taken is substantially a fishing for it. I have heard that suggestion hinted at in the course of our discussions, but plainly, it seems to me, it cannot be sound. We pay for herring by the barrel, for squid and caplin by the hundred, and the inhabitants of the island will go out to sea as far as to the French Islands, there to meet American schooners, and to induce them to come to their particular localities that they may be the ones to catch the bait for them. It is true that the British Case expresses the apprehension that the frozen-herring trade may be lost to the inhabitