fished within three miles? — A. To be on the safe side. Q. But if you never went in within three miles there was no unsafe side? — A. I dare not fish withiu seven miles for fear of a cutter coming and taking me. Q. Did you ever see a cutter take a vessel seven miles off ? — A. Ko ; I have heard of it. I have been driven out of Bay Chaleur, and told that if I was caught in there again I would be taken. Q. Can you give me the name of the vessel you heard of that was taken within seven miles? — A. Noj but a number of vessels I have heard of. 1*1 l.'*v„^,J mil' '!!'iP' ^>;tm 2268 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Gould you name your informant ? — A. I could not say that, either. But I have heard a number of times. Q. Can you give me the name of the cutter that seized these vessels seven miles off? — A. No, but probably others could. Probably plenty could. I could not personally. Q. You really are sincere in the belief that vessels have been takeu seven miles off? — A. Five miles I believe they have been taken. Q. Will you sfvear to that? — A. No. I said I didn't see it myself, but still I would not be lying seven miles off if I save a cutter coming. I would calculate they would take me, from my experience when I saw the men that boarded me. Q. They boarded you ? — A. Yes. The}' jumped on board and blus- tered around until I thought I was going to be hanged. The captaiu said, " Get out of the bay ; if I catch you here again I will take your vessel." There was a number of vessels taken about that time. Q. Who was in command of the cutter ?— A. I could not say. Q. Where were you then ? — A. In the Bay Ghaleurs. Q. What year? — A. Somewhere just before I was in the Etta Gott. Q. Can you give the year ? — A. No, I could not. Q. You were in the bay at the time ? — A. In the Bay Chaleurs. Q. Whereabouts? — A. Bunning out from, I should think, half-way betweeu Fort Daniel and Point Miscou. Q. You were just at the mouth clearing out ? — A. Just inside the mouth. He stopped every vessel and would not let one go by. Q. They frightened you so yon took a license for fear you would be taken ? — A. Not that year. It was the next year that I took a license. Q. Not that yon ever thought that you would have occasion to use it?— A. No. Q. Did you go within when you had a license ? — A. Yes, a number of times. Q. Whereabouts? — A. OffCascumpeque. Q. What, on the Prince Edward Island shore ? Didn't I understand you never had been there fishing? — A. I don't say now that I was fish- ing there. Q. What did you want there ? — A. A harbor. Q. Why would you run there for a harbor ? — A. It was handy where we were fishing. Q. Where were you fishing that it was handy ? — A. We were coming from Bradley. Q. Where to ? — A. No place. We were coming with the fleet, ruu- ning promiscuous-like. Q. Will you swear you were not running along there with the fleet to fish ? — A. No ; if there had been fish there we would fish. Q. Will you swear your intention was not to run around and fish !— A, No, I would not swear. Q. Did you try to catch them ?— A. I call it fishing when I catch fish. Q. Trying to fish when yon don't catch their is not fishing ? — A. No, I don't call that fishing. Q. Did you catch none at all? — A. Three or four we might have caught. Q. That was fishing? — A. Well, no, we do not call it. Generally speaking, anything over two or three barrels we call fishing. Q. When you were there did you ever go near enough to see whether the coast was well lighted ? — A. It is. Q. All around ?— A. It is, very well. Q. Isi Q. Yoi Q. Mr. was that was 140 1 That was Bj Q. The per. The Co John I Governm By Questic Q. Ho\ Q. Did from Pro^ Q. But Q. Yoii Q. Froi Q. Wit Q. Wh( Q- Hov Q. But Q. Hov Q. Wai Q. Inl Q. HoM Q. Wei Q. Did Q. In 1 Q. For Q. HoM Q. Did home. Q. Wht 500. Q. Wh{ Q. In 1 California Q. You Q. Wha were awa; froru Prov Q. How Q. Wei Q. Did Q. Did Q. Byt came here Q. In 11 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2269 Q. Is that usefal and necessary to fishermen ? — A. Yes. Q. You find those lights very useful ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Trescot : Q. Mr. Davies thinks that the reason you made very small catches was that you did not fish inshore. I understand that the smallest catch was 140 barrels ; what was the highest ? — A. 800 barrels for the season. That was a long time ago. By Mr. Davies : Q. That was 18G0 f — A. It was the first year after I had been a sltip- per. No. 28. Monday, October 1, 1877. The CoDference met. John McInnis, of Gloucester, Mass., mariner, called on behalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. By Mr. Dana : Question. You are a native of Cape Breton ? — Answer. Yes. Q. How many years have you lived in Gloucester? — A. 13 years. Q. Did you go fishing before you went to Gloucester ? — A. I went from Frovincetown fishing. Q. But before the 13 years ? — A. No. Q. Your first fishing voyage was 1863 ?— A. Yes. Q. From Frovincetown ? — A. Yes ; in a vessel called the Virgin Kock. Q. With hand-line or trawls ? — A. Hand-lining. Q. What bait did you use ? — A. Salt bait. Q. How much did you take ? — A. 45 barrels. Q. But I mean how much fish did you take ? — A. 1,200 quintals. Q. How long were you gone ? — A. Three and a half mouths. Q. Was it a good trip? — A. Yes; we were full. Q. In 1864 did you go to the Banks again ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. How much did you take ? — A. We got 1,100 quintals. Q. Were you full ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you use salt bait ? — Yea. Q. In 1865, where did you go ? — A. To the bay. Q. For mackerel ? — A. Yes ; from Wellfleet. Q. How many trips did you' make ? — A. Two. Q. Did you land the first trip, or go home with it ? — A. We went home. Q. What was it ? — A. Six hundred barrels the first, and the second 500. Q. What was the name of the vessel ? — A. The T. G. Curtis. Q. In 1866 and 1867 you went away ? — A. I went to sea. I went tc California. • Q. You were in merchant schooners ? — A. Yes. Q. What was the next year you went fishing ? In 1866 and 1867 you were away. Did you go fishing in 1868 ? — A. Yes. I went as master froiu Frovincetown to the Banks. Q. How many quintals did you take ? — A. Twelve hundred. il Were you full ?— A. Yes. Q. Did you have hand-lines, or both lines and trawls ? — A. Both. Q. Did you fish with salt bait f — A. Yes. Q. By the way, you did not come here as a witness, did you ? — A. I came here ; I did not know anything aboftt this. I came here for ice. Q. In 1860 you were on the Banks? — A. Yes. 2270 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. How many quintals did you get?— A. Eigbteen hundred. Q. With salt bait?— A. Yea. Q. Did you have hand-lines, or both ? — A. Both hand lines and trawls. Q. In 1870 where did you fish ? — A. On the Georges Bank. Q. Did you fish on any part of the American coast ? — A. No. Q. You make short trips, I suppose ? — A. Yes. Q. It would be hard to tell what you took ? — A. I could not tell ex- actly; we made thirteen trips. Q. When did you go to tbe Georges ?— A. In February, the first of February. Q. What bait did you use the first part of the season ? — A. Frozen herring in February and March and the first of April. Q. In the summer yon used?— A. Pogies. Q. You caught cod and halibut both ? — A. We caught codfish aud halibut both. Q. In 1871 where did you go ? — A. We went to the Banks. Q. In 1872, where ?— A. To the Banks. Q. In 1873 ? — A. We went to the Banks in the spring and to the Bay in the fall. Q. All those seasons you went to the Banks did you always go into the bay in the fall, or only in '73 ?— A. Only '73. I was to the Banks in the early part of the season slw'. to the bay in the fall. Q. Where did you fish in the galf ? — A. At Bradley Bank most of the time. Q. How much did you catch ? — A. 270 barrels. Q. Did you catch any within three miles ? — A. No. Q. Where did you catch most of them? — A. We caught most at Bradley Bank, and a very few at the Magdalens. Q. Did you occasionally try to fish near in? — A. I did occasionally, but never caught anything worth speaking of. Q. Did you try Princa Edward Island ? — A. I did. Q. How near in did you try? — A. Maybe two miles, and maybe three miles. Q. What do you say to the bend of the island as a fishing place in midsummer ? — A. I say it is no place. Q. For what reason? — A. You cannot make any lee. There are no harbors. Q. Have you been in Malpeque or Gascumpeque ? — A. I have. Q. What sort of harbors are they? — A. Very poor harbors. Q. In 1874 were you on the Banks again? — A. Yes. Q. Have you been there ever since ? — A. Yes, I have been there ever since. Q. You have gone in the bay fishing this year ? — A. No, not since 1873. Q. Your experience in the bay fishiug has been altogether outside of three miles, all you have caught ? — A. Yes, outside of three miles. Q. You have ^'ohed out of Gloucester for the last how many years ?— A. I have fished ouv of Gloucester since nine years now. Q Now, what is the principal dependence of Gloucester in fishing ?— A. Codfish and halibut. Codfish is the principal part of it. Q. Slightly more, or almost altogether ? — A. The principal fishing al- together is cod-fishing. Q. Of how much importance to Gloucester is the bay fishing for mack- erel ! — A. It is of very little importance. Q. Has it run down ? — A. lb has run down — it has decreased greatly. Q. Do you know anything about the shore fishing from Gloucester, AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2271 id trawls. o. ot tell ex- he first of i. Frozen )dfish aud to the Bay ys go into ;he Bauks ik most of Lt most at casionally, aybe three g place in ere are no we. • there ever I, not since outside of miles, y years !— fishing ?— fishing al- ; for mack- ed greatly, loucester, including the Georges aud the American coast ? — A. I know something about it. Q. Has it increased or decreased 1 — A. It has decreased this year. They did very well last year, but it has decreased this year altogether. Q. Is the bay fishing anything this year ? — A. No, I didn't hear of them doing anything. I was down in Canso. I saw some of the Glou- cester vessels in there. Q. Now, from your experience on the Banks, you have been in for bait f— A. Yes. Q. What is the average time you calculate to be absent from the Banks ? — A. The average is ten days. I calculate — I am sure, that if they would take salt bait from home, and stop on the Bauks using the salt bait, they would do better. By Mr. Davies : Q. When did the fishermen commence to use fresh bait?— A. 1873 was the first year it was used. Q. Were there many that used it the first year it was commenced ? — A. No, not many. Q. Has the use of it increased to any extent ? — A. It has greatly for the last three years. Q. How much ? — A. I don't know. All the Gloucester vessels use it now, but the Provincetown vessels do not. Q. The Gloucester vessels are much more numerous than the Province- town vessels? Which is the largest in number? — A. The Gloucester vessels. Q. What proportion do they bear to the others ; three to one ? — A. I should say four to one. Q. All the Gloucester vessels use fresh bait now? — A. As far as I know. Q. You think it takes about an average of ten days to go in and get out?— A. Yes. Q. What does it cost you to get this bait ? — A. It will cost us about $100 each time. Q. I don't mean the cost of the trip, but of the bait ? — A. That is what I mean— $100. Q. How much bait do you use ? — A. 60 barrels, sometimes 50 and sometimes 60. Q. Each trip? — A. Yes. Q. How many trips ? — A. Four trips. Q. Are you now on your way from the Banks! — A. Yes, I am on my second trip now. Q. These two trips how many times have you been in for bait ? — A. The other trip I was in four times. This is the second bait I am now for. I came in for bait and ice now. Q. Is this the first time this trip ? — A. Yes, this is the first time in from the Banks, but I took bait with me when I went out. Q. What did you catch the first trip this season ? — A. I had 146,000 pounds of codfish. Q. Is that a pretty good catch or not ? — A. A very good catch. Q. Do you consider it above the average or about it ? — A. It is a little above. Q, Have your vessels all done pretty well ? — A. The bankers have done decently well, but they have been a long time gone this year. Q. How is the bait obtained when you go in ? — A. They fish them sometimes in weirs, sometimes with seines, mostly altogether with seines. m ii!ii«*i if!**'|i E'M ■,'f „^. •■».•.[■, I- •■•■• 1 J tpl [Ami k^ 2272 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Do you catch the bait ? — A. We buy it from the natives there. Q. Do you employ any men to go to catch it for you ?— A. Yes ; we employ the natives. Q. I have never been there and would like to know : now supposing you went in, how would you proceed to get bait! What would you do ? — A. A fisherman would take his seine and go and catch it for us, and we would buy it. Q. Do you employ them ?— .A. Yes ; we employ them before they go Q. But do you agree to pay them so much? — A. We agree to give them so much for so many barrels of herring. Q. The Bank fishing, I understand, is increasing, and is pretty good of late years? — A. Yes; I don't know if it is increasing much. Our ves- sels get good trips there. Q. Now, with reference to the American shore fishing; has it increased, or is it decreasing? — A. I say it is decreasing. Q. Very much ? — A. Very much this year. Q. Taking three or four years, or four or five years back ? — A. It has been decreasing for the last four years. Q. Has it diminished to any material extent ? — A. Well, it has to a great deal. It is nothing like it used to be 13 or 14 years ago. Q. You say each trip in for bait cost you $100 ? — A. Yes; for ice and bait, port charges, and everything, light-moneys. I call everything $100. Q. I didn't understand that they charged anything now for port charges? — A. They do; I paid $18 this summer, that is once a year. There are harbor-dues, water-rates, cleaning, &c. Q. How many barrels of bait do you take each time ? — A. Sometimes 50 barrels and sometimes 40. Some vessels take 60 barrels. Q. How much a barrel do you pay for that ? — A. We pay so much for the lot. It is just according to how the herring are. If they are plenty we pay less, and if they are scarce we pay more. Sometimes it is $1 a barrel, sometimes $1.50, and sometimes $2. Q. From one to two dollars? — A. Yes. Q. Do you pay so much a barrel, or employ a man and pay him so much in the lump ? — A. We will employ a man that has a seine, and be will go catching herring for so much ; it may be $30, $40, or $50 for all we want. If we want 40 barrels, we will give, say. if they are scarce, perhaps more. He will take a seine, and perhaps be two or three days looking after them. Q. You say, "I will give you $30 or $40 (as the case may be) to go and catch me so many barrels"? — A. Yes; that is the way it is done, and then sometimes we give $10 for ice. Q. Do you give any assistance in catching them ? — A. Sometimes we do. Q. You send some of the men ? — A. Yes ; sometimes we do. It depends upon how he works himself. If he is a sociable good man, we give him help; if he is not, we let him do it himself. Q. Does that affect the price? — A. Well, we don't say anything about giving him any assistance. Sometimes we give it. Usually they use drag-seines, and have to haul them ashore. Q. Well, how many vessels from Gloucester are now engaged in tbe Bank fishing ?— A. I suppose there may be 250 or 260. Tbere are 4SS vessels, I guess, last year on the register of Gloucester, almost 500 sail They don't all go on the Banks. I suppose 200 go on the Banks. Tbe others are round the Georges and their own shores and in the bay. great many go to the Magdalens, and a great many to the Georges. Q. You get your bait sometimes in Newfoundland and sometimes here ?— . when we don't coi Q. Th( Q. Yoi we cau't ju the 01 here and Tbere wi where 1 1 Q. It ii for bait ?- ter vessel salt bait they don' them go i Q. Wh Q. Has take the s better, bu and they ; 1'2 days et Q. But you will ci Q. I tbi of them c ISGo I was Q. How Q. That Q. Whe fishing the Q. Whe there to P( Q. Had vessel. Q. You anything t went to th 'vhere we Q. Whel eus and a Q. And Way be eigl Q. And [aree and i Q. How 100 barrels t. Anne's, Q. How hem eight, (I Did bink so. Q. Are y 0 enable .v( 8 far as 1 Q. Betwe 143 ] AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2273 there. Yes; we here ? — A. We don't come here for halt from the Grand Banks. It is when we are fishing on the Western Banks. From the Grand Bank we don't come here at all. Q. The prospects are for a pretty good season, are they ?— A. O, yes. Q. You always buy ice where you get bait, necessarily ? — A. Well, we can't buy ice sometimes wliere we get bait. Sometimes we get bait iu the outer harbors where we can't get ice. There is no ice between here and Cansean. If I don't get it here, I have to go to Canseau. There will be places below here, towards Ship Harbor and other places, where 1 may get bait. Q. It is only of late years that this came up, this practice of going in for bait? — A. Since '72 or '73, most of it. Now it is only the Glouces- ter vessels that go for bait and ice, and if they would all go and take salt bait and stay out and fish with it they would do better, because they don't gain as much as they lose with the fresh bait, but if part of them go in for it they will all go. Q. Why is that? — A. I don't know, I am sure. Q. Has not the fact that, when fresh bait is being used, the fish won't take the salt bait, something to do with it ? — A. Well, they used to do better, but the Gloucester i)eople got in the way of going in for bait, and they are doing so. I think they are losing by it. If you lose 10 to 12 days each time, that is 40 or 45 days in the season. Q. But then, if you catch more fish while you are there ? — A. I say you will catch more, but don't you see the time you are losing ? Q. I think yon said you were two years in the bay for mackerel, one of them only the fall, and the other the whole season ? — A. Yes. Iu 18G5 I was in the T. G. Curtis, from Weilfleet. Q. How much did you say you got? — A. 1,100 quintals. Q. That was a pretty good season's work ? — A. Yes. Q. When you fished in the bay, were there very many vessels there fishing then ? — A, A good many vessels. Q. Where did you fish ? — A. We tried East Point, and went ft om there to Point Miscou, tlieu to Bonaventure, then further up in the bay. Q. Had you a license ? — A. I don't know. I was not master of the vessel. Q. You tried up about Point Miscou and Bonaventure. Did you take anything there ? — A. No ; we didn't get a great many there. Then we went to the Magdalens, between Magdalens and East Point. That is y be) to go where we got the most. lupposing jonXd you it for us, e they go ee to give ty good of Our ves- increased, -A. It has it has to a 0. for ice and thing $100. w for port Qce a year. Sometimes I so much ibr r are plenty nes it is $1 pay him so >ine, and he $50 for all they are wo or three if is done, and netimes we It depends ve give him thing about ly they use aged in the ere are 48S| ost 500 sail. Janks. The] he bay. ieorges. Bometimei Q. Where else did you catch them beside ? — A. Some at the Magda- eus and a few off East Point. Q. And around the shores of your island ? — A. Abroad off there, liliiybe eight, nine, or ten miles off there. Q. And at Margaree ? — A. In the fall we did. We got some off Mar- [aree and Sydney. Q. How many did you get off' Margaree and Sydney ?— A. We got !00 barrels off' Sydney, iu the fall abroad oft" Sydney, between that and jt. Anne's. Q. How many did you get off Margaree ? — A. We might have got bem eight, nine, or ten miles off", sometimes closer in. (J. Did you take any within three miles off Margaree ? — A. I don't hink so. We might have caught a few, but none to speak of. Q. Are you quite sure ? Can you recollect with sulficient clearness enable you to state how many ? — A. We got most of tb u offshore. 8 far as I know, we got them all over three miles off'. Q. Between Cheticamp and Margaree might you have caught 100 143 F "• >-.:A l||t iiji III 2274 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. i barrels? — A. We might have caught more than that. It might be 200 barrels. Q. And then 200 off Sydney ? — A. Yes ; we caught them there. Q. But you did not succeed at Pricce Edward Island that year f — A. No ; nothiug at all. Q. And at Point Miscou, you did not do anything? — A. No. Q. What is the tonnage of your vessel ? — A. This vessel, the T. G. Curtis, was about 80 tons, new measurement. Q. How many hands ? — A. Sixteen hand§. Q. What was the tonnage of the vessels you fished in on the Banks?— A. (iO, 70, or 80 tons. This vessel I am now in is 70 tons. The one I was in last year and have been in for the last four years was CO tons. By Mr. Dana : Q. Whatever fish you say you caught in 1805 at Margaree and Sydney was abroad oflf; that is more than three miles ? — A. Those two hundred barrels at Sydney were more than five miles oflf. Q. You were asked as to the mode of getting bait, whether you em- ployed those men that went for herring. Do you pay them wages, or pay them after the fish are caught ? — A. We employ them before they go. Q. Bui you don't pay them wages ? — A. Y'^es, we have to pay them. If he goes and loses two or three days we have to pay him. Q. But do you pay them wages, so much a day ? — A. No, so much for the herring. Q. Not by the time ?— A. No. Q. Nor in a round sum of money whether they catch or not. Y^ou don't pay them except for the herring they catch ? — A. That is all. I pay according to the quantity that I want myself. Sometimes he may haul 200 barrels, and I take what I want. Q. You don't pay so much and take all he catches ? — A. No, I take what I want, and pay him for what I take. Q. You agree upon the price before he goes for them? — A. Yes. If he has them we take them. Sometimes when we get to Fortune Bay they have them. Q. Then the first thing you do is, if they have them to sell, you buy them by the barrel and take them aboard ? — A. Y'es. Q. And if they haven t them you agree upon the rate per barrel which you pay ? — A. Yes. Q. You tell him you don't want more than so many ? — A. Yes. L Q. Y'ou don'tpay them whether they catch ornot? — A. Y^es; sometime if 1 employ a man to go and catch them, if he loses three or four day sometimes I pay him. Q. Are you obliged to do so or is it good nature ? — A. Well, I have employed a man yet but what he got my herring. Q. According to your bargain you say you pay him for what hecatcbes — A. For what we take. Q. I mean that. And you won't take any more than you have agreed ?- A. No. If it is one barrel I take it. Q. You go into port and want, we will say, 50 barrels. Y'ou can bujiiever emj 30 and want 20 more. Now you tell him you want him to catch you 'S barrels, and just give him so much a barrel ? — A. Yes, that is agreed be fore he goes. Q. And if he comes back with ten barrels, or but one, you give him s much a barrel for them ? — A. If he brings me ten barrels I pay him foi ten ; and if he brings me one, I give him the money for one ; if forty, give him the money for forty. If he brings me more than I want, h can have them himself. Q. D. shores c pounds don't kr Q. Bi Maine a pounds I Q. Ar Cod. Q. Th. Q. Do their net Q. Ha They ha> fish are d Q. The creased. Q. Hov Q. Mor be ?— A. Q. One peud upoi tiedly the; don't use* iuff the he Q.. Is it thing. It Q. Wha bait ?— A. By Q. Ak but we ha Q. Now buy the sc Q. And you have tlie caplin Q. Do By Q. Do neverlor fifty cei like assist )ue dav at Q. One man to c »ouud to Joseph alf of th( By] Questioi AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2275 it be 200 ere. ear f — A. the T. G. Banks?— Che one I BO tons. nd Sydney 0 hundred ;r you em- 1 wages, or )re they go. pay them. io much for not. You it is all. I les he may No, I take X. Yes. If ortune Bay ou buy them jarrel whicb Yes. ; sometimes r four days Veil, 1 neverj ithecfitches!! ve agreed '— | You can bu) jatch you lid is agreed bej Q. Do you know mnch about fishing with pounds and nets on the shores of Massachusetts? — A. No. I don't know anything at all about pounds and nets. They have some pounds over there at Cape Cod. I don't know anything about them. Q. But you know that from Gloucester all up and down the coast of Maine a great deal of inshore fishing is done with nets and seines and pounds ? — A. There are not a great many pounds on the coast of Maine. Q. Are there on the coast of Massachu.setts ? — A. There are at Cape Cod. Q. They fish from the shores with nets and seines ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know much about that ? — A. I have seen them hauling in their nets. Q. Has not that kind of fishing on the coast very much increased ? — They have increased in the business, but the fish have decreased. The fish are decreasing all the time. Q. The number of fish caught ? — A. Yes ; but the busiuesS has in- creased. Q. How can that be ? — A. I mean the vessels and the boats. Q. More vessels, boats, and seines are eiui)loyed than there used to I be?— A. Yes. Q. One word more about the people in Newfoundland. Do they de- Ipeud upon the Americans for selling their ice and herring? — A. Deci- dedly they do. There is nobody else there that buys, except us. They don't use any ice except what we want. There is no other nation want- |iug the herring except the Americans. Q. Is it a sure thing to get bait there ? — A. It has been a very sure [thing. It has always been since I have been there. Q. What about those vessels that are there so long and don't get |bait ? — A. Spending their time in foolishness, I suppose ; I don't know. By Sir Alexander Gait : Q. About this Newfoundland bait ; you have spoken ot herring only, but we have heard here that there are caplin and squid ? — A. Yes. Q. Now, what do you do about those ? Do you buy them '? — A. We buy the squid and caplin too. Q. And do you get them under the same sort of arrangement that you have described ? — A. No ; we buy the squid by the 100 pounds, and the caplin by the barrel. Q. Do you catch squicl yourselves ? — A. No ; we buy them. By Mr. Davies : Q. Do you ever assist in catching squid ?— A. No ; we pay them forty ir fifty cents a hundred. We are paying pretty high, and don't feel like assisting them. If a man catches four or five thousand squid in lue day at that rate he is doing pretty well. Q. One question more. Do I understand correctly that if you employ man to catch herring, and he is unsuccessful, you consider yourself •ouud to pay him ? — A. I would pay him, but I never had to do so. I lever employed a man but what he caught them. No. 29. '•■«*fii(, -,.:''i^ ■■«, i^i^t:, a give him sol Joseph O. Procter, of Gloucester, Mass., merchant, called on be- [ pay him foMalf of the Government of the United States, sworn and examined. ,e; if forty, f ■n I wan , 1 Q^ggjjQQ Youareanativeandresidentof Gloucester ?— Answer. lam. 2276 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. What is your business ? — A. The owning and running of flsliing- vessels ; taking care of their products is part of my business, perhaps the larger part, and other business connected with it. Q. How long have you been engaged in yonr business? — A. I com- menced in 1841, as a boy 12 years of age, with my father. I was with him until 1848. He died in 1848, and I then continued the business. On January 1, 1849, 1 commenced business on my own account, 19 years of age. Q. You have continued ever since? — A. Yes. Q. What species of fishing have you been engaged in ? — A. Princi- pally codtish. But I have had some vessels for mackerel and halibut and all departments. Q. What fleet of vessels do you employ yourself? — A. The average is about 12, sometimes 13 and 14, perhaps down to ten. I have had as high as 14, and have now 13. Q. Calf you give me any idea of the character of your business for any past number of years? Gould you, within a number of years, give me an accurate statement of the vessels and tlieir results ? — A. I haven't any figures to give you the results of the work in any department ex- cept mackerel. Q. How far back is that ? — A. I have from my books the figures to give the results of the fishing in British waters for 19 years. Q. You can use any memorandum you have prepared from your books, explaining to the Commission how you have prepared it, and I will baud it to counsel on the other side. How many vessels have you employed in the bay in these 19 years ? — A. They vary from 1 to 8. The highest number since 1866 has been 8 and the lowest 1. Q. Give me the number of vessels you have employed from year to year in that branch since 1866.— A. In 1866 I had 7 ; in 1867, 7 ; in 1868,8; in 1869,3; in 1870,2; in 1871,3; in 1872,5; in 1873,9; iu 1874, 7 ; in 1875, 5; in 1876, 1 ; and in 1877, 1. Q. What has been the result of that nineteen years' fishing ? State the amount, if you can, for each year. — A. Might I explain that some of those vessels have made two trit)s and some one ? I have the number of trips. Q. How many trips did you make, and how many barrels of mack- erel?— A. 170 trips my vessels made ; that is, beginning with 1857 and ending with 1876. By Mr. Davies : Q. Can you give us the number of vessels from year to year, from 1857 down ? — A. I cannot answer, that further back than 1866. By Mr. Trescot : Q. You say your vessels made 170 trips in nineteen years. What number of barrels did they take ? — A. 30,349. Q. What was the average number for those trips, running over the nineteen years ? — A. 183 barrels ; that is, packed barrels. Q. What was the average value of your mackerel during that time ?— A. The average value was $11.57 for 200 pounds of fish, exclusive of packing. Q. What was the average value of the trips ? Give me a rough esti- mate of the result of those trips, the average. Taking the average trips of that number of barrels at that average price, what was the result to you ? — A. I make tbe result as no profit, so far as pursuing the business is concerned. I consider the gross stock, the barrels of mackerel at that price, taking tbe charge for bait, and dividing as we divide the proceeds, AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 227T of fishing- 8S, perhaps -A. I coin- I waa with le business. nt, 19 years -A. Princi- lud halibut rhe average iia\ e had as business for f years, give ^. I haven't partment ex- le figures to s. Q your books, d I will hand 3U employed The highest from year to 1807, 7; in 1873,9} iu ling ? State that some ot the number lels of mack- ith 1857 and lo year, from $66. fears. What ling over the Ithattimel- exclusive of |a rough esti- iverage trips I the result to the business kkerel at tliat (the proceeds, one-half among the crew, and one-half to the owners. The one half to the crew, where the vessel averaged fourteen hands, and taking the average time, ten weeks, on the trip, or two and a half months, make the wages of each man per month $27.64. The owner's half of the voyage is $968. Against that, pay insurance, commission to master, provisions, oil, fuel, salt to cure that quantity of fish, and fishing gear, tiie vessel's running expenses, depreciation of vessel, and interest on investment, and those items amount to $1,096, which makes an average loss of $128. Q. I would infer from this that in the nineteen jears of niackerel-flsh ing, so far as the mackerel-fishing itself is concerned, you have lost ? — A. There is a loss directly. Q. It seems that in the nineteen years you have been sending vessels, and they have made as you say 170 trips, you have lost on the average $128 a trip. Now, how can you explain that you continued such a busi- ness as that? — A. It may be partly explained in this way. These items that make up this cost are where the fitter owns the vessel and runs it. There are certain items here that we consider vessel charges directly and certain that are expenses of the voyage. There are certain items that are directly charges against the vessel. Insurance $1.25, running expenses $200, depreciation $100, interest or investment $175 ; in all $500. Thus those would be offset. If I being in the business, should charter a vessel, I would pay a certain price as charterer. In which case these items would be against the owner of the vessel. The charter of a vessel of the average tonnage we used would be $2 per month per ton. That would be a low charter. We may say that would be an average charter. It is as low as ever they are chartered. The average tonnage is 90, carpenter's measurement, which, at that rate, would make it $180 a month for a vessel. Take two and a half months, and the time occupied in fitting would be three months, and that would make the whole amount for the season $540, that would be for the use of the vessel for this voyage. These items and charges I make amount to $500, so these are within the amount that would be paid for the charter for a vessel to pursue the same voyage. Q. But what I want to ask you is this: It is evident that your mack- erel-fishing is not profitable according to your statement. How is it that with so little profit, or rather with so much loss, you find it neces- sary to keep up the mackerel fishery f — A. There have been seasons, as will be seen, and as we all know, when there has been some profit in the mackerel business. While we were in the war the ]>rice8 were very high. Those seasons there was a profit in the whole business, mackerel as well as codfish jointly. But for the series of years, taking the nine- teen years together, it brings that result. We haven't been aware until we figured that the business stood just in that position. This is a part of our business — a small part. The business is largely codfish business. There are three or four mouths of mackerel-fishing during the warm months. We pursue cod fishing six or eight months, and this business comes in after the men are tired catching codfish, and they go mackerel- ing. It is an easy business and they have got used to going in the bay fishing with lines. Some years we have good seasons and others poor, but taking the aggregate that is the result. Q. You could not afford to pursue the mackerel fishing by itself, and you use it simply as supplementary to your other business, to keep your crews together "and your vessels employed ? — A. We have to keep our vessels employed all the year in order to hold the men together. They are fishermen^ and have no other business, and we have to keep them :''.:;(::^ 'i>'W P* ;hr?i^ 2278 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Ill !! employed to keep the business. We furnish provisions. There is a profit on that item to offset the loss. We handle those provisions and there is a slight profit on them. We handle the mackerel also, and in packing them we furnish barrels, and have a profit of thirty to thirty-five ceiitN a barrel. Q. Then I understand that having employed your vessels in the cod fishery, you employ them in the oft' months in the bay for mackerel, looking forward simply to keeping them employed, and if possible guarding against loss, or making a little profit, but that the bulk of the profit that you make is in connection with the provisions and the haml- ling of the produce 1 — A. Yes. Q. So the mackerel fishery, as an industry, could not be i)rosecuted by itself with any chance of profit f — A. No ; I could not continue iu the business if we had nothing but the mackerel. Q. Could you form any idea of the relative yield of the mackerel fishery and the cod fishery that you conducted at the same time, or for any one year ? Could you show the ditterence between the profit of the mackerel fishery and the cod fishery, which is your main business ? — A. The larger part of the product of my vessel has been codfish. Q. Could you say what proportion the result of the cod fishing bears to that of the mackerel ? — A. In '75 I see the product of the mackerel fishery was about $14,000, shore and bay, and the product of the cod fishery $65,000. Some years it might vary. In 1805, during the preva- lence of high prices, we pursued the mackerel more than at other times. Q. Do you think your experience would be pretty much the same as that of other Gloucester men employed iu the same business ? — A. I have done about an average business. My vessels have been employed iu the various lines of business the sarnie as others generally. Q. As far as Gloucester is concerned the mackerel fishery is really not a source to which they look for profit ? — A. That is so. Q. And it is a fishery they are obliged to keep up rather to keep their vessels employed and to preserve the crews than for any value attached to it? — A. It is. If I may explain. We have had an excellent fishery on our shores, and within the last two years we have used facili- ties such as seines. We have altogether nearly 100 seines, and they sup ply our markets with better fish than the bay fishery. I don't know hardly an instance when they haven't been sweeter and taken better in the market than the bay fish. With these facilities for catching mackerel with the seine, our market is supplied, so there is no great catch with the hook. AVe can't use seines to catch mackerel in the bay with any success, and using the hook and line iu the bay, as against tht seine on our shores, is a very unprofitable business. Q. You find it more profitable to prosecute the fishery on our owu shores, partly because the expenses are smaller, and the fish better, and comparatively speaking you cannot contend with hand-lines, as against the use of seines on our coast ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know anybody in Gloucester to anj' extent employed luj bay-fishing, and entirely trusting to bay fishing for results? — A. No; there is uot any there, and never was. Q. With regard to fishing in the bay, do yon give any specific instruc tions to your captains as to where they shall fish, or do you leave them] to their own judgment ? — A. If we have free fishing, we leave them eu tirely to their own judgment. Q. Have you a fair opportunity of forming an opinion as to wfcerd they fish ? — A. I have. Q. Well, would your impression be that of the 19 years' fishing yon AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2279 le is a profit \m\ there is 1 iD packing ,y-tive cents 8 in the cod )r mackerel, if possible I bulk of the id the hauil- 3 prosecuted coutinue iu ;he mackerel ) time, or for profit of tlie jsiuess ? — A. sh. fishing bears the mackerel Bt of the coil Lig the preva t other times. the same as J?— A. I have employed iu yis really not ither to keep for any value an excellent e used facili- and they sup don't know taken better for catching e is no great rel in the bay IS against tbt y on our owu sh better, antl les, as against employed in dts?— A. No; )ecific instruc )u leave theui save them eu' as to wfe ier« 8' fishing yoii have recorded there had been much fish taken within three miles of the shore? — A. My impression is that a very small part has been so taken. Q. Could you form an approximate idea of the proportion taken within iu the bay-fishing? — A. You mean within three miles? Q. Yes? — A. From the best of my Judgment, the knowledge I have where my vessels have been, and conversation with the masters of the vessels, I believe that not one eighth of the mackerel have been caught within, I sbould say less, and I should not say any more. It is nearer a tenth than an eighth. Q. Well, you have referred just now to the time when the fishing was free. Did you take out a license while it was not free ? — A. I took out a licerfse while they were merely nominal, fifty cents a ton, and wlien it was one dollar a ton. I didn't take any when they were two dollars. Q. What was your object in taking a license? — A. My object was to feel secure in my property, not that we desired perhaps to go within three miles, but there was a doubt about where the lines were drawn. There was always a doubt, and to secure against an uncertainty, and to secure ourselves so that we would not be taken if we were five or six miles out, I should rather pay the money than have the anxiety. Q. Have you any personal knowledge of the tisbing grounds your- sell ? — A. I have been over them but not fishing. Q. From what you have learned from the captains, have you formed any idea that there is any peculiar inducement to fish at Prince Edward Island, and that the Magdalens are unsafe .' — A. I have always con- sidered the Magdalens the safest place. Q. Do you know where the bulk is caught l — A. At the Magdalens, or between the Magdalens and Cheticamp. Q. Now, with your idea of the mackerel fishing, do you suppose that if the American ttshermen were required to pay for the privilege of tish- ing in British waters they could fish with anything like profit to them- selves ? — A. They could not. Q. That is, that any additional expense, added to what they have to bear now, would be simply to destroy the business ? — A. It would pre- vent their going. Q. You have been engaged also in the cod fishing ? — A. Yes. Q. How many vessels have you en»i)loyed, as a general rule ? — A. I have nine now exclusively cod-fishing this year. All those vessels are employed cod tishing. Q. just explain. Start with, one of your vessels, describe when she sets out and when she comes home, and where she is iu the mean time. — A. Most of our vessels are vessels that are used on the George's. Our vessels start the middle of January or the first of February for the George's. It is boisterous weather and a rough place; but the men be- come hardened, and willing to venture; they are all on shares, and go for high lines ; they pursue this fishing on the George's until the first of July. We have had all through this season lL*0 vessels ; that has increased some latterly. Continuing on the Georges through the year is increasing. Eight years ago there was half as many vessels in the summer on the George's as now, and more in the nnickerel business. The vessels that intend to go mackereling fit out in July, generally the 1st of July, and those vessels are vessels that have been on the Georges during the spring. We have one class of vessels that have been built a little larger, and they are adapted to the Grand Bank flshery. They are not used for mackereling at all. They coutinue the Grand Bank lishery during the season. Q. What do you do with them afterwards ? — A. They go home about i li : m --"if '1 ,iitt 'mm '!:!2!ffe ill 1 2280 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. the Ist December. It is a coDtinnons business, and we keep the men steadily employed. There are, perhaps, 50 vessels tbat start early in the spring to fish on our own shores, seining mackerel. They don't pur- sue codtishing at all. Q. Now, with regard to yonr cotlfisli ; how many vessels have yon on the Banks now, and how many generally f — A. Well, perhaps I can't an- swer that distinctly, as most of my vessels have fished for codfish a large part of this season. One left her cod-fishing to go into the bay, and there is one that has been mackereling all the year. Q. I only want a general idea how you provide your vessel with bait, whether you take it with you or send into Newfoundland ? — A. The Grand Bank vessels ? Within a year or two our men have got into the habit of going in and buying fresh bait, because it has not been on the Bank within two or three years. If half of them have fresh bait, the other half can do better if they have it. Formerly they used to use salt bait with what squid they could catch on the Bank. They were caught there for a succession of years. Within two or three years they seem to have abandoned the fishing-grounds and gone inshore. Vessels that left home previous to three years ago did not make laud until they re- turned. Q. As far as the experience of your vessels has gone, do you consider it wiser to fish with salt bait and keep on fishing, or to go in for fresh bait? — A. So far as the quantity of the fish is concerned, I don't think there was much difference if we used the salt bait. We could procure our fares. But our men are acquainted with one another; they can catch more fish with fresh bait while on the grounds alongside of ves- sels fishing with the salt bait than a vessel fishing with the salt. But while a vessel is going in for fresh bait the vessel with the salt bait is still continuing to catch fish, and so it is equal. Q. With regard to results, it is more remunerative than mackerel ? — A. Yes.. Q. Is it so as a fishery or as the cod is handled after it is caught ?— A. It is not in the business of catching fish. After the fish are disposed of in their green state as they arrive in port, from the time they ar- rive until they go to the consumer, the handling of them gives us our business. Q. Then even the profits of cod fishing are rather mercantile than from the fishing itself? — A. It is the profits derived from handling thera, curing, drying them, and finding a market for them, and sometimes we get a chance of a rise, buying low. Q. What has been the average that your cod-fishing vessels have done ? Can you take any one of them and show what it has done for a series of years? — A. I cannot show what any vessel has done in the cod-flshiug business exclusively for any year. I can say taking her whole work. Q. Take any one of your vessels and explain what her work 'ms i eu. — A. I have figures taken from my books to show the cost ual expenses as well as the recepts of a vessel in the cod and u ol fish- eries. Q. Explain that to the Commission. — A. The Joseph O. \ .s built ,ii 1868, and the cost of the hull was $0,175. The co«t of rigging, .sail ui- chors, cables, &c., all beyond the hull, and fitting her for sea, anu ine expense of the first year, running expenses, was $6,957, making a total vi $13,132. Her earnings were $4,600, leaving the vessel to stand on the books $8,529, after one season's business. Q. How many seasons have you carried her in that way ? — A. Nine, down to January 1, 1877. Q. At At $429,1 and taxe ital as s This vest the sura II fore 1807 in the sai uing expi her stanc Q. Wh it would Q. Ho^ By Q. Do eluded in By Q. The vessel, an the seasoi By Q. Hav one on th( latter yea pensive, of vessels was highf cerned, I which wei ran those they oft'se had uothi been — pre the averaj By Q. Whf the avera about 7 p( the time; i. If ,V( lato W(»iil( Q. Now T' yarei »^^. How its value. Q. Thre we considi Q. Tak< ticular ves they were valuation AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2281 le mon arly in I't pur- 11 on the n't an- xltlHh a he bay, th bait, A. The ii>to the I on tlie >ait, tlie use salt I caugbt seem to els tbat tbey re- 3onsider or fresh I't think procure ;hey can 3 of ve8- ,lt. Bnt D bait is kerel ?— ught f— disposed they ar- 8 us our ban from g them, times we i,ve done ? series of ►d-flshiug work lasl eu. .lual ol fish- ,( ii \ built 11 .sail ui- , anil ilie a total ot ad on the A. Nine, Q. At the end of nine years how enses, do you think you have made? On the money invested, what percentage or profit have the i)eople of Gloucester ma. Q. What has led to the incrense of wealth, if there has been such, in the last fifteen or twenty years ? Is your Hshing business the chief sup- port of Gloucester? — A. It is the largest ijusiness we do, but it is not all that is done in (Jloucester to increase it.s valuation. If I understand what you are driving at, it is this: if we have an increase in the vabia tion on the assessors' books, from what cause has that increase come ! Q. Yes? — A. I have not looked at the valuation books, but I think ■we have an increased valuation, although I have no figures with me. If I recollect aright, the valuation is about !5!!),(M)0,()tM), with 17,000 in- habitants ; I remember when the valuation on the books was $-l:,000,000, That was in the fifties. 1 think the in(Meased valuation has arisen from the increased assessed value of the same pjoperty we had in the fifties— a large portion of it from the increased value of the same property. We have also an increased valuation from the prochicts of our granite business : we employ 1,000 men in the granite quarries. They have been developed. 1,000 men, with all the olHcers of the company, require places to live in ; that makes property and adds to the valuation. Tlio development of the quarries, with all the machinery employed, has added very largely to the valuation of Gloucester. We have had (luite a huge number of quarries developed within the last ten years, which have iricrea.sed the assessed value. Gloucester has become a large sum- mer resort, and has a great many summer visitors ; they have to have bouses, and that has increased the valuation very largely. About ten good sized public liouses have been built within the last five or sis years, ami tilled with summer boarders. Avery large miinbor of faini lies from Cambridge, Lowell, lioston, atul other places have come down there and spent $13,000 to 85,000 on a house for the summer in the out- skirts of Gloucester. That has also added to the valuation. We have also improved our ship-railways; we have now six railways in use in Gloucester, and we draw in business from Newburypovt, l*ortland, and other ports ; and vessels come here for repairs, whicli makes work for mechanics. We have the best mechanics, best sail-makers, calkers, and ship carpenters which can be found. We are drawing business to Gloucester, while other places have decreased. We have nearly held onr own in the fishing business, and we have grown in the business we have obtained from other sources. Q. So Gloucester does not, as has been said by the other side, repre- (,). <.>. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2283 lo you <;(>ii- other biisi- I have not iling all ox- rested, wliiit k.. We (loirt leir runniiiK average of on tlie other >at center ot made all its inch town as \. It has 111- lioen such, in :he chief siip- but it is not I luiilerstand in the valua crease come ! ^, but I think res with me. ith 17,000 in- us $i, 000,000, ,8 arisen from n the lifties— me property if our granite jey have been )any, require 1 nation. The mph)yed, has ave had (piite I years, which L^ a large sum- have to have y. About teu ast tivo or sis inbor of fa mi ve come down nor in the out- on. We have ays in use in Portlaiul, and lakes work for ikers, calkers, ng business to nearly held our •liness we have ier side, repre- sent the accumulated wealth obtained from the cod and mackerel Ash- ing during the last 15 or liO years i — A. I have not any answer to make to that. 1 don't know what the other side have said. Q. Has Gloucester grown more than towns in other countries ?— A. No. Haverhill, Lawrence, and Lowell have largely increased their val- uations. Q. To go back to the mackerel fishery. Judging from your list of catches, macikerel is a very variable fishery ? — A. Ycis. Q. In calculating the luohts on the mackerel fishery, is there any ])eriod within whicli to expect a rise and fall in the success of the busi- ness ? — A. From my experieiuje, there are years when we have reason to expect a better catch than otiier years, from the quality of the mack- erel and the body of it we tiinl the year before. Q. What is that period? — A. They are periodical. The large' body of mackerel are of quite an even size, and they grow perhaps one inch a year until they reach twelve inches, when they grow not more than one-half or three-(|uartersof an inch a year; on reaching thirteen inches, they don't grow more than hall' an inch a year afterwanl. We find the same body of mackerel increased in size as the j'ears roll on, until they get to be a good size. As they inciease in size they decrease in (juan- tity. Then we may expect a new growth, which fish come along not annually but in periods of five or six years, when we find a bo«ly ot ni' " vcrel of small fish of even size; and when they get large enough to catch, as we can follow them along in the years we can expect to catch a certain kind for years. I have been through three such periods, and the mackerel have come along about as regularly as we calculated. Sometimes there has been a deviation from the rule, but generally it has been as I have stated. Q. llow about the mackerel market ? — A. The mackerel market does not increase, that is, the demand for mackerel does not increase. The price of mackerel from our experience will rule low. They are low now, compared with the (piantity. Tlui country does not seem to call for mackerel. There is a good call for cod, and a large consumption, but the demand for mackerel is limited, and tiiere is less call for it than usual. « Q. During the years from which you struck au average of about $11, you included the years of the war ? — A. I di,000; 30,000 barrels herring, #127,500; 40,000 quintals other dry fish than cod, $120,000; shell-fish, $10,000; 11,000,000 pounds fresh fish, $745,000; 275,000 gallons fish oil, $132,000; 2,750,000 pounds smoked halibut, $275,000; «,000 tons fish manure, $25,000; miscella- neous, $10,000 ; total value, $4,648,500. Q. You were one of the committee which carried this petition to Congress against the Washington Treaty ? — A. 1 was there at the time on the committee. Q. I will read you an extract from the petition which contains an estimate of the value of the fish product in 1870. It is as follows: That this picture is not overdrawn, let the following figures testify : Since the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, and the repeal of the bounty laws, and the establishment of a duty of $2 per barrel on mackerel and 50 cents per one hundred pounds on dried fish imported into the United States, the business of fishing, thus protected even, has been by no means so remunerative as to encourage a large increase of the fishing tieets in the hands of those engaged in catching fish alone. The product of the fisheries in 1870 was $14,000,000 To secure this product the cost of provisions and salt,'and the expenses of 1,800 vessels averaging 50 tons each (90,000, tons), at $;J,000 for each vessel were 5,580,000 Cost of 500,000 barrels 500,00.) Labor on shore, packing and curing fish 750, 000 Earnings of 20,000 fishermen at $330 each, for the season 6, 600, 000 Interest on capital invested. $11,000,000... 660,000 $14, 090, 000 Without estimating at all the depreciation in the vessels themselves. During this year the product cost $90,000 more than it brought in the market — the $750,000 spent among packers and cuvers, the large sums also spent of the above amount in outfit- ting, constituting all the benefit derived by those who were engaged in supplying fish to those who endeavor to control the markets. Q. You believe that statement is correct '? — A. I helped to make it up. Q. You don't consider the tish in the water of any value at all ? — A. No. Q. The value of the fish is what yon expend on it ? — A. All the labor expended on it. Q. You would not put any commerciiil value on either codtish or mackerel in the water? — A. N ) • there is none. Q. You say you are also engaged in halibut tishing ? — A. Yes. Q. There is a very Iiirge amount of halibut tishing carried on from Gloucester? — A. Considerable; we supply the market as far as we can. Q. Do you know of any halibut fishing on the United States coast, except from Gloucester, of any consequence ? — A. No ; a small amount is done by the town of New London, which runs a few vessels. Q. You have had vessels engaged iu that fishery ? — A. Yes ; but I have not any this year. Q. You know where the vessels go to fish ? — A. Yes. Q. Is Q. W( of any c shore of in gettin and wen Q. Fr( be in the Sable Isl heard of Q. Yoi my busir Q. Wl about th vessels ei Q. Wh tile busin the place: from the as an arti in the wii Q. The for anv. Q. Wit in them, a of chargir the privih you think going bac has passe Q. Woi iug withir $2 per ba and be ex this way : prefer the when I a because a of both c( to carry ii Q. To a you think on British A. 1 do. but it has By Q. Whc Q. Wh3 iu from tL tish to oui Iiave it de does not a prevent pt a shorter ( barrel dut uess. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2287 5, oSO, 000 500, 00.) 750, 000 6, 600, 000 660, 000 Q. Is not tbe halibut fishery entirely a deep sea fishery. — A. Yes. Q. Would you not be surprised to hear of any inshore halibut fishing of any consequence ? — A. I had one vessel make two trips to the north shore of the St. Lawrence, up at Seven Islands. They were successful in getting one or two trips ; but they tried four other times to get trips and were unsuccessful. Q. From your experience and knowledge, what likelihood would there be in the truth of a story of a large number of vessels going into Cape Sable Island to catch mackerel, and getting heavy catches ? — A. I never heard of any vessels fishing in there ; it is very improbable, indeed. Q. You are also engaged in the herring fishery? — A. Somewhat; my business in herring is limited. Q. What do you do in the way of the herring business ? — A. I know about the business. I have had some experience in it, and have had vessels engaged in it. Q. What is the herring fishing? Is it a fishing business or a mercan- tile business, as far as Gloucester is concerned ? — A. Our vessels go to the places where the herring are fished in the winter time, and buy them from the shoremen, freeze ti em, carry them to market, and sell them as an article of food, principally. We use some in our business for bait in the winter time ; but we sell them principally as an article of food. Q. Then it is entirely a mercantile transaction ? — A, We don't fish for any. We buy them from the people on the shore, who catch them. Q. With your experience of the fisheries, and the interest you have in them, what is your opinion in regard to returning to the old system of charging $2 per barrel duty on British fish, or giving up the duty for the privilege of fishing inshore. Which would you prefer, and what do you think about it ? — A. I don't know that I should advocate such a going back as that in these times. I believe in going ahead. The time Las passed to go back to such a state of affairs. Q. Would you, as a business man, prefer to have the privilege of fish- ing within the three-mile limit, or would you prefer to have the duty of $2 per barrel imposed on fish coming into competition with your fish, and be excluded from the three-mile limit ? — A. I would answer that in this way : in connection with any business personally, I would very much prefer the $2 per barrel duty. But I looked at it in a broader sense, when I answered it as I did at first. 1 would not advocate the idea, because my own personal inteiest is very small, compared with the needs of both countries. It is a step I would not be in favor of endeavoring to carry into efiecu. Personally, it would be decidedly for my benefit. Q. To a certain extent it would be a pecuniary benefit to you ; but you think it would be illiberal either to charge a duty of $2 per barrel on British fish, or to exclude our fishermen from the tliree-mile limit ? — A. I do. I was very decidedly against taking off the duty at that time, but it has passed. By Mr. Foster : Q. Who pays the duty ? — A. It comes from the i)roducer of the fish. Q. Why ? — A. I don't think the small quantity of fish which comes in from the provinces, compared with our quantity, attects the price of tish to our consumers. If they have to pay a duty, they will have to have it deducted when the receipts for the tish are sent back. A duty does not affect the price to the consumer. It would have a tendency to prevent people continuing the business here, which might in time make a shorter catch, and give us the advantage. If there should be $2 per. barrel duty imposed, I have my idea of what would become of the busi- ness. ll|H|II|||fjj U\ fifii MM m 2288 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Ml hi By Mr. Dana : Q. The fishing business at Gloucester has been built up within the last 25 or 30 years ? — A. I think it has. The different departments have been drawn in. Q. Has it not been built up at the expense of other towns ? Take Marblehead ; it used to be a famous tishiug place. — A. Yes. Marble- head four or five years ago had forty vessels ; this year it has eight. Beverly has decreased to 22 ; formerly it had a great number. Man- chester sends out none now; I remember when it sent out eighteen vessels. Q. So that whatever increase there has been at Gloucester, you can trace it as having been drawn from other fishing towns ; in other words, the trade has been centralized ? — A. Yes. Our products are also brought in by eastern vessels from along the shore of Maine, which come in and sell their cargoes. That quantity goes into our product. It makes busi- ness for us. By Mr. Davies : Q. You are under the impression that the producer would pay the duty ? — A. That is my impression, that the consumer would hardly know the difference in price. Q. That is based on the promise that a very small quantity of fish comes in from the provinces ? — A. Not altogether on that. Q. If it is not upon that data, upon what data do you form that con- clusion f — A. That the price of fish is not governed by the men who produce it or put it in the market for sale. We have to take what we can get. We cannot make the price of fish ; there is no union about it, and whether there is a duty paid or not, the price of fish to the con- sumers or middle men is not regulated by how much it cost to produce it or how much duty is paid on it. Q. Is not the market for fish regulated by the ordinary laws of supply and demand ? — A. Not altogether. Q. How do you account for the extraordinary variation in price, which appears to depend very much on the quantity produced ? — A. It depends somewhat on that, but the market for mackerel has not done so. This year we had a very smjiU catch of mackerel, but the price has been low, very low compared with the catch. It is higher than it would have been if we had caught three times as many. Q. Showing that the quantity produced has regulated the price ? — A. Not altogether. Q. To a large extent. I will take the illustration you have given. There has been a very poor catch this year on your coast ? — A. Yes, rather light. Q. I was told by a very large fish dealer that he had a quantity of mackerel. No. 1, in Boston, and he expected to get $28 per barrel for it. Is that near the market price i — A. I have not heard of any such price being mentioned. Q. What is the price of No. 1 mess mackerel ? — A. Caught where ? Q. I don't care where. Is there any difference ? — A. I have not heard of any price being paid this year over $22 per barrel. That was for the best mess mackerel, and of those few are wanted. Q. Is $22 a high price ?— A. Yes. Q. Is that not caused by the lightness of the catch on your coast ? — A. No. There is a certain call for a particular class of mackerel, and if you can supply that mackerel you can obtain a certain price. When you increase the quantity of that class, the price will fall. There is a l)erson Q. SH A. Pers Q. W tendenc ing thei 1 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2289 thin tbe 5nts have 3? Take Marble- as eight, jr. Man- eighteeu , yoa can ler words, ) brought ne in and \ke& busi- 1 pay the Id hardly ity of fish that con- men who ) what we lion about DO the con- to produce 5 of supply 1 in price, }d?— A. It s not done e price has an it would le price? — jave given. ?— A. Yes. quantity of »arrel for it. such price it where ? e not heard was for the »ur coast ? — ackerel, and rice. When There is a certain trade which wants nice mackerel and will pay a good price for it. Q. Is that the average price of No. 1 mess mackerel ? — A. No ; it is a little high. , Q. How much too high ?— A. They are usually .^18, $19, or $20, when there is a good catch. I think $22 is a little higher than the average price over a series of years. From $18 to $20 would be the average price of No. 1 mess mackerel. Q. What did mess mackerel bring last year ? — A. I sold mess mackerel aft about $17; there was a very short catch, indeed. Q. And the price this year is $.5 higher than last year ? — A. Yes. Q. Don't you think that is accreditable, to a very large extent, to the lightness of the catch this year on your coast '? — A. Perhaps it might a very few dollars on the barrel. Q. And if there was a duty imposed, and no extraordinary catch, do you not think the consumer would pay the duty? — A. No; because I don't think you could depend on a small catch if you had a duty imposed. You might have a large catch and a duty. Q. I am taking this year. Suppose there was a duiy on mtackerel this year, who would pay it on the mackerel ? — A. The man who caught them would pay the duty. Q. Although he got $5 more per barrel than last year ? — A. Not on account of the duty. Q. On account of the lightness of the catch ? — A. That would not aftect the duty at all. Q. If he had to pay a duty of $2 per barrel, he would .get $5 per barrel more than last year ? — A. Does he get any more if it is free or less than if there was a duty on this year ? Customers do not think anything about duty when tbey purchase mackerel. The duty has nothing to do with regulating the price; the quantity caught has some- thing to with it. Q. And therefore the quantity imported would have something to do with the price ? — A. It has some eflect on it. Q. Suppose one-half the mackerel consumed in the United States was imported, what would be the effect ?— A. It would affect the price ; it would make our xirices low. Q. Must not one-fourth of any product being imported materially affect the price ? — A. It does, somewhat. Q. Does it not materially ? — A. It is according to the kind that is produced. Certain kinds of mackerel will sell better than other kinds. Q. A return shows that the mackerel imported into the United States from 1871 to 1870 ranged at about 90,000 barrels. That is about one- fourth of your annual consumption ? — A. There are about 250,000 bar- rels annually inspected in Massachusetts, and 50,000 in Maine; it is therefore less than one-fourth. Q. It is between one-tbird and one-fourth. Don't you think the im- portation of that quantity must necessarily affect tbe market? — A. Yes; that is what we are afraid of. Q. And when you spoke about being against going back to tbe old state of things you spoke as a citizen of the United States, not as a person engaged in the fishing business simply ? — A. Yes. Q. Speaking as a fisherman, would you prefer to have the duty on? — A. Personally, I would rather have the duty oti. Q. Why ?— A. Because the duty is better for us, for it would have a tendency in years of good catches to prevent your people from increas- ing their business. It has that tendency. 144 F mil '' '*!«''({ /t m III Ml (iiilij 2290 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Has it any tendency to better you as well as to injure your neigh. bors ? — A. That is what we were looking for — for better prices. Q. Has it a tendency to increase prices to your fishermen ? — A. It would. Q. So, if it increases the price of tbe flsb it strikes rae tbe consumer must pay tbe increased price.— A. I am not clear that the duty has any. thing to do with it; it is tbe catch. Q. You are a large fish-merchant ; you have not gone and prosecuted tbe fishery as a fisherman yourself ? — A. No. Q. And therefore you cannot speak from any personal experience as to where the fish are taken If — A. No. Q. When you spoke, therefore, of the halibut-fishing, you spoke only from information gathered in your business, not from being actually present and seeing the locality where they were taken ? — A. My meaus of knowing was by inquiring of the men where they fished. Q. Therefore you would not be prepared to contradict those who actually stated that the fish were taken in certain localities ? — A. Cer- tainly not. Q. We have had some evidence of halibut-fishing on the southeastern point, of Nova Scotia, and in a bay called Lobster Bay and around Cape ■ Sable Island ; would you be prepared to deny that halibut are taken there ? — A. Certainly not. ' Q. When you made answer to Mr. Trescot that fish had no commercial value, what are we to gather as the full meaning of that answer ? — A. Tbat the men, in catching, curing, and preparing fish for market, do not get any more for their time than common, ordiuary labor in any other department. Q. Do I understand that the capital invested in fishing does not pro- duce a greater return than capital invested in any other branch of ia dustry, or does not produce as much ? — A. It does not produc^e as much. The cost of procuring and preparing the fish is equal to the proceeds. I mean as regards the fish producer ; I do not mean as regards the mer- chants. Q. You confine that answer to those who invest their capital in pro- ducing fish as a food product ? — A. Y^es ; to those who bring it in in a green state. Q. And the people who are engaged in that fishing make a fair living out of it? — A. Well, they make about $30 a month for ten months in tbe year. Q. Some of the most prudent, competent, and successful fishermen laying up something? — A. Yes; we have some among us who have done so. One man perhaps in a hundred has by his tact, luck, and en- ergy succeeded better. They commence in this way. A man of that kind we will pick out as a master, and he will get his share, and a com mission which will amount to as much as his share. We pay 4 per cent, to the master, which makes him a double sharesman. He cau save something, and he goes up the ladder. Q. But the mass of men engaged in fishing make a fair living? — A, They make $300 a year. Q. Would that be a fair average ? — A. My opinion is that it would be a very fair average. Q. Do you supply their food ? — A. While on board the vessels. The.v board themselves when on shore. Q Is the sum of $300 their net proceeds ? — A. Yes, for a year's work ; several voyages together. Q. There are incidental profits in all large business ? — A. Yes. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2291 your neigh. eu ?— A. It e coDsuiiier ty has any. prosecuted :perience as spoke only ng actually My means those wbo I?— A. Cer- outheastern round Cape It are taken commercial nswer ? — A. ,rket, do not ,\i any other oos not pro- ranch of in- U',e as much, le proceeds, rds the mer- >ital in pro- ig it in in a a fair living lonths in the ul flsherraeu 8 who have lick, and en- man of that I, and a com '^e pay 4 per an. He cau living? — A, t it would be issels. They year's work ; . Yes. Q. And those you had not taken into consideration when you made your answer in regaril to fish in the water having no commercial value. The mackerel and middle men make money out of them ? — A. I did not include them. Q. The men who actually go in the vessel do not make money out of them ? — A. No; money is made by middlemen. Q. How is it that shrewd, enterprising, practical men like the Glou- cester people, continue to keep their capital in that business, if they lose money ? — A. We would be very glad to have some better business pointed out. Q. Do you know of no better business t — A. Yes. Q. Why do you not go into it ? — A. Gloucester Harbor is one of the best on the coast ; we possess all the facilities for carrying on this busi- ness of producing an article of food, which other places do not ; we have learned the business and we propose to keep in it, whether we make or lose. If we cannot pay our debts we will assign and commence again. Q. But is there not an aggregation of wealth in Gloucester? Has there not been an increase in wealth ? — A. Very small, indeed, among those in the fishing business. Some rich men may move in and pay taxes. Q. You have said that you knew very few men who had retired from the business ; perhaps they do not retire but keep their money in it.— A. It is difticult for a man to retire and to sell out. Q. You are not a member of the Arm of Procter Brothers ? — A. They are publishers. They are relations of mine. Q. They have published a pamphlet on the Gloucester fisheries '? — A. Yes. Q. Have you read it 1 — A. I think I have. Q. Are the men engaged in the fishing business ? — A. No. Q. They live in Gloucester ? — A. Yes. Q. And are in business in Gloucester :? — A. Yes, as publishers and keepers of a variety store. They were born there, and always lived tliere. They make themselves acquainted by conference with those in the fishery business. Q. Have they conversed with you about it from time to time ? — A. For any point they wished particularly to know about. Q. Is it an annual work they publish ? — A. They don't publish an annual work. That book was got up for the Centennial, and to advertise Gloucester. Q. You have given the value of the fish product in 1876 as $1,048,- 500 '} — A. That amount I did not give as mine. Q. You indorsed it generally f — A. I thought it was nearly correct. I thought the figures rather high. Q. They give for 1875 $3,901,500. I will read what is stated in this pamphlet as the cause of the development at Gloucester : Subject to perils like these and hardsbips greater tban we can describe or imagination conceive, the tishernian plies his busy trade. Through his labors mainly, Gloucester has grown from a population of (),:150 and a valuation of one million dollars in 1840 to a present population of 16,754 and a valuation exceeding nine niiliion.s, showing, in the brief period of thirty-tive years, an increase of 2G4 per cent, in population, H'i'i per cent, in valuation, a58^ per cent in dwellings, 4i'i per cent, in wharves, and 213 per cent, in vessels. Through his skilled operations and the advantages taken of his labors, the fishing business of Glou- cester has grown from an enterprise ot secondary im])ortance to rank among the valuable producing interests of the country. Less than thirty years ago, in 1847, the total value of the fishery products of Gloucester amounted to $")89,;$54. Last year (1875) the production of the Gloucester fleet was as follows : (The figures are here given.) The total is $3,909,500. 'W -III 2292 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. As far as regards the totals given there they are approximately correct? — A. Yes; the whole thing was got up as an advertisement. Q. An advertisement of G oucoster and its trade ? — A. Yes ; for tlio Gentenuial, to advertise our business to the world. Q. When you stated that the value of property at Gloucester had de- creased 33 per cent, during recent years, did you wish it to be inferred tliat that was a special feature in Gloucester alone, or is it not owing to the commercial depression which has extended all over the country H — A. It is not limited to Gloucester. Shoe-manufacturing towns have felt it. Q. Nor is it confined to the fishing business alone f — A. Not at all. Q. Is there any other trade which Gloucester has as a specialty besiden the tlshing business ? — A. It is the largest business we do. Q. Would I not be correct in saying that nine-tenths of the employed capital at Gloucester is engaged directly or indirectly in the fisheries? — A. Seventy-five per cent, of the employed capital is engaged directly or indirectly. Our clothing houses, sail-makers, and other businesses are connected with it indirectly. Q. Is the panjphlet correct iu stating that the valuation in 1840 was about one million and now nine millions, with a population of l(>,7o4 ? — A. I presume the valuation of nine millions is about right. Q. Is not the statement that iu 1840 the valuation was one million, correct ? — A. I presume so ; I know nothing to the contrary^ Q. If 75 per cent, of the employed capital of Gloucester is engaged in the fishing business, does not that prove that it must be owing to the fishing business, almost altogether, that Gloucester has made these strides ? — A. Tbe increase in Gloucester is not all increase in business ; it has increased in population. People have moved in and brought money in and are using it there. The increase in the valuation has not been iu the fishing business altogether; it has mainly, I admit ; but men have moved in who are assessed for larger amounts and pay large taxes and who prefer to come there on account of the high taxes of Boston, and spend part of the season there. They have increased the valuation. Q. You say that it has mainly increased from that cause, but that there are other causes which contribute to it ? — A. Yes ; I have been confining myself to the last ten years. Q. Is not the great underlying cause of the increase in the returns from the fisheries ? — A. No. Q. Tell me what is the great underlying cause? — A. There has been a great increase iu the valuation of Gloucester by reason of its becom- ing noted as a summer resort. That has been the cause of the greatest Increase. There has been no increase in the fishery business of any note. They have increased the value of property there by putting a higher vjiluatiou on it; he same property as we had before. Q. You assented to the statement that the fishing business was the main cause, but not that it is the great underlying cause ? — A. I mean within ten years. Q. Y'ou confine your last statement to ten years. During the last ten years Gloucester has become noted as a watering-place ? — A. It has in- creased in population within ten years. I am speaking more particularly of the increase in the valuation on the assessors' books. That increase has not been due to an increase in the fishing business. The valuation in 18oG or 1858 was about four millions. I did more mackerel business in 1848 than I have done this year. I had twelve vessels in the bay that year. Q. Will you say that the m'ost of those engaged in fishing did more business in 1848 than now ? — A. They did not. m but AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2293 ipproximatoly ertiseinent. Yes ; for tlio cester bad do- le inferred that it owing to the untryl! — A. It have felt it. . Not at all. ecialty besides 0. f the employed Dbe fisheries J igaged directly ' businesses are on in 1840 was m of 10,754 ?- it. ■as one million, -ary. ;r is engaged in be owing to the las made tbese ise in business ; brought money has not been in ; but men have large taxes and of Boston, and e valuation. J, but that there e been confining e in the returns There has been .n of its beconi- e of the greatest aess of any note, utting a higher •usiness was the se?— A. 1 mean iring the last ten '?— A. It has in- nore particularly That increase The valuation ackerel business ssels in the bay ashing did more Q. Where has the money come from which has built the large build- ings and public works and railways 1 — A. From living ecoaomically and saving something every year. Q. You have said that Gloucester is drawing in business from its neighbors? — A. The facilities we have at Gloucester for supplying and repairing vessels, and doing other work connected with them, are beyond those possessed by any other place. We import our salt. We imported 90,0()0 hogsheads last year. Q. All other businesses are dependent on the fishing business more or less ? — A. If it was not for the fishing business we would not want so much salt. We get a profit and return from that which other places used to get. We used to go to liostou for our salt, and not import it, and to other places for what we now produce ourselves. Now we salt our own fish, and are middlemen. Q. Are not those middlemen growing, not, perhaps rich, but making money? — A. No; I don't think they are making much. Q. Are they making something ? — A. They would if they got all their bills paid, but they have bad debts ; that is the trouble. Q. So that really the incidental business which naturally attaches itself to the fishing business pays ? — A. It gives a man a living, that is all. Q. And enables him to lay by a little? — A. A trifle. Q. I suppose the firm of which you are a member is worth to day a good deal of money ? — A. I am the only member of the firm. Q. I would not be wrong in estimating that you are worth from 675,000 to $100,000? — A. I have earned more than my living outside of my business, in holding offices and settling estates. If I am worth 850,000 the fishing business cannot be credited with all of it, although I have had a good fleet of vessels and attended to the business. Q. You have said your vessels have not paid expenses during the last eight years ? — A. I think the results will prove that the vessels have not paid their bills. Q. You make up a profit and loss account every year ? — A. Yes. Q. Showing the profit and loss on each venture? — A. Yes; on each vessel. ' ■ Q. IVIr. Davies asked witness to prepare a statement from his books, showing the result of each voyage during the existence of the liecipro- city Treaty. Q. Your statement covering nineteen years shows that you lost about $128 each year? — A. I got a certain amount for the use of the vessels. Q. That is only interest on the capital employed ? — A. We don't al- ways charge it when we own the vessel. I made something also by pack- Q. Q. Q. How did you make money to invest ? — A. I had good credit. Were not the vesstds owned by you absolutely ? — A. No. None of them ? — A. Not many of them. They were in my name, but their debts were not paid and are not all paid now. I was in good credit. Q. In regard to the account of the catches of mackerel you gave, the result showed a loss .' — A. The result is a loss to the owners of the ves- sels. up a statement showing for those 19 years what the voyage of vessels fishing for mackerel on the I have not. A. No. Q. Have you made the result has been of American coast ? — A. Q. Can you do it here ?- Q. You would have to till 111 :i^^ ■ I •iKlfM 0i^ M tf^m go to Gloucester to do it ? — A. Yes ; I have 2294 AWARD OP THE nSHERY COMMISSION. here a statement since 18GG showing the number of vessels and number of barrels taken, but not the dollars and cents. Q. What does this Mtatement show If — (Statement exhibited.) A. I sell the mackerel to others, and that is an account of the amount re- ceived from the sale of the mackerel, of which the crew received their half and I received mine. That is clear of the packing. Q. Out of the packing and incidental business connected with the sale of the tlsh, you make a profit ? — A. Yes ; and out of curing the fish. Q. And on all the articles su[>plied ? — A. A small percentage. Q. You limit this statement to the actual cost of taking the fish your- self and what you received for them f — A. Yes. Q. How was the small sum of $9,905 realized in the year 1801 for 1,896 barrels ? — A. It was owing to the price of mackerel for number ones, twos, and threes. Q. In 18G2, 698 barrels realized $5,105, and in 1863, 1,424 barrels realized $15,628 — this only shows how much in gross you realized these years? — A. Yes. Q. Can you give an estimate of the cost of each barrel of mackerel on the average for the catch f — A. In that statement it is perhaps as correct as it can be got. Q. How do you find out whether each of these trips is profitable or not 1 — A. All the trips go into the year's work. Q. Can you from your books for these years give me the actual result showing the profit which you made on each of these voyages if — A. It is impossible for anybody to do that ; the books relate to the proceed- ings of the whole year, and a vessel runs for 10 months. Q. You have made up an approximate statement and you show a deficit, and I want to get from the actual books what they show ? — A. I cannot give you what you desire to have. Q. Takij^g the S. L. Lamb, the first vessel, she caught so many bar- rels and realized so much, can you tell me from your books whether yon lost or made money during that trip 1 — A. No ; that trip is part of the year's work. Q. Is not each trip made up by itself, and does it not enable you to pay the men off? — A. Yes, and one- half of the results goes to the credit of the vessel's account. Q. And all the charges made against the trip would be charged? — A. The direct charges for provisions, &c, would be, but not the general charges against the vessel. The charges for insurance, sails, rigging, and anchors, &c., would all be placed in the geueral bills. By Sir Alexander Gait : Q. How do you get at the expenses connected with the 119 trips? — A. I will explain ; you first make up a paper showing the number of trips made in these 19 years, and the number of barrels taken in British ■waters. ^ By Mr. Davies : Q. How do you distinguish between them? — A. These are mackerel brought out from the bay of St. Lawrence via Canso. Q. You give the number of barrels and the value realized from them : and then you have a column showing the average trip, what do you mean by that? — A. I mean, say 16 trips and so many barrels for the 16 trips, and the average would be 1-16 for each trip. If these 16 trips realized 3,000 barrels, 1-16 of 3,000 would be the average. Each year would have an average for itself. Q. This gives the average quantity taken each trip, and the average value f- rel so n Q. H duct by Q. Ai The figi Q. Tl Yes. Q. If would I) realize •'; stock. Q. So put that on cod-fl Q. Th A. That Q. Ar Q. Th emplovei Q. ilc trip. Q. Do of the ve age for i $5,000. Q. Foi entirely. Q. Pre I arrived proving our vess< books, a] Q. Ho running own ex time, inc &c. Th or two a Q. An ment ?— Q. Yo on $5,00 was em Q. Th ing thesi to $21,71 that you have su much if Q. Yo business leaves yi give us work ea Q. It AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2295 lumber A. I unt re- el their rith the ;he fish. ih your- L801 for Dumber barrels hI these lackerel •haps as table or al result —A. It proceed- show a W If— A. lany bar- jther you rtof the e you to ihe credit ged?— A. ) general , rigging, rips? — A. jr of trips n British mackerel •ora them : you mean (trips, and ized 3,000 Id have an le average value T — A. The average price of so many barrels would be for each bar- rel so much. Q. How do you get at the average value !— A. By dividing the pro- duct by tiio number of barrels. Q. And that would leave $7.80 as the price of mackerel in 1857 J — A. The figures are quoted. Q. Then you make up another column showing the expenses ? — A. Yes. Q. If you take the aggregate values, after you pay the men oil", what would be the result ; an average trip is 18.'J barrels, which, at $11.07, realize $2,117, less $180 for bait ?— A. That is taken out of the whole stock. Q. Something else comes out of the whole stock besides bait ? — A. I put that down. On a mackerel voyage there is little else save bait ; but on cod-fishing voyages there are other items. Q. Tlie crew's half is $908 — what do you deduct from this amount ? — A. That goes to the crew. Q. And the owner's half? — A. I credit that to the vessel. Q. The item for insurance is $125 ? — A. That is for the time she was employed on that voyage. Q. ilow do you make it up I— A. It is 2h per cent, on $5,000 for the trip. Q. Do you insure for $5,000 on the vessel ? — A. We insure the value of the vessel. It costs about 2A per cent, a trip to the bay on the aver- age for those years ; that is made up by computing 2.^ per cent, on $5,000. Q. Four per cent, on 1,937 comes out of the owner's share 1 — A. Yes, entirely. Q. rrovisions, oil, and fuel cost $390. How do you make this up ? — A. I arrivedatthat from figures prepared by myself, and from my own books, proving that it costs 40 cents a day per man for these items to fit out our vessels in our way. I prove that by actual figures taken from our books, and 40 cents a day for 14 men for 10 weeks make $390. Q. How do you arrive at the cost of salt, fishing gear, and the vessel's running expenses? — A. I make it up from an estimate furnished by my own experience regarding the portion of the vessel's bills for ten weeks' time, including sails, railway bills, painting, rigging, cables, and anchors, &c. The ordinary running expenses of a vessel for that period of time, or two and a half months, would amount to that sum of money. Q. And how is it with respect to depreciation and interest on invest- ment?— A. That is computed on actual value. Q. You charge interest, $75, on the money invested ? — A. I charge it on $5,000, the value of the vessel for two and a half months, the time she was employed. Q. This statement shows that you lost on an aveiage $128 per trip dur- ing these nineteen years, and as there were 170 trips this would amount to $21,760; will you undertake to say that you lost this amount, and that your actual experience tallies with this approximate which you have submitted ? — A. I undertake to say that I would have lost that much if I had nothing to do beyond owning and running vessels. Q. You mean to say that the gains obtained from one branch of your business recoup you for the loss you sustained elsewhere, and that this leaves you a profit ? — A. I su|)pose so, but as to the profit it does not give us much profit beyond what we earn. Any man who does a day's work earns his wages. Q. It does not give you a profit beyond the loss which you sustain ? — I : « Mi m m 2296 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. A. I do not say that; but if we work with our hands, as we all do at home, and do work which other men would not do — for this work we charge, as we expect to do, at least as much as any hired man would. Q. You are entitled to charge the busiJtiess for your time, and you take thatiuto consideration !— A. Yes. Q. And it does not leave yen much profit beyond that ? — A. Yes. Q. You make sufiicient to live upon and pay your expenses and have some little surplus ? — A. ^Vo have a trifle over sometimes, some years. Q. Ilavo you not on the whole, during these nineteen years, put some- thing to the good ? — A. Yes. During the four years of the war 1 made money beyond what I ever did in my life at any other time; and that gave me capital and something to pay my debts with and for vessels ; bi't this was during four ye.ars, while our currency was iuflated and prices high. These are the only four years during which I made money to speak of, but now when I take stock one year aiul then take it next year, I find there is no margin. Of course this is plain talking, and these are facts taken from my books. There was no margin for all last year's work ; and there was nodili'erence between last year's balance and that of the year before, but the year before that we made a veiy good year's work. Q. Last year you sent all your vessels to fish off the American shore, one excepted ? — A. Yes. Q. And you say you did not make any money ; you lost 1 — A. I did not make or lose much in British waters the year previous. Q. But last year you lost money ? — A. Last year I did not make any- thing. Q. You came out square ? — A. About — I suppose so. Q. You have stated that you examined your books, and that if I refer to them I will find so and so ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you make or lose by the transactions of last year '! — A. There were $1,000 difference between the last year and the year before in my stock account. Q. And the year before you made $1,000? — A. Y'^es; and the year before that I made more than $1,000, according to my books. Q. Which way was the $1,000, to the goud or to the bad, last year ? — A. It was so little that I forget, but the year previously it was on the right side. Q. The years 1875 Jind 1870 were the best years, I have understood, that you have liad on the American coast for a long timef — A. Well, I do not know about that. Q. I mean as regards the catch of mackerel ? — A. I did not get part ■)f it. I did not get any, if it was so. Q. Were not these yeaj's the best you have had on your coast for some time for mackerel seining? — A. I only had one vessel catching mackerel on our coast last year; the others were cod Hsliing ; and that is where I am short. Yes ; I think that last year and the year before were two very good years on our coast. Q. Then, I understand that the result of your evidence would be this, thac the C jmmission are to understand that while the actual llsheriuan does not Make a profit out of his business, the fish merchant makes a handson-.e profit'/ — A. No. Q, T.;ou have lost $21,000 as a fisherman dm iug these 19 years, and as a merchant you have recovered this 821,<>0(> and somet!nng over ? — .'». I made part of that in the business of fitting o'lt vessels i'nd packing the mackerel. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2297 ee all do at liis work we an would, lud you take A. Yes. ,es aud have some years, :s, pataome- war 1 made e ; aud that for vessels ; inflated and made money take it next talking, and argin for all ear's balance made a very irican shore, t ?— A. I did ot make any- that if 1 refer ?— A. There before in my and the year ks. last year !-- t was ou the unde; stood, •— A. Well, 1 not got part )ur coast for ssel catching »g ; aud that B year before ould be this, lal lisherman lant makes a 19 j-ears, and !iing over ? — .'ud packing Q. That is the mercantile orauch of your business ? — A. You may put it that way. Yes. Q. That would be the sum and substance and result of your testi- mony?— A. Yes, Q. Am I to understand that seining, as practiced on the American coast, is a benefit or disadvantage to the fisheries along the coast .' — A. I think that it is a disadvantage. 1 consider that it will prove to be a very expens ve way of catching the fish. This year is a very disastrous year. Q. In what way? — A. There are no fares to pay the bills with. Q. And do you ascribe that in any degree to the process of catching the fish with seines ? — A. Yes, partly ; and there are other causes for it. I think that the larger fish have driven ott" the smaller. Q. And all things combined, it is a very bad year! — A. It is a con- siderably bad year. Few vessels have done well. Q. You stated you believed that not more than one-tenth of the fish were caught inshore in the bay ? — A. Yes ; one-tenth or one eighth. Q. This statement conflicts with other evidence. You, as a matter of fact, have never fished in the bay at all i — A. J have not. Q. And you do not know, as an actual fisherman, where the fish are caught ? — A. No. Q. You have derived your information on the subject from your cap- tains and others ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know the general oi)inion about this matter ? — A. I do not. Q. Do you know whether the Boston merchants entertain any strong oi)inion in opposition to the one you have given i — A. I do not. I never heard that they had stated anything on the subject. Q. I refer to the Boston Board of Trade '/ — A. I do not know liow they SJould know anything more about that tiian n)yself. 1 never knew that the Boston Board of Trade had said anything about it. I never heard that they talked tish. You allude, perhaps, to the Boston Fish Bureau. Q. Perhaps. Are the merchants who handle your fish and get a com'iiissiou ou the transaction oi)posed to your view i — A. They are interested in the trade between the provinces and Boston. Q. Do they know \' here the fish are caught if — A. They have a very limited knowledge concerning this matter. Q. But some of them would be old fisiiermen ? — A. I do not know that this is the case witii any of them. Q. You think that your opinion would be as good as theirs ? — A. I think it would be far better. Q, Neither you nor they have ever been fishing in the bay ? — A. But they have no vessels or property there, and they have not inquired about it nor ])aid licenses. Q. You would prefer the ojiinion of a m.'.i w'lo had been there catch- ing fisli ? — A. I think sucii testimony would be )eiter aud safer thau ray own, as he would speak from actual knowledge. Q. You aie iu)t siieakingasa practical fisherman at all ? — A. 1 s[)eak as an owner and one who risks his property in the fishing bu.siiiess. Q. In the statement you made, I think you said you charged interest lit tiie rate of 7 i-er cent. .* — .\. It was 0 m- 7. 1 have not figured it ex- actly ; but it is rjugbly calculati.d as between G and 7 per cent, tor two or three ujonlhs. By I\ir. Foster : Q, For a voyage of ten w 'ks / — A. Y'es. #«*ij r''*u 2298 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. And what do you call the interest ? — A. $75 for two and one-half months. By Mr. Davies : Q. What percentage did you allow for depreciation ? You allow $100, and that would he nearly 10 per cent. ? — A. I did not allow any partic- ular percentage. Q. It would be at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum?— A. Yes. By Mr. Foster : Q. What is the value of the vessel ? — A. 85,000. Q. At what rate did you compute the interest ? — A. I estimated it. I did not compute it at all. Q. And you call it $100? — A. Yes; for the use of a vessel for ten weeks' time. I estimated it at that sum from my experience. By Mr. Davies : Q. When fish were imported, while duties were imposed, they were warehoused, were they not ? — A. I cannot answer that question directly. Yery few were imported at Gloucester. Q. Do you know the trade sufficiently to answer it ? — A. 1 d.k uoi think that I do. Q. I desired to know whether when fish were importetl at the time the duty was on, you drew a distinction between those imported for con- sumption and those imported for reexportation. Also, whether you fixed any value upon them at the time I — A. I cannot answer that ques- tion intelligently. I never imported any mackerel. ,Q. What was the average cost per ton of a vessel afloat during the Keciprocity Treaty ? — A. Sixty dollars. Q. Is that now or then ? — A. That was during the Reciprocity Treaty, before the war prices came on. Q. What is it now ? — A. About $08 a ton, carpenter's measure. Q. What is the iliff'erence between carpenters measure and the pres- ent mode of measuring? — A. The latter is about two-thirds of carpen- ter's. A vessel 100 tons by the latter system would be 07 tons new measurement. Q. Are you able to state what is the cost per ton for a whole mack- erel-fishing voyage or season ? — A. I cannot give you the exact cost of running these vessels. Q. I mean for >vagc~^ provisions, fishing gear, &c.? — A. T' ^ures contained in the summary for 3 vessels which I have here Vt j, /e you the cost, as the current running bills for each year are there. By Hon. Mr. Kellogg : Q. What is their tonnage ? — A. I think that the tonnage is given with the names. It is new measurement. By Mr. Davies : Q. I understand you to say that you were the author of this memorial ? — A. No, but I was a member of the committee. Dr. Loring was chair- man, and he penned the document, while Baker and myself criticised it. Q. And did it meet with your full approval, or did you merely sign it as a matter of form ?-i-A. It met with my approval. I studied it be- fore I signed it. I do not sign promiscuous documents. I think that it met witii ray approval. I do not know exactly. I have not seen it for some time. {}. What was the obje(!t of this memorial ? — A. It amounted to so little that I have lost ail run of it. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2299 •ill md one-half 1 allow $100, ' any partic- A.. Yea. stimated it. essel for ten i!e. (1, tbey were tion directly. -A. T d.> no. at rhe time >rted for con- whet ber you er that qnes- t during the ocity Treaty, leasure. and the pres- •ds of car pen - 07 tons new , whole mack- exact cost of . T' ,ures w J, 'c you ro. lage is given his memorial ? ing was chair- If criticised it. a merely sign studied it be- i think that ,ve not seen it lounted to so Q. What was its object? — A. It was to make our government under- stand that we needed some help to continue our business. We were in former years granted a bounty, and in other ways we had been helped to sustain ourselves. Q. Then it prayed the government to continue the bounty system :' — A. 1 think that it embraced that, or some other statement as to relief being re.^uired by us to atford an offset for the $2 a barrel duty which was taken off your fish. Q. You wanted the government to do something for you? — A. Yes. Q. Did you deflnilely express wiiat that something was, or did you just deal in generalities'? — A. I think it was rather couched in gen- eralities. I believe that we spoke of what they had done, and desired that they should consider our interests in some way. Afterwards we obtained a repeal of the duty on salt, which was some relief to us. Q. And now your salt is free of duty ? — A. Yes, with the exception cf weigiting-fees, 8 cents per hogshead, and papers. By Mr. Foster : (). It was two years after the ratification of the Washington Treaty before this repeal went into operation 2 — A. Yes. ^y Mr. Davies: (.}.. Yon ^aid that the Alagdalen Islands was one of the safest parts of the ^Mili -A. For iishing purposes for vessels, I consider them a grt>at (leal safer lian Prince Edward Island, though around Georgetown there is a good harbor. Q. I understand you to spi-ak almost solely from informntion that you li.T-o o-ained as a merchant in Gloucester and from your connection with hKsurti ace companies, «S:c. ? — A. I have been all around Cape Itreton and i'naca Edward Island, and I knowtlie location of the harbors. I have never been at the Magdalen Islands. Q. Therefore you speak entirely from hearsay ; do you not know, as president of an insurance company, that some years at least you had serious losses at the Magdalen Islands? — A. Yes; in 1873 our losses til ere were very serious. Q. How many vessels were lost there that year? — A. Xone; but a great many went ashore. I was president of the company that ;'ear. We got these vessels off. Those that were lost were in he bend ot the island ; there vessels and crews were lost ; and that is where the risk is. Q. This is novel information for me. — A. It is true. VesseU and crews were lost in the Bend of Prince Edward Island. Q. In lt^'73 ?— A. Yes. Q. Are you really sincere in making that statement ? Xarae the ves- sels and crews. — A. There was Cap' James Gushing, who was in charge of a Gloucebter vessel; but I caniior think of her name. She was lost with all hands; and was last seen siietching up the bend of the island. The vessel's boat came ashore just above Tracadie; and neither he nor his men were ever afterwards seen. Q. This happened off the bend of the island? — A. Yes. Q. How far off"? — A. It was perhaps off" Tracadie or llustico. Q. You do not know how far off' at sea slie was? — A. He was last seen doing the best he could to get by North Cape, but he did not succeed. Q. I thought that the vessels went ashore with the crews? — A. No; these were vessels that struck on the bottom, or else they would not have been lost. Q. That is the only vessel you know of? — A. Yes. Q. And how many vesst^ls were lost at tiie Magdalen Islands, which. tiiii 2300 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. is, yoa say, the safest place in tbe gulf? — A. One vessel and her crew; and we consider such a loss heavier than if 8 or 10 vessels go ashore, but are got off. Q. But how many went fishore there ? — A. Twenty-odd vessels. We had 38 vessels, more or less, stranded that year in the bay. Q. And twenty-odd of them went ashore at the Magdalen Islands 1 — A. Yes. Q. Were there not more than 20 ? — A. The number was about 20. I could not say exactly. Q. Would you say that 30 vessels were not cast ashore at the Magda- len Islands ? — A. The number was 24, if I remember the figure aright. Q. I will give you some names ; there was the Arizona ? — A. Where was she ashore ? Q. At Amherst Harbor. — A. Yes. Q. Then there was the Annie 0. Norwood ? — A. I remember her. Q. And the H. M. Woodworth, cast ashore at Amherst Harbor 1 — A. I guess that she was not a Gloucester vessel. Q. I am alluding to American vessels generally. Then, you say that there were 20 Gloucester vessels which went asliore at the Magdalen Islands ? — A. Yes. Q. And you would not be surprised to learn that ten others went ashore there? — A. There were more than 10. I think there were as many as 10 I know of, from Eastport and Boston. Q. These were all fishing- vessels ? — A. Y'es. Most of them got off safe, but the vessels around East Point and the bend of the island were lost totally, r'rews and all. Q. Perhaps tnry were out at sea ? — A. They were in the bend of the island. Q. The Carrie C. Itich went ashore on Prince Edward Island ; but can you name any other American vessel from Gloucester or elsewhere that did so ? — A. The vessels lost with all hands were last seen going up off the Bend of Prince Edward Island. (J. They wer-T at sea ? — A. They did not get by North Cape ; that was what was the matter with them ; else they would have been saved. By Mr. Foster : (}. The gentlemen on the other side do not understand what makes a Massachusetts town prosper ; and I would like to know, in the first place, whether the valuation of Gloucester to-day does not stand substantially as it did during the war ? — A. Yes ; very nearlj'. Q. So that there has not been a great deal taken off' from the valua- tion made in war times? — A. No; very little. Q. xVud yet is it not the exi>erience of almost everybody in the United States that owned property at the close of the war that it shrunk one- third ? — A. Y'^es. Q. Gloucester has grown, undoubtedly, but take Essex County, in which Gloucester is situated ; and what are the other towns in this county that used to have a considerable fishing business; the compari- son has been made between 1840 and the present time; and what are the other i)laces in Essex County that used to have a fishing business, which has left them and been absorbed into Gloucester — Salem, Mar- blehead, 3Ianchester, Beverly, and Newburyport — what has been the history of the fishing buisiness in these towns ? — A. It has entirely gone from Manchester. I remember the rime when 18 vessels wen* owned there, but they have not had any for 20 yesirs. Salem had a lleet of 20 vessels, and has none now. The fieet of Beverly has decreased to about 20, a decrease of 50 per cent, in these lo years. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMFSION. 2301 id her crew ; 8 go ashore, vessels. We a Islands ? — about 20. 1 t the Magda- gure aright. ? — A. Where nber her. Harbor "i—A. you say that he Magdalea B others went ihere were as them got off of the island 3 bend of the 1 Island; but or elsewhere 3t seen going 1 Cape ; that e been saved. what makes a the first place, substantially om the valua- iii the United t shrunk one- ex County, in towns in this the ootupari- and what are iing business. —Salem, Mai- has been the entirely gone wen> owned iJ a tieet of 20 eased to about Q. Taking the fishing seaport towns of Massachusetts and comparing them with towns in the interior, where they cannot possibly catch mack- erel in British waters, I want to know how the relative growth of sea- port towns, either in Essex County or in any of the other counties on the sea-coast, compares with the growth of towns in Essex, Middlesex, and Worcester Counties, away back in the interior?— A. I will express my- self in this way : The towns of Beverly and Marblehead, which once carried on a large fishing business, have turned their attention to the manufacture of shoes, and have become shoe towns now, letting the fishing business go. Q. Take any of the seaport towns and comi>are their proportions in 1840 and 1877; for instance, take Worcester, which has grown during this period from 7,000 to 15,000. — A. I couUl not give the exact figures. Q. Worcester contained 7,000 people in 1810 ; have not Clinton, Web- ster, and Franklin, and all these towns grown ? — A. Yes ; and also Hav- erhill and Lawrence, Lowell and Lynn. Q. Has their growth not been in greater ratio than that of Glouces- ter^— A. I do not know of any place in Essex County of any account, except Nowburyport, which has not held its own with Gloucester and gone aheail. Q. Newburyport has decayed and lost her vessel business, and with the exception of some contracts has not gained anything else ' — A. Yes. Q. And Salem has been a decayed town ? — A. Yes. Q. But the great body of the towns in 3Iassachusett8, wherever situ- ated, have grown and prospered from 1810 up to this time in fully as great a ratio as Gloucester ? — A. Yes. Q. How have they grown up ? — A. Through the products of the soil and manufacturing. Q. Down in Orleans they make artificial ice out of water and make out of it a profitable business, I believe, but it does not follow thac the water before it is frozen has any particular value to be paM for ; does it ? And you say that fish in the sea have no commercial value — explain what you mean. Does a man who catches fish in the sea get in return for his time and labor anything more than moderate wages for his work ''I — A. That is about the way I have placed it. He does not get any more than or as much as he would for the use of the same labor and the same time in any other ordinary pursuit. Q. And in this business ?— A. He runs the risk of his life. Q. And in your own business you have combined the business of a man who distributes the food with that of an owner of fishing- vessels ? — A. Yes. Q. And the profits of your business have come, not from the catch of your vessels, but from the mercantile profits that follow ; is that tbe case also tvith the rest of them ? — A. They all do the same thing. This gives employment to a number of men who haiidle the fish. i^. And the tisliermen do not make over $300 a year to support theni selves and their families on shore ? — A. Yes. Q. And they are boarded on the vessel for perhaps two-thirds of the year. Comi)aring that with the remuneration received in other branches of manual labor, is it ui> to the avera^*^ ? — A. I think not. Q. Is it up to the average which shoemakers receive ' — A. I think not. Q. Is it the a\ eiage of what men who work on farms receive ? — A. I do not think so. Q. For how much can you hire a common laboring man in Gloucester 2302 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. throughout the year, he boarding himself? — A. We pay $60 a month to some and $50 to others, for ordinary labor on the wharf. The fisher- man, I suppose, lives on board his vessel about two-thirds of the year, and at home during the other third. Q. And he has to support liis family' on $300 ? — A. Yes. Q. 8o that actuallj' these fishermen imperil their lives and get less than they could obtain for their labor elsewhere ? — A. Certainly. Q. lias it not been always so ? — A. Yes ; this business attracts the adventurous, who begin it early in life and find it hard to change, and to some extent those who are wild and fond of excitement. Q. But is it as profitable a business to the fisherman as would be ordi- iKuy work at home? — A. No ; most of our crews are formed of young men ; with two-thirds this is the case. Q. You say you never knew a man who retired froni the fishing busi- ness in Gloucester wortli $50,000 1 — A. No, I never did. Q. 1 suppose that to day Andrew Leighton is worth that 1 — A. He has not retired, and he is losing it fast. If he keeps at the business two or three years more he will have nothing to lose. Q. You cannot get out of the fishing business ? — A. You cannot sell your property when you want to go out in a bad year, for jiobody will buy. By Mr. Davies : Q. Why not go out in a good year ">. — A. One does not want to do so then. E V Mr. Foster : Q. I suppose that outside people have shares in Gloucester fishing- vessels? — A. No. Q. They have had ? — A. Yes ; but they have given it up. Q. Did you ever know anybody who took a share in the fishing busi- ness make money out of it ? — A. I uever knew such a iierson get his money back again, unless the vessel was sold or accidentally lost, wheu through the insurance he would secure part of it. Q. That is a notorious fact ? — A. Yes. Q. In your business you secure in fact the profits of a commission- merchant, I suppose ? — A. Yes. Q. And there is where all the money is? — A. Yes. Q. Some of us have been there and know how it is ? — A. We have not had any money to invest in railway stocks, and that is why things with us are not so bad as they might be. Q. These peoi)le who have at all laid up money in Gloucester in the fishing business have been men who have gone into the business early in life, as soon in fact as they were able to work, when 15 or 16 years old, and who have gone on and laid up money ? — A. No one has made any money there. Q. Some have; take Leighton's case? — A. He has not laid up any money. He has it invested in property, but he has not got any money. His property is worth more than enough to pay his debts. Q. There is a great shrinkage in the price of vessels when sold ? — A. Yes. Q' ^'d you go to Washington before the Washington Treaty was ratified? — A. It was before the treaty was completed, and previous to that. I was there a week on the former occasion. Q. This petition ^vas presented the year following? — A. Yes. Q. Were you there .tfter its provisions were known to remonstrate 1 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2303 ,' $60 a mouth f. The flsber- lis of the year, s aud get less jrtainly. IS attracts tlie to cUauge, aud would be ordi- ruied of young lie fisbiug busi- tbat?— A. He at tbe business tou cannot sell tor nobody will ot want to do so jucester fisbiug- t up. . tbe fisbiug busi a person get bis ntally lost, wbeu )f a commission- -A. We bave not wby tbiugs with ploucester in tbe be business early 511 15 or 16 years No one bas made , uot laid up any ,t got any money. abts. s wbeu sold t— A. igtou Treaty wasi aud previous tol —A. Yes. I u to rernonstratel IS at It against its ratification ? — A. I was tbere before tbe treaty, was com- pleted and at tbe time when it was completed. Q. Originally tbe fisbiug- vessels of Massachusetts were largely engaged in tbe cod fishery ? — A. Yes. Q. And tiie mackerel fishery bas since grownup? — A. I remember tbe first man who went to the bay to catch mackerel. Q. But tbe cod fishery is two hundred years old i — A. Y^'es ; it ancient. Q. And in connection with it there used to be a bounty ? — A. Yes. Q. How much was it ? — A. $4 a ton. Q. For every vessel ? — A. It was paid for every vessel that was sea fishing 4 months for cod. Q. When was this bounty taken off? — A. I cannot give tbe year; was perhaps twenty years ago. Q. Was not this bounty a pretty important element in tbe cod fishing business? — A. Yes. Q. And when it was removed it was felt that the fishing interests must decline ' — A. Yes. Q. Did you ever know of a nation where tbe fishing industry pros- pered except under a bounty ? — A. No. Q. Is it not always then prosperous because it is tbe policy of tbe nation to cherish it as a nursery for its seamen f — A. The French al- ways pay a bounty. Q. And did not the duty on Canadian-caught fish replace the bounty? — A. Yes; and tbe reduction of the duty on salt was granted as an oil- set for tbe removal of tbe duty. Q. Aud that came later ? — A. Yes ; two or three years after tbe rati- fication of the treaty. Q. When it was proposed to take the duty oft" you remonstrated, think- ing tbat this would reduce tbe price of fish, and this was tbe general feeling among tbe fishermen aud of tbe inhabitants of tbe coast of New England ?— A. Yes. Q. And tbe next year after tbe Washington Treaty went into opera- tion you got belp in tbe form of a drawback on salt ? — A. Yes. Tbe government passed an act allowing salt to be used in the curing of flsb to be entered duty free. Q. You took it out under bond ? — A. Yes ; and at tbe end of the year we furnished sufflcieut proof tbat it bad been used in tbe curing of fisb. A small charge, 8 cents per hogshead, was made for weighing. Q. How does tbe gaiu you obtain by tbe removal of the duty on salt compare witb tbe gain wbich was derived from the old bounty system ? — A. It is in part an equivalent ; but I bave uot figured it up. I think one half, or about that, went to tbe owners under the bounty system. Q. Tbe poorer qualities of mackerel are used as food by tbe poor? — A. Yes; and they used to be shipped in great quantity to the Southern States ; very few were sent to tbe West Indies. Wo supposed that they were used on tbe plantations. Q. Any considerable rise in price would destroy this market ? — A. Y'es ; if they do not buy this sort of fisb at a low price they will not buy it at all. Q. Then what market is there for tbe very best mackerel, tbe other extreme, which is a luxury for which some are willing to pay a pretty high price ? — A. This mackerel is used by families aiul in hotels in New Y'ork ; and 10,000 barrels would be a large quantity of this quality to sell in the United States market at anything over $20 a barrel. Q. The impression seems to prevail in some (luarters that the jjros- 2304 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. perity of- Gloucester grows out of the right to catch flsh within three miles of the shore iu British territorial waters ; is there any appreciable part of the growth and wealth of Gloucester which depeuds on this privilege ? — A. I do not consider that it is any pddition at all to the wealth or growth of Glomiester Q. You never knew a^ew England town where there were enterpris- ing men, who began poor and lived economically, who did not increase in wealth ? — A. No. By Mr. Davies : Q. Why do these men go fishing for 8300 a year when they can get $600 by working on your wharves ? — A. If they did not go fishing no employment could be had on the wharves. Besides, the young men would rather go fishing. It is their nature to be on the water. They are used to it, commencing this life when they are boys ; and they like its associations and to be with their friends on the water and have a jolly time. Q. And money has nothing to do with it ? — A. It has very little; but the associations and the chance they have of doing better than $30 a mouth has. They all go on shares. Q. They have a chance to rise and become masters ? — A. Yes ; and make uiore than thirty dollars a month. By IVfr. Trescot : Q. Do these young men come from here? — A. "Yes; from Haliftix in particular ; a large number comes from the provinces and Newfoundland. Three-fourths of our crews are single men. Q. Do they settle very largely in Gloucester ? — A. Yes; our increase of population has come largely from Nova Scotia. By Sir Alexander Gait: Q. I suppose that you ba\ c no more dirticulty in getting crews to go mackerel-fishing than to go cod-fishing ? — A. Our best and our smartest men go cod-fishing, because they can make more at it. Our mackerel- fishing crews are made up of odds and ends. Q. I thought you kept the vessels' crews together? — A. They will go cod-Ashing, and then I will pick up a crew to go mackerel fishing. Q. I understood you to say that you employed your vessels perhaps more profitably cod-fishing during certain months of the year than at anything else ; and that then you kept them employed either on your owr coast or in the Bay of St. Lawrence during the intermediate months; that in fact the cod and mackerel fisheries fitted into each other, enabling you to employ your vessels to advantage throughout the years ; and that though it might be disadvantageous during one particular trip, still the trade was so arranged that it enabled you for ten months of the year to use your vessels iu a certain circle of employment ? — A. Yes. Our vessels make six or eight voyages a year ; but these men are not 3,t- tached to the vessels save perhaps for one trip. They change from one vessel to another. The best n en follow cod-fishing on the Banks, and the poorest men, the old mea and boys, follow mackerel fishing. Q. You have said, I think, that cod-fishing was so hard on them that they were very glad to go into the bay or on your own shores to fish for two or three months at a ditterent and rather easier kind of fishing .' — A. Yes ; and then there is a class of men that man our vessels on mackerel voyages, and on these it is that we learn our boys the busi- ness. Afterwards they will go cod-fishing. The mackerel-fishing busi- ness in one sense has been a sort of nursery for fishermen among our 1867 I8fi8 1869 1870 1879 1H7,'J 1874. 1875. 1876. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2305 I within three ly appreciable peuds ou tliis II at all to the V6TC euterpi'is- id not increase ill they can get go Ashing no he young men e water. They ; and they like ter and have a very little ; but jtter than $30 a —A. Yes; and from Halifax in i Newfoundland. es ; our increase ing crews to go md our smartest Our mackerel- -A. They will go jrel-flshing. • vessels perhaps le year than at id either ou your •mediate mouths; ih other, enabling i the years; and irticular trip, still ju months of the ymeut?— A. Yes. ise men are not ^t- change from one u the Banks, and ■el fishing, lard ou them that )wu shores to tish T kind of tishing .' lan our vessels on lur boys the busi- kerel-tishing busi- ermen among our natives and was so until Nova Scotia and Newfoundland became such a nursery for us. These countries now raise up our lishermeu, and they do not come among us until they are of age. Q. The object of my inquiry was this: It struck me from what you said that there was a very intimate connection between the cod and mackerel fisheries ? — A. That is the case ; the halibut fishery is included in the same category. By Mr. Davies : Q. Do you find any difficulty to get men to go ou Georges Bank ? — A. Not much. Q. Is it not considered one of the most dangerous fishing places in the world ? — A. It has been a very disastrous place some seasons ; but within the past few years the disasters on the Grand Banks have ex- ceeded those on Georges Bank ; and some years the disasters in the bay have been more severe than those on Georges. We find that the dangers are divided around. We lost as many as 140 men one spring on Georges Bank. Some years it is very dangerous there. By Mr. Foster : Q. I am reminded that you said you recollected the first year when a mackerel-fishing vessel went to the bay ? — A. 1 did not say so. I re- member, however, a man who went on this first vessel. Q. Who was he? — A. Capi. Charles Wood. He is now dead — he died a few years ago. Q. You must have been pretty young at the time ? — A. I was not very old ; that was in 1830 or 1831. Q. What proportion of the fishermen of Gloucester come from the provinces ? — ^A. I suppose that over one-half of them come from the provinces and Newfoundland. Q. And how is it with the skippers ? — A. Well, I suppose that over one-half of our vessels are now slcippered with natives of Nova Scotia. Q. Though they are really and nominally naturalized? — A. Of course they are naturalized after a time ; they are good fishermen. Statement handed in by Mr. Joseph 0. Procter, October 1, 1877, and referred to in his evidence. Year. Trips. BblB. Value. 1857. 1S58. 1H59. 1860. 1861. 1862. 1863. 1864. 1865. 18H6. 1867. 1868. 1869. 1870. 1879. 187.3. 1874. 1875. 1876. 9 14 10 15 9 3 6 IS 12 14 9 10 3 3 7 )4 13 6 1 1,561 1,631 797 1,448 1,896 698 1,424 3,346 2,914 3,127 1, 977 1,099 637 458 1 , 324 8,701 2,456 815 190 $12, 189 19, 670 9,85U 17, 234 9,905 5,305 1.5, 628 37, 256 41,360 49, 224 24, 169 20, 293 11,348 5,418 13, 060 26, 609 13, 562 J 1, 785 2, 099 Av. trip. Av. value. Men. ' Time. 19 years. 170 , 30,499 I 345,964 173 117 80 96 an 233 237 278 243 223 219 110 212 153 190 193 188 135 190 3,481 183 »7 80 12 00 12 30 11 90 5 S"! 7 60 10 96 11 13 14 20 15 74 12 22 18 45 17 80 11 90 9 86 9 85 5 52 14 46 11 05 219 94 11 57 us o a ! '«»•• 145 P 2306 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Ilh Avempi; trip, 18U hbls. lU .till. 57 $2, 1 17 Lt'Hs for bait l^o 2) i.i»:;: Crow — half Owner')* — halt' Crew's half, ifOlW. 14 hands, 10 weeks, or .§•^7.04 per mouth. Owner's half Avoraf^o value of vessels Coat of voyage. Insurance, iJlii.^.OO ; commission to master, ^76 Provisions, oil, and fuel, %'AW \ salt, $80 Fishiiif; jrear, Sr)0 ; vessel's running expenses, Ji'200 Depreciation on vessel, $100; interc«it on investment, §7r>. •Hi- !)(■)-( r>, oiM) 20! 470 a.'.o 17.-) ],oiti; Average loss per trip Charter of schooner, 90 tons, at ij'i per ton per month— U uiuntlis. Insurance $l*<25 Kunning expenses 200 Depreciation 100 Interest 75 1« 540 $500 1857. Sept. 4. 26. 2l». r.\. 27. 31. 29. 9. 21. Oct. Nov, Aug. Sept. 1858. 30. 31. 1. 16. 18. 28. Oct. Nov. 19. 13. 16. 20. 29. 30. 1859. Jan. 5. 1859. Aug. 30. «ept. 13. Sch. Lancet 217.? $-i,773 8(1 Lua Amelia 14lj J, 292 W. Prisilla Brown 109^ 716 75 Pocahontas 173^ 1,304 34 Ella Osborne 237| 1,567 95 Martha&Eliza 2I9J 1,4.55 15 OceanLodge 194^ 1,290 91 E. A. Procter 154i 1,018 2.-? Lancet 117 774 74 (9) Sob. Lancet Alfarata E. A. Procter Martha & Eliza Emporia -, Pocahontas 138^ Ocean Lodge 113 Gentile Lancet Alfarata Emporia E.A.Procter Martha «&. Eliza , Geranium . 1,561 12, 194 79 138 1,478 26 128 1,634 11 127 1,480 70 146 1,688 2:i 140 1,782 80 138i 1,439 07 113 1,219 35 1461 1,498 82 76 962 44 171 2,201 86 76 1,057 44 78 1,105 ,53 115 l,e31 Vi 38 490 9 1,631 19,670 Vi Oct. Nov. 16. It. 8. 15. 19. 2J. (14) Sch.Lancet 142f 1,553 42l E.A.Procter 99i 1,028 78| Pocahontas 44 .533 'iSf EUenMaria 122 1,675 3! Gentile 122 1,506 Lancet 79 1,041 U(i| Huntress 47 616 301 E.A.Procter 36 487 49| ^-i, IIT ;■//.'. 1-0 '.........■■ '-^"J^ 201 470 . ar.o l.Oltti . 540 7 It) 7.") 1,S04 •.54 J,r)67 9') 1,455 If) 1,2'JO t»l 1,018 23 774 74 ^9) 1,561 12,194_ 138 128 127 146 140 138i li:$ 1461 7tJ 171 76 78 115 38 1,478 2(i 1,634 11 1,480 70 1,688 2:! 1,782 80 1,439 07 1,219 3r. 1,498 82 962 44 2,201 8fi 1,057 44 1,105 53 l,C3l n 490 9 1(14) 1,631 19,670_12 142J 99i 44 122 122 79 47 36 1,553 4-2 1,028 78 533 2;r 1,675 3t!l 1,506 OOl 1,041 Ulil 616 30l 487 4'J 1859. Nov. 22. 23. AWARD or THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Ocean Lodge 8) I'ueuhutitiiii 20 2307 ijl, 139 65 272 18 (10) 797 9,ft")3 49 18(50. Aug. 23. Sch 30. 31. 8. 18. 18. 19. 25. 29. 6. 10. 10. 14. 17. 21. Sept. Oct. Nov. Saint Louis 12 1 J Ocean Gem 76J E.A.Procter 53] Emporia 53.1 Signer 23^ Ellen Maria 122| Olive Brunch 54 Lone Star 151 A Gentile 102 j Morning Star 96 Ocean Lodge 84 Emporia 7(i Lancet 197 J Pocahontas l()2i Martha iV Eliza 72 1,314 08 8.^3 O'l 476 92 664 14 363 38 1,679 00 739 00 2, 150 00 1,300 23 1,142 5t' 1,001 30 990 44 1,947 93 1,825 90 786 10 1861. Aug. 23. Sept. 4. II. Sch Oct. Nov. 15. 6. II. 23. 26. Ocean Gem 269f Saint Louis 270^ Morning Star 22f^f Martha & Eliza 173^ Ocean Gem 146^ Emporia 249 Lancet 232^ Morning Star 97| Ocean Lodge 229* (9) 1,896 1862. Oct. 24. Sch. Morning Star 272J 30. Emporia 191 Nov. 20. Lancet 23.'^ (3) 698 1863. Sept. 4. 8. Oct. 26. 31. Nov. 4. 14. 1864. Oct. 7. 7. 7. 8. 12. 20. Nov. J. 3. 7. 9. 10. 16. Sch Lancet 2.'>9^ Emporia , 244| Morning Star 185| 274 Emporia 248 Lancet 214J (6) 1.424 Sch. Ocoian Lodge 232 Emporia 210 Lancet 258 Martha and Eliza 226 Morning Star 299 Ocean Lodge 249 Lancet 289 Martha and Eliza 258 Morning Star 241 T. M.Loring 506 E. A. Procter 348 Emporia 230 (12) 3,346 (15) 1,448 17,234 03 900 28 850 68 794 19 764 00 944 84 1,709 85 1,379 51 843 82 1,628 21 9,905 38 1,818 10 1,336 40 2,151 38 5,305 88 2,714 96 2, 950 73 1,9.')8 93 2, 838 60 2, 812 69 2,352 25 15,628 16 2,637 44 2, 478 04 2, 837 35 2,627 27 3,235 95 2,744 37 3,360 07 2,772 79 '^, 777 86 5,271 19 3,935 16 2, .579 00 :ff,256 49 1-"!% hi 4 ,Htt' IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) fy :/- 1.0 I.I 1.25 ^^MIIIIM 112.5 - 132 2.2 ^ ^ lii — U II 1.6 '/ <^ /a /a e. e-J m- ■> /A % 9^^^ ' J>> % 'h 'W '/ Hiotographic Sciences Corporation S: *"' iV 4v \ \ 4 '^'■ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 S" 4^^ So Ws^. ' h. !> 2308 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1865. Sept. 4. Schr. Reunion 377 MorningStar «74 7 Lancet 27'2 19. Emporia 215 ti. OceanLodf;« '244 26. Northern Light 358 Martha and Eliza 237 27. Northern Light 42 Nov. 1. Martha and Eliza 185 3, Lancet 24H 8. Morning Star i{22 13. Reunion 240 Licence— 9 41 18 66 92 64 00 46 80 3> 25 31 12 41 66 102 43 f)3 23 101 00 75 72 81 43 82 12 1C4 41 Harvest Home, Do. Reunion, Do. Do. Eastern Light, Do. Lancet, Do. Northern Light, Do. Morning Star, Do. Emporia, Do. H. S. Clark, Do., Ocean Lodge, Eastern Light, Morning Star, Lancet, Emporia, Empire State, Do., g. Colfax, Do., Joeph O., Do., O. Lodge, Emporia, Lancet, Morning Star, H. 8. Clark, Empire State, S. Colfax, Empire 8tate, H. S. Clark, 1866. Aug. 6. 263 Oct. 29 :W(2 Aug. 9 328 Oct 184 Oct. 27 115 Aug. 16 310 Nov. 8 278 Aug. 27 219 Sept. 5 178 Nov. 1 Ill Sept. 6 280 Nov. 14 188 Sept. 29 94 Oct. 27 181 (15) 3,127 1867. Aug. 28 225 Nov. II 256 Oct. 22 252 Oct. 25 203 Oct. 31 308 Nev. 1 181 Nov. G 190 Oct. 17 215 Nt.v. II 147 9) 1,977 1868. Sept. 7 144 Nov. 13 63 Sept. 6 l.')5 Nov. 3 67 Sept. 30 81 Oct. 24 137 Nov. 4 123 Nov. 3 140 Nov. 13 80 Nov. 14 109 I3,37ti t:, 3,4iHi r\ 3,371 (Ml 2,9 4,fil>'^ 4, o:«» 1.52ti 2, IKN) l,7f>7 5, 152 3, 044 l,(>41t 2, f 1,742 2, U7'.' 20,'i 3,4lHi r-l 3,371 (Ml '.i.iMV. 1.') 4,n;7 -.s'.t r>.:ifo 11(1 3,IH4 :'.". HN> 7t) •2,«I2 ri7 3,751 yo 4,61M ir> 3,5f« 4(! 41,35^ '•:» •2f.3 3tri 32H lf'4 115 310 •276 '219 iW 176 111 '280 1H8 1*4 181 ^, 1-27 1,'.»77 144 63 155 07 81 l;t7 1-23 140 80 109 ) l.OlW 202 2t'0 2:»5 3) 637 49, -224 2,7r.4 3,-2r> 3,2ll« 2,4f* 3,W)3 2,0-21' 2,2r.l 2,7-21 1,8:«) 24, Kin 2,457 I,'2 1,348 28 1,312 12 2, 343 36 1,529 60 791 15 3, 289 64 561 41 14) 2,701 26,609 47 1874. Aug.-24 280 28 2(55 Sept. 29 119 30 115 Nov. 9 '^^) 11 1-25 13 276 17 3.V2 18 173 18 1H7 21 2.->4 23 185 Dec. 7 75 1,767 90 1,710 95 683 74 569 65 245 57 649 04 1,496 92 1.810 75 978 44 957 12 LIUil 09 1,0:17 08 294 71 13)2,4.'->6 13 562 96 187.'5. Sept.27 184 Oct. 3 188 Sept.27 Oct. 26 208 Nov. 5 91 5 91 5 ••. 53 6) 815 190 2, 202 60 2,554 07 0 00 2, 469 90 1,4:J8 36 1,378 .V2 742 03 11,785 43 2, 099 59 2310 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Hchooner Ilattic 8. Clarke 70.03 tons. 1867.— Cost of hull $«i,rj40 (m CoHt ui rigK'^i?) suiU, furniture, aud ruuuing exiicnseit 7,-l7(i (i.'> 14,01t) (1.-, Cr.— By earnings 5, IWI 4:! Balance H, (i8l (;v» J8C'^. — Kunniug expenses 4, 123 iif* Cr.— By earnings ;{, H7l> f I Balance 8,1>2.^> 4'.t 18G9. — Running expenses 4,8<)r> (il) i:»,71»l H Cr.— By earnings .'i, 149 7f< Balance 8,«41 40 1870. — Running expenses 3, t'Aii 47 12,3.33 H7 Cr.— By earnings 3,527 3(» Balance 8,8(Ki 57 1871.— Running expenses 4,011 03 12,817 <50 Cr.— By earnings 3,033 87 Balance i»,783 73 1872 —Running expenses 4,040 24 13, 829 97 Cr. — By earnings 2, 755 98 Balance 11,073 99 1873. — Running expenses 4,826 18 15,900 17 Cu.— By earnings , 3, 858 (ill Balance 12,041 51 1874. — Running expensi-s 4,595 53 Hi, 637 04 Cr. — By earnings 4, 373 .W Balance 12,263 49 1875. — Running expenses 4,983 8.') 17,247 31 Cr.— By ea- 'ings 4,976 20 Balance 12,271 II 1876.— Running expcn,ses 3,451 2^ 15,722 42 Cr.— By earnings 2,259 «) Balance. .January 1, 1877.. 13,462 .Oil Value as per insurance policy 4, 253 (10 Ji»),540 on 7,47t) o.'> 14,(tlO (i:. ri,;m 4;i 4, 123 {}'< i2,H(ir) nil :j,«71» f 4lt 4,8(5:. (lit ia,7'ji H n, 149 78 8,G41 40 3,r,iW 47 l>i,3:W 87 3,527 30 . 8,8()() 57 . 4,011 03 12,817 00 . 3,033 87 . y,783 73 . 4,040 24 13.821) it" 2,755 1)8 . 11,073 W . 4,820 18 15,1)00 17 3,858 Of) 12,041 51 4,595 53 10,037 04 4,373 55 12,203 4'.t 4,983 85 17,247 3» . 4, 970 20 .'l2]'271 14 . 3,451 2-^ 15,722 4i 2,259 Kt 13,402 5;i 4,253 00 AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2311 Schooucr Joseph 0., G5.12 turn. 1808.— Cost of hull $(!, 175 00 Cost of rigging, sails, tittiiips, luid bills I'lr running 0,y.'>7 01 13, 132 01 Ck.— Uy earnings 4,002 (K» HhIhdcc 8, .VJ9 ".K* IfeCO.— Bills for running 4,280 97 12,810 ;rj Cr.— By earnings 3.011 H7 Balance 0, 11(8 45 1870.— Bills for running 3,y.")0 08 '^ 13,1.55 i:j Cn. — By earnings 3,719 85 Balance 9, 435 2fi 1871.— Bills for running 2,311 51 11,740 7J» Ch.— By earnings 3, 0tt2 «54» Balance H, (i."i4 13 1872.— Bills for running 3,304 27 12,018 4{* Cr.— By earnings 4,2riO 2.^ Balance 7,7t!2 IT* 1673.— Bills for running 3,077 4(; 11.439 <;i Cr.— By earnings 4, 554 45 Balance 0, 88,'. |i; 1874.— Bills for running 3,334 4'i 10,219 .'rfS Cr. — By earnings 3, .5.53 18 Balance 0, OOli 4(» 1>75.— Bills for running 3.013 :B» 9,07 9 79 Cr. — By earnings 4,900 01 Balance 4, 773 1.5 1870.- Bills forruuuing 2, f<09 4rt 7,. 5^2 (fc{ Cr.— By earnings 3, 2'.»l 23 Balance January I, 1877 4.291 40 No interest money or taxes incindcil in the above accounts. Values at) per insurance policy 4. I oil ;{0 Schooner Schuyler Colfax, 02.82 tonn, 1863 —Cost of hull 5,711 0(» Cost of rigging, sails, tittings, and cxjiense of running 4,032 01 9,743 01 Cr,— By earnings 1,07(» 79 Balance 8,0(50 22 Ifi*' i 2312 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1369.— Billi of ruuning $t,4:U ID 12.41W '.Vi Cr.— ByearningfB 3,sno or. Balance Hjm a: 1870.— BillBof runuiug 3,350 "Jl 1I,93U IH Cr.— By earnings 3,074 I*; Balance 8.865 O-.' 1871.— Bills of running 3,:{26 .VJ 12, 191 .')« Cr.— By earnings 3,203 17 Balance 8,9(W ;C 1872.— Bills of rauniug 2,.'»84 lo ll,r.72 47 Cr.— By earnings 3,612 75 Balance 7,9.59 7-J 1873.-Bill8 of running 3,741 lh> 11,701 64 • Cr.— By earnings 4,214 3'.* Balance 7,487 2.". 1874.— Bills of running 2,829 74 10,316 9!) Cr.— By earnings 2, 434 25 Balance 7,882 74 1875. -Bills of running 2,725 69 10,f08 4:t Cr.— By earnings 2,7r6 78 Balance 7, 831 65 1876. — Expense of running 3, .503 14 11,334 7'.) Cr. -By earnings 2,739 II Balance .January 1, 1877 8, .595 t\S Value as per insurance policy 4,250 00 No. 30. Tuesday, October 2, 1877. The couference met. Sidney Gardner, inspector of nnstoms, of Gloucester, was called on behalf of the Goveruinent of the Uuited States, sworn, and examined. By Mr. Dana : Question. You were born and always lived in Gloucester ? — Answer. Yes. Q. When did you make your first trip to the Gulf of St. Lawrence for mackerel ? — A. In 1865. Q. Had you fished previously !— A. No. Q. How many trips did you make that year ! — A. Two. Q. How much did you catch on each trip f— A. 200 barrels on the fir»t and 145 on the second. |4,43!2 10 I2,4l>8 Wi 3,910 or. 8, rm '27 3, 350 \)l I1,93U IH 3,074 Kl H.HGTj 0-.' 3, :«c w 12, 191 r)« , 3,203 17 . 8,988 37 , 2,584 10 11,572 47 . 3,612 75 , 7,959 7'J , 3,741 92 11,701 «54 • . 4,214 39 . 7, 487 2.". , 2, 829 74 AWARD OF THE FiSHERY COHMISSIOX. 2313 10,31f. 99 2, 434 2r. 7,882 74 2,725 G9 10,f08 4:! 2,7r6 78 7,831 c.r. 3,503 14 11,334 79 2,739 II 8,595 t)8 4,250 00 er 2, 1877. ras called on examined. ?— Auswer. jawrence for 8 ou the first Q. Where dhl you catch the 200 !— A. We got the most of them oa liank Hradley. Q. Did you fish any on Bank Orphan ? — A. Yes. • Q. Did you catch any within the 3-mile limit f — A. No. Q. Where did you catch the second trip f — A. At the Magdalen Isl- ands. Q. Did you take anything within the 3 miles of the coast ? — A. No. Q. Ill what vessel were you in 1865 1 — A. The Fashion. Q. Who coin inamled her? — A. Capt. Edward Stapleton. Q. Did you go a second time in the Fashion ? — A. No. Q. When did you ship in the Fashion ? — A. 1 think it was about the 1st of August. Q. In what vessel did you go i i your next voyage iu 18(i if — A. The Laura Mangan, Gaptaiii Stapleton. Q. llow many trips did you make ? — A. Two. Q. How many did you catch ou the first ? — A. 240 barrels. Q. AikI the second t — A. We packed 373 barrels. Q. Did you take the first trip home ? — A. Yes. Q. Ilave you a trade besides fishing ? — A. Yes; sail-making. Q. IIow long were you in the Army i — A. 10 months, I think, during the war. Q. TiMt was before you went fishing? — A. Yes. Q. Did you go anywhere in the Fashion before you came down to the bay? — A. No; but she made one trip that year before I went iu her. Q. Where did you go from Canso in the Fashion in 1805 ? — A. We went up on Bank Bradley, which was mostl3' our fishing ground. Q. In the Laura Mangan, you caught your fish on Bank Bradley? — A. Yes ; and at the Magdalen Islands. We caught none at all arouud Prince E >r .' — A. Well, nothing extra; it was a lair year's work. Q. What did you make ? — A. In ujy first season in the Fashion I made, I think, on the two trips about i!*70. Q. Hut that wouhl not be a lair representation of tlie avor;j make of the men ? — A. No. Q. You W'.'re then only a junior, going fishing for the Orst time? — A. Yes. Q. And the secoml year you did not make an average ! — A. No. CJ, Or perhaps half an average f — A. O, I ma«le more than that. Q. Did you go at all into the Bay of Chaleurs ? — A. Yes. We went in there to Paspebiac once for a main-boom. We had lost our main boom at Bonaventure. Q. Did you then tish there at all f— A. No. Q. You did not try f — A. No. ii. I think I understood you to say that you did not try anywhere within three miles of land ? — A. I did not say we did not try within that distance, but that we did not catch any fish there. Q. Where did you try within three miles of land If — A. Well, I think of." North Cape, Prince Edward Island. Q. Within what distance of the shore were yon ? — A. We might have been within three miles and we might have been six miles oft'. Q. Your recollection is so slight regarding this matter that you can- not tell whether you were three or six miles off shore ? — A. Well, I do not think that we caught any lish within three miles of land. Q. You say you might have been three and you might have been six miles oft'. — A. That is when we hove to. Q. Is your recollection sufticiently clear on the point, since it occurred so long ago, to tell us positively whether you were three or six miles ott'f — A. I could not answer that question. Q. What, then, did you mean by telling me just now that you did fish within three miles of land oft North Cape ? — A. I said we hove to within that distance. I meant to say that we tried to fish there. Q. Did you try to tish within three miles of land oft' North Cape ? — A. We hove to and tried within that distance, but I do not remember that we caught any fish within that distance of land. Q. Within what distance nearer than three miles of land did you try I — A. I do not think that we ever tried within three miles of land, but it might have been within three miles of it. Q. What did you mean by saying that you did try within three miles of the coast? — A. We might have done so. (.). Do you state positively this was the place where you did try with- in three miles of land ? — A. We hove to and tried there within the three-mile limit, I think. Q. Did you try there or not f — A. I will say that we have tried with- in three miles of land. Q. How close to it? — A. Well, I could not say. Q. Was it a mile from it ? — A. No. Q. Was it two miles away ? — A. I think it was more. I remember that we anchored once oft' North Cape and that in the morning we tried for fish there. ..H- J -A. II I iiiaile, gj make iinc ? — A. No. Iiat. We went our iiirtin anywhere :ry within 11, I think light have t you can- kVell, I r nnd linhennaii, of OIouoeHter, was callt>d ou behalf of the goveriimeut of the Uiiitud States, sworn and examined: Question. Are you a native-born citizen of the United States? — An- swer. 1 was born at Ketch Harbor, Halifax County. Q. But your home at present is Gloucester f — A. Yes. Q. When did you flrst go tishingf — A. I went fishing on our shore when a boy 12 or 13 years of age. Q. But after you grew upT — A. Then I went into the bay from Glou- cester; this was in 1838. ii. That was your first regular voyage ? — A. Yes. Q. You were not master at the time ! — A. No. Q. Did you make more thau one trip that year ? — A. No; wo were goiiu three months and we caught 20U barrels. Q. That was rather poor f — A. Yes. Q. Were there many vessels in the bay in 1838 f — A. No; very few. Q. In 1839 what vessel were you in f — A. The Mount Vernon. Q. How long were you in her f — A. About three mouths. ii. What was your catch I— A. 70 barrels. Q. From 1839 to 1847, what were you engaged in ! — A. I was worli- ing ashore on the wharf, culling mackerel, &c. Q. Did you go to sea in 1847 ! — A. No; I went in the bay during the mackerel season. During the first part of the season 1 went to George's Bank. Q. When did you go to the bay ? — A. About the Ist of August. Q. In what vessel? — A. The Clara S. Storey. y. What did you catch ? — A. 250 barrels the flrst year. I only made one trip then. Q. You were master at the time 1 — A. Y'es. Q. Were there then more vessels in the bay than when you first went there? — A. Yes; some more, but still there was not a dreadful number. Q. In 1848 you were in the same vessel? — A. Yes. Q. How many trips did you make f — A. Two. Q. How much did you get on the first? — A. 250 barrels. Q. And on the second ? — A. About 2G0 barrels. Q. Did you go home with your first trip ? — A. I'es. Q. lu what vessel were you in 1850 f — A. The Alexandria. We made two trips. Q. What did you catch ?— A. 300 barrels on the first and 250 ou the second. Q. Did yon catch any fish within three miles of the shore in all this fishing? — A. No. We naught the first trip in the Alexandria up the gulf abreast of Seven Islands, about one-third of the way across to Cape Chafte. We got none inshore. We never .saw any fishing inshore the whole time that we were there. Q. Aud no vessels were catching any fish inshore ? — A. Only three vessels were there at the time, and none of them caught any fish inshore while we were there. Q. In what vessel were you in in 1851 ? — A. The Bloomer. Q. How many trips did you make? — A. Two. Q. What did you catch ? — A. 300 barrels on the first and 250 barrels on the second. AWARD OP THK FIMHEKY COMMISSION. 2317 ;Ve ttsbed with of (Hoiicester, iteH, Hwoni and I States?— An. g on our shore bay from Olon- ) ; we were gone No ; very few. Vernon. I til 8. -A. I was work- 5 bay during the went to George's of August. ir. I only made en you first went readful nuniber. rels. dria. We made t and 250 on the the shore in all e Alexandria up he way across to y fishing inshore !— A. Only three t any fish inshore oomer. it and 250 barrels Q. Where did you take them ? — A. The first trip we caught aI»out half way iM'tween Nortli Cape and L'igeon Hill. Q. Was Pigeon Hill in sight? — A. Sometimes we eonid see the land. Q. Did you catch any fish anywhere else? — A. We caught all of our first trip there and about that vicinity. Q. Where did you get the «e«'ro within the tliiooniihi lino part of the time. Q. And you cnui;ht 40 ImrreU f — Yuh; in one day. if. Were ull the roHt taken outnido of the three-mile limit ? — A. VeH. <}. And then you gave up ti.shing ? — A. Vex; that wu8 my last trip. Hy Hon. Mr. Kellogg: Q. Ilow many tripn did you make that year T — A. One; and we ob- tained U42 8ea barrels, packing out, I think, Hi^mewhere about HOI or 80.'! burreltt, or Homething like that. Uy Mr. Dana : Q. You told UH you caught all the rest outside the three-mile limit T — A. Yes; at the Magdalen iHlandH. Q. Have you been halibut-iishing? — A. Yen; I followed it a great while, for twenty years. Q. Since you left going mackerel- fishing in 1863? — A. No. ii. When did you no tish f— A. During all the years I was in the IMoomer. I did 8n on the coast until we went to the bay. We fished previously in the Hay of Fundy or on the Georges. Q. (}eorge's Bank is a great halibut ground * — A. It was then. We used to get a good many halibut there. Q. The halibut is a deep-sea fish ? — A. Y'^es, generally speaking. Some- times they are caught in shoal water. Q. During nine years you hadaright toand toflsh where you pleased in the bay, l)ut for some years previously did the fact of cutters being in the gulf make any difference as to your going inside f — A. No ; because we did not trouble ourselves anything uliout it. In 18.'»I, when I went to the bav on my first trip, the day we got there a cutter seized the schooner Tif)er. Q. Kut you did not fish inside the three-mile limit ? — A. No. Q. Can you not find out from reports of vessels and from your own observation where the fish are f — A. Yes. Q. Y'ou keep your ears and eyes open all the time you are fishing ? — A. Yes. Q. It is not necessary actually to go in and try, if you find vessels leaving a place without catching anything, to discover that this is the case ? — A. No. Q. And you have to judge as to the presence of fish a good deal from the reports of others ? — A. Y'es. A great many men have a choice as to fishing grounds; this is the case everywhere, whether in cod, halibut or mackerel fishing. Some fish one way and some another. Q. Did you mostly fish for mackerel with hand lines? — A. Yes. Q. AVhich do you think is the safest fishiug-grouuds for vessels, as regards wreck and loss, in the whole bay ? — A. Well, as to an inshore fisliing ground, I suppose that the Magdalen Islands are the safest place. I always thought that they were as safe as any other place, with good tackel. I always supposed that Orphan and Bradley Banks were the safest places, because they are off shore. Q. Y'ou have no lee-shore to be afraid of there I — A. No. Q. And you are not obliged to use ground tackle ? — A. Y'es. Q. But at the Magdaleu Islands you can anchor ? — A. Yes. Q. And you can find a lee there f — A. Y'es ; mostly any time. I never saw the time yet when I could not find a lee when fishing there. Q. What do you say as to the bend of the island regarding the safety of vessels f — A. Well, I call the bend of the island a very |)oor place for a fishing-vessel, as regards safety, especially in the fall. nmn or time Q. lect Cant do n McL Q. Q. exac Q. —A. Johi Q. Q. then and Q. year Q. V. WfU, I —A. Yt'H. hint trip. ,imI we ob- HOI or 80.*. le limit!— it a BTCttt WAH in the Wo Hshetl tJien. W« AWARD OK TIIK KI8IIKKV COMMLSHION. 2319 iiig- Some- 11 pleaseil in being in the because we n 1 went to be schooner 5fo. u j'our own e fishing ?— tln«l vessels this is the 9(1 deal from J a choice as coil, halibut ^. Yes. ►r vessels, as an inshore e the safest place, with Banks were VTes. es. my time. I ishing there. ng the safety ry i>oor place I. if. How in it in September? — A.'hnriii); the Kiimmer Keiison v«'sh4>|m may iish there, lieeiinHc the weather is a ^reat deal milder in .Inlv and AuKUst; l>nt about the lirst of September it begins to get morr blowy and windy. <^. And even in .Inly and Au);ii.st, yon would bo eareful how near you were inshore 7 — A. Ves. The hend of the island is a very bad plaee to lisli in; it is so regarded, espotrially when tin; wind is blowing on shore, because then the tide generally sets in, and makes it very rou;;li there. Q. Tlie title is sulijeet ht that there ? — A. Yes. if. And that nmkes it very rou^h there f — A. Yes. It does that all over the bay. <^. Do you know anything; altoiit the the bar of Malpeipie ilarlMirf Is it stationery or shiltiiiK . — A. I do not know save very little iib(»ut it ; 1 was oidy there tw(» or three times. 1 was there twiee one year, and then the l>ar renuiined alNiut the same; but sinee I have heard that it hasshiftey Air. Weatherbe: if. What age were you when you lelt Ketch llaibor f — A. I was thou three years old. Q. You have never lived there since? — A. No; 1 have since always lived in Gloucester. if. You are married ami settled there ? — A. Yes. Q. And naturali}:ed f— A. Yes. if. During all these years when you fished in the Gulf of St. Law- rence, had you a large iiuml)er of Nova Scotians on board? — A. Some- times we had some. Q. We have a long list of such names? — A. Well, that is the case in many instances; but in our case, when I was in the Bloomer, for four or five years we had a crew fnun home — Gloucester; but we have some- times had Nova Scotians on board. if. You had some of them in the Bloomer ? — A. Yes, Q. Will you give their names? — A. I do not know as I could recol- lect them all. We had one man named Bryant Rogers of the Gut ot Canso, and another called lied Dan, a Scotchman, of the same place. I tlo not know his real name. Then we had a third, named Hughey McDonald. Q. In what vessel were they ? — A. The Bloomer. Q. What year was this ?— A. I do not know that I couhl give the year exactly, but 1 think it was in 1854. Q. Do you recollect any other names from Prospect or Ketch Harbor? — A. ! oidy had one man from one of these pl<:ces and his name was John Clancy. Q. Where is he now! — A. I could not say. Q. Did he resiile in the United States?— A. No; he went fishing from there for two or three years. Ue went with me on one trip in the fall, and he then went home. Q. Was he a young man ? — A. I tliink he would be now about 35 years old, or perhaps a little more. Q. Ue was in the Bloomer? — A. Yes. 2320 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. When f — A. I think about 1853, but I will not say for a certainty. ii. Can you giva us any other name f — A. I do not recollect any other. (^. Whether of men from Halifax County, or any other fishing settle- ment on this coast, or of Prince Edward Island 1 — A. No. Q. The fishing town of Gloucester is made up mostly of Nova Sco- tianaT — A. A good many of these people are there, and some vessels carry more of them in their crews than other vessels do. Some carry hardly any of them. Q. The town is made up of Nova Scotians? — A. A great many of them are there. Q. A great part of its population is Nova Scotians ? — A. A good many Nova Scotians live there. Q. Is the majority of the population Nova Scotians ? — A. No. Q. Kut is this not the case with the fishermen i — A. I refer tu fisher- men. Q. Are they not Nova Scotians, or the children of Nova Scotians, or of British subjects? — A. Well, I could not tell the exact number of them. Q. The majority of them were formerly British subjects, or de- scendants of persons who were formerly British subjects f — A. I should not think that this is the case with the majority ; not more than one- third of them are British subjects. Q. Were not the majority of the crews that went on Gloucester ves- sels to the bay, British subjects, or were they not originally so ? — A. A good many were, but I do not know how many — perhaps one-third. I do not know that the proportion is greater than that. Q. In Gloucester vessels that come into the bay ! — A. Yes. Q. It strikes me that the majority of Gloucester fishermen are of British extraction ?— A. This may be the case ; but I cannot speak for a certainty. Q. You do not know whether this is the case or not ? — A. I could not say. It is some time since I was fishing. Q. In your experience they were not British subjects ? — A. I do not think so. Q. You told me that very few British subjects were in your vessels ? — A. Yes. Q. Very few, indeed ? — A. Yes. Q. In all the vessels you were in ? — A. I was in one vessel most of the time. Q. Were there any iu the Mount Vernon and Clara S. Storey f — A. No. Q. Or in the Prince of Wales ? — A. I think we had 4 in her. Q. Can you give me any names ? — A. One ol them was named Charles Martin ; another Barney Pine, and a third, Warren Guthrie. I do not know that there were more. Q. Where do they reside ?— A. Charles Martin lived at Ketch Harbor; he was born there, but now he is a citizen of Gloucester, and master of a vessel. Q. Was he a citizen of Gloucester when he was fishing with you? — A. Yes. Q. Where did the others live t— A. They were citizens of Gloucester^ and they lived there at the time. Q. These others were not in the Bloomer ? — A. No. Q. You cannot recollect any other names? — A. No. Q. Can jou name any British subjects resident here who were with AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2321 [arbor ; laster of I you ? — jucester^ pre with you ill the years 1854, '7, '8, '9, 1800 and 1801 ?— A. No ; save one, John Clancy. Q. What year was he with you ? — A. I think it was along about 1855. Q. Can yon give us the names of any such persons who were with you later ? — A. We did not have any Nova Scotians with us in 1859, 1800, and 1801. Q. Or persons from any of the Provinces ? — A. Not that I recollect. Q. Where did you catch your fish in 18r);3 ? — A. Between North Cape and Kildare, and towards Orphan Bank, and in that direction. Q. Where did you get them in 1851 ? — A. Along about the same places. Sometimes we caught some at the Magdalen Islands ; that was generally our fishing ground. (}. Where were you in 1853 ? — A. In 1851 we made two trips, and in 1852, '3, '4, '5, and '0, only one trip e.ich year. Q. This was because you were fishing for halibut ? — A. Yes — during the first part of the season. Q. How many did yon catch in 1S,j2 *. — A. 230 barrels. Q. And in 1853 and '54 ? — A. Well, I could not tell you the exact number of barrels, because we generally came in about the same time in the year, but I guess that we caught somewhere about 240 barrels on' each trip. I took it from the books at home. Q. What did yor. catch in 1848 '. — A. 250 barrels on the first trip. Q. How many trips did you make that year ? — A. Two ; we got 200 on the second. Q. In 1850, how many did you take on the first trip ? — A. 300; I was then in the Alexandria, and we fished up the gulf. Q. And how many the secon*! trip ? — A. 250. Q. How many did you g«t during your oue trip in 1853? — A. 240 bar- rels, I think. Q. And in 1854 ? — A. It was somewhere in the neighborhood of 230 or 240 ; that was about the average : 1 could not give the exact figures. Q. Was your catch 250, or 200, or 270 in 1850 ?— A. Well, I think it was 250 barrels. Q. Or was it 270 * — A. It was not so many as that. Q. Are you sure ? — A. I am sure that it was not 270. Q. And in 1854 you suy your ca^ch w.is 240 or 250? — A. I do not know exactly what it was. Q. How is it you are so exact about previous years, now 30 years ago ? — A. I had it all made up, but I left it down at my house; I made up the average, and I think that it was about 240. Q. And you made a memorandnin of all your catches? — A. Yes. Q. You would then remember these ciitclies as well as the others ? — A. Yes. Q. How many did you catch in 1855 ? — A. 245 barrels. i-i. And in 1850 ? — A. I could not give the exact number, though I could tell it if I had my papers. Q. Can you give me a number anywhere near it ? — A. Yes; 240 bar- rels. Q. What was it in 1857, '8, and "fl?— A. About 240 or 250 barrels. Q. What was your catch in 1858 ? — A. About 245 barrels. i}. And in 1859 ? — A. Somewhere about 240 barrels. i}. Are you simply guessing the numbers? — A. No. Q. You told me you could recollect your catches for these as well as for the other years ? — A. In 1800 and 1801 we caught somewhere about ?45 barrels; that is as near as I can come to it. Q. This was the case during both years — 1800 and 1801 ? — A. Yes. 140 F 2322 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. Q. Your catches were pretty much all the same? — A. Yes; that was about au average all aloug, during several years. Q. You remember where, out of 250 barrels takeu iu 1851, you caught 20 T— A. Yes. Q. And you told us where you caught the balance, and out of 940 barrels you mentioned where you caught 40 ; now out of 245, where did you catch 46 barrels, for instance f You told us where you caught 20 out of 250? — A. Y'es; this was at Margaree Island. Q. And you remember that since 1851? — A. Yes; that was the only time when I did catch any lish there. Q. And out of 245 taken in 1855, where did you catch part ? — A. We caught all our mackerel that year at the ^Magdalen Islands. Q. llow many did you catch from 1851 to 18G1 within the three-mile limit ? — A. I shall not suppose that in all these years we took as many as 100 barrels of mackerel within thtee miles of the shore. Q. You did not catch 100 barrels inshore? — A. No. Q. Out of all your catches f — A. Yes. Q. Are you sure about that? — A. Yes. Q. VV'heu did you catch them? — A. In 1803, we caught 40 barrels inshore at Flint Island, iu the Prince of Wales. Q. I mentioned the period between 1851 and 1861 ? — A.. During these ten years we took 20 barrels at Margaree Island and also a few once — I could not say positively when — ott" East Point. I could not swear that this was within the three mile limit or not, but it might have been. Q. And out of all your catches you only took 100 barrels iushore? — A. I say I could not swear as to this. I have nothing to go by. Q. Then you do not know what you caught within the three mile limit except these 20 barrels?— A. What makes me so distinct about the 20 barrels is because I took them at Margaree Island. Q. You do not know whether you caught any more within the three- mile limit ? — A. No. I could not positively take oath to it. There are only 20 barrels that I can swear to. Q. And you cannot say that you took any more within the three-mile limit? — A. No. Q. That is, you cannot tell where you caught them ? — A. Yes. Q. You cannot tell how far oil' the shore you took your tish ? — A. I can with respect to the Banks and the Magdalen Islands. Q. Can you tell whether you caught 100 barrels within the 3-mile limit ? — A. That was all the mackerel I caught inshore. Some of the others might have been taken inshore, but I could not swear to it ; I could not tell exactly by the eye whether I was 3 or 2 or 2} miles off shore — the real distance might have been within a quarter of a mile of those distances. Q. You cannot tell because it is difficult to say what distance you are from the shore I — A. Yes. Q. And sometimes you fish in a fog? — A. I mean to say that I never fished inshore long enough to know. I have not often Ushed when there was a fog in the bay, but I have sometimes seen smoke there. Q. It is difficult to tell whether you are 3 miles from laud or not ? — A. By looking at the land — yes. Q. Then you cannot tell when you are Ashing within the 3 mile limit?— A. I am sure that we did not catch auy mackeiel within this limit cxccjit the 20 barrels taken at Margaree Island. Q. You tell me it is difficult to say wliether you are fishing within 2 or 2^ or 3 miles of laud ? — A. You cannot tell the exact distance within hUK Q liun now Q \vt'r( five Q "t'ye. AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2323 ; that was l^ou caught out of 940 , where did caught 20 as the only t!— A. We B three-mile : as mauy as t 40 barrels During these a few once — 3t swear that ,ve been. Is inshore ?— JO by. ree mile limit about the 20 lin the three- t. There are he three-mile L. Yes. ih i—A. I can lin the 3-mile Some of the swear to it ; I 2^ miles off sr of a mile of itance you are y that I never ed when there lere. id or not ? — A. 3 mile limit!— is limit cxcci^t ihing within 2 istauce withki a quarter of a mile with your eye. If we are 5 miles oft" we would be pretty certain of being 3 miles ott* shore. Q. Then you cannot tell save within two miles of the exact distance 1 — A. Yes. Q. It is difficult to tell within two miles whether yon are three miles from the shore or not! — A. Well, yes. What makes niegive this answer is, I was never accustomed to tish inshore at all. Q. Did you never fish within five miles of land ? — A. I could not say for a certainty. I may have caught some fish within five miles of the shore. Q. Have you caught fish six or seven miles oft? — A. Yes. Q. You have caught thein within six miles of the coast ? — A. Yes, some. Q. How many ? — A. I took nearly one whole trip in the bend of the island, at the place we cill the Flat Ground, seven or eight miles off land. Q. W^hen was this ?— A. In 1851. Q. You then took nearly your whole trip within six or seven miles of land? — A. Yes, six or seven. Q. Was it six or seven ?— A. I could not say. Q. Will you swear that you did not catch one half of that trip within five miles of laud I — A. Yes. Q. Then you are able to toll when you are five or six miles off the coast so as to swear to it ? — A. I cannot state anything definite on this subject. Q. Are yon able to swear that you caught one-half of this trip within five miles of the shore ? — A. No. Q. You are not able to swear that? — A. No; we called the distance at which we took them six or seven miles offshore. Q. You are not able to swear to five miles or not ? — A. I am able to swear that we did not then catch any fish within five miles of the coast. Q. You caught them all within six miles of it ? — A. We might have been some days 0 or 7 or 8 miles off. Q. You told me you were able to swear that you caught the whole trip within six miles of the shore ? — A. I said six or seven miles. Q. Could yon say you caught the whole trip within seven miles of the coast? — A. Yes. Q. You are sure of that ?~ A. It was somewhere about that distance; that is as near as I can state. Q. Then you are perfectly certain that you caught them all within seven miles of the coast ? — A. Yes ; it was about seven miles from the land. Q. And you said that you did not catch any within five miles of it f — A. Yes. Q. Then you are able to tell within two miles where you caught them? — A. I could say as to seven miles from the land. Some fish might have been taken farther off; but I cannot say for a certainty. Q. When I asked you if you had caught some within five miles of land, you positively said you did not. — A. And I am positive about it now. Q. Did you not a moment ago say that you" could not tell whpfb<»ryou were live or three miles from the shore ? — A. You can tell that you are five miles ott" better than three. Q. Did you say so or not ? — A. I said that all I had to go by was my "eye. i it. I 2324 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. ii Q. Did you say so or not ? — A. I say that we never fished within five miles of the shore when we caught mackerel. Q. Did you state that it was sometimes difficult to tell whether you were five or three miles from the coast i — A. It was so for five or seveu miles, I said. Q. Where did you catch the largest portion of your fish during these ten years, from 1851 to 1861 ? — A. We caught most of them at the Mag- dalen Islands and on Banks Orphan and Bradley. Q. Did you catch the most at the Magdalen Islands or at the Banks? — A. We got the most at the Magdalen Islands. Q. What proportion of your tish were taken there ? — A. Two-thirds, I should say. Q. You did not try to fish within three miles of the coast? — A. No. Q. You never did ? — A. No. Q. Therefore you are not able to say what kind of fishing is to be found there ? — A. No. Q. You gave as a reason why, during a great number of years — 10 at least — you did not catch fish inshore, was because your vessel was long- legged ? — A. Yes. Q. That was the reason ? — A. Yes. Q. Are you aware that on some parts of the coast you can go with a vessel of ^hat size as near the shore as you like ? — A. I could not say that this is the case. I never did so. I never tried to. Q. You were not aware of such places ? — A. No. Q. And, therefore, you never tried to fish in there ? — A. No. Q. Are you able to say how many vessels Cascumpeque Harbor will shelter ? — A. No. I went in there merely for wood and water ; and we also bought a few provisions there. Only three vessels were in it at the time. Q. You are not sufficiently acquainted with Malpeque Harbor to give it any character one way or the other? — A. No. Q. You do not know how many fathoms of water are to be found at its entrance ? — A. Well, when we were there I recollect that we souiided and we found about 12^ feet. Q. Are you able to say that this was at the deepest place ? — A. No ; we went, however, as near mid-channel as we could, where the buoy was. Q. It was only during your last fishing year that you fished close in- shore near Sydney ? — A. Yes ; 1 was not master of the vessel at the time. John McQuinu was master. Q. You had been master on previous trips? — A. Yes. (^. For how long ? — A. I was in the Bloomer the whole time that I was master. Q. Were yon master during all those years ? — A. Yes. Q. And as soon as you went with Mc(iuinn you went nejir Sydney to fish?— A. Yes. Q. How long were you catching the 40 barrels ? — A. They were taken during one day. Q. And if you had been master, you would not have gone there at all? — A. I might have gone there; we were bound home at the time. Q. He was acquainted with the place? — A. Yes. Q. And he had always fished there if — A. I do not know that. W"o were going southward, when some vessels raised mackerel and we caught there 40 wash-barrels in one day. Q. Between daylight and dark '! — A. We got them all between 8 a. m. and 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Q. I A. It \i to get I Q. If circumf Q. W as we h to be tb them. Q. W Point, J Q. H. four, flv off East Q. Yc We mig heave tc Q. Di not knoi Q. Yo you stud fishing f- but I ha Q. DU paid any Q. Yoi Had you master o Q. Di{ master ?- within fo one place Q. Yoi did. Q. Q. done catch our Q. Yon your und« your a,nsv Q. Tha places anc Q. And where oth given a fu Q. You a man get Q. He Q. Thei altogether that ; I on Q. Thet] actual exp Q. That ground thj We Ant But so. AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2325 ney to taken ;. Wo 8 a. in. Q. I snppose tbat if you went that way again you would try there? — A. It would depend on how I felt; if I was not in too muck of a hurry to get home I might. Q. If you had a license, you would do so ? — A. It would depend on circumstances. Q. What objection would you have to try there ?— A. If I had a fare, as we had, I might go home, if there was a fair wind; and if I happened to be there, and could pick up four or five barrels, I might stop to catch them. Q. W^here did you catch the balance of the trip?— A. Between East Point, Magdalen Islands, and Bird Kocks. Q. How near East Point were you? — A. I should say that we were four, five, six, or seven miles oft". We used to heave to four or five miles off East Point, and drift down toward Bird Rocks. Q. You would go in to within four or five miles of the coast? — A. We might do so, but that would not be very often. Some days we would heave to within four miles of the shore. Q. Did you always endeavor to stop four miles oft' ? — A. Well, I do not know as I could tell exactly when we were fqur miles olf. Q. You would endeavor to fix the distance at about four miles, and you studiously avoided coming in closer wlien you ran in to commence fishing f — A. Well, I do not know that. We might go farther in shore, but I have never known that we did go any farther in. Q. Did you avoid going any farther in ? — A. I do not know that we paid any particular attention to that matter. Q. You would not mind whether you were four miles oft' or closer in f Had you any objection to being closer in? — A. I had not. I was not master of the vessel. Q. Did you never fish that way in the same place when you were master ? — A. It was a very rare thing that we ever fished so near as within four or five miles of the Magdalen Islands. I never stopped at one place for a whole voyage save at these islands. Q. You never fished so close the shore as that '. — A. Sometimes we did. We fished within five miles of Bird Kocks. Q. And within four miles of them ? — A. Well, yes. Q. But you did not generally run in so close ? — A. We might have done so. I could not tell exactly how far oft" we fished. We used to catch our fish on difterent days in dift'erent places. Q. You were asked whether you would not have your ears open and your understanding to know where other people caught their fish, and your !\nswer was that some people had their choice ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. That is to say that some people have their choice to fish in certain places and others in different places ? — A. Yes. Q. And that is the only answer you gave, I suppose you did hear where others were fishing'. Have you given a full answer? — A. 1 have given a full answer. Q. You must have heard where others have fished ? — A. Of course if a man gets a full trip on Orphan Bank he will go there again. Q. He does not care where others have fished ? — A. No. Q. Then it is possible that some fish altogether in one place, and some altogether in another place? — A. Well, I don't know anything about that ; I only know my own experience. Q. Then you can give no idea where fish are caught except your own actual experience ? — A. Well, I know where people have said. Q. That is just what Mr. Dana asked you. I want to take the same ground that he did, that your ears were open and you understood. Your 2326 AWABD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. I ! answer was simply that some had tbeir choice? — A. If I spoke a vessel and he said there was a good prospect at Bradley, I should go there. If he said there was good fishing on the Magdalens, I should go there. Q. 1 thought your answer was thnt some would have their choice; that vo matter what they heard, they would still go to the same places f — A. I would go where I got good catches the year before. Q. Then you didn't hear of others fishing in other places? — A. I have heard of them fishing at Bradley, and Magdalens, and up the gulf. Q. Those are the places you went yourself? — A. I know. 1 have heard of them catching otf the island and Margaree. Q. And Cape Canso ? — A. No; not Cape Canso. Q. Bay Chaleurs ? — A. I never was up there. Q. I was not asking you that, but whether you heard of vessels beiug there ? — A. Yes ; I have heard of vessels being there. Q. And at Gasp^ ? — A. Yes. Q. Up above Gaspe ? — A. Well, I have heard of vessels catching mackerel there. Q. Both sides of the St. Lawrence, close inshore ? — A. Not close in. I never was there. Q. Well, never mind whether close in or not — in the mouth of the St. Lawrence ? — A. I don't know that I ever heard of any. I don't recol- lect any time. Q. You have heard of fishing on the shores of the island, Margaree, Bay Chaleurs, and Gaspe ? — A. Yes ; I have heard. Q. Did you hear of them being caught on both sides of the river, at the mouth ? — A. No. ' Q. At Seven Islands ? — A. Not to catch a trip there. Q. Above Seven Islands ? — A. I never heard of it. We spoke a ves- sel that had been there, but bad caught nothing. I have heard of ves- sels trying there. I dou't know whether they caught anything or not. Q. Now, Mr. Dana put it to you whether the bend of the island was a very dangerous place ; ^ think you gave him an answer with regard to some month ? — A. I sai . it was worse in the month of September or October than in the summer. Q. Was your answer confined to that month I What about July and August ? — A. Well, if a vessel saw fish there I suppose they would fish. It is very seldom that we have a gale in July or August, although we do have them. Q. It was not on account of the danger that you kept away ? — A. No. Q. The danger had nothing to do with your fishing ? — A. No. Q. You never kept any account so far back as 1838 or 1839 of what proportion of fish were caught within in any year ? — A. I recollect par- ticularly about 1838. There was a few mackerel caught in Pleasant Bay. We did not know anything about inshore fishing at that time. It was not understood at that time. Q. Now, I don't want to trouble you with reading any opinions, but about what time was it ascertained that the mackerel-fishing was in- shore ? — A. I could not tell. Q. At the time you mentioned it was not known that it was an in- shore fishery at all ? — A. No ; not to my knowledge. Q. It was after it was ascertained that it was an inshore fishery that you heard of a difliculty about the limit ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Dana : Q. I wish to ask you with reference to the last question when you ascertained that the mackerel fishery was an inshore fishery ? — A. I stated it was not in the year 1838. I a vessel here. If ihere. )ice; that ces ? — A. L. I have julf. I have els being catching ; close in. of the St. u't recol- Slargaree^ 3 river, at )ke a ves- rd of ves- ig or not. iiland was regard to tember or b July and ("ould fish, though we 1— A. No. ^o. d of what ollect par- 1 Pleasant that time. nions, but ng was iu- was an in- iihery that I when you jrv 1— A. I AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2327 Q. Mr. Weatherbe asked you when you first ascertained that the mackerel fishery was an inshore fishery, and whether this or that hap- pened before you ascertained that it was an inshore fishery. Now have you ever learned that it was an inshore fishery in distinction from au outshore fishery f — A. No. Q. Well, what «lo you mean when you speak of " after you understood it was an inshore fishery " ! Do you mean mainly or largely inshore f — A. No ; we would hardly ever catch any inshore in tlie ilrst part of the season. Some parts of the year they did catch them inshore and ott" shore too. Q. Taking them all through, where do you cat(!h them ? — A. Most of them are caught off shore. By Mr. Weatherbe : Q. I asked when it was that the ditliculty first arose about the limit, and whether it was after it was considered an inshore fishery, that is ]8;39 ? — A. I referred to the year 183S. It was an inshore fishery when they fished there. When vessels didn't fish there you could not call it an inshore flsliery^.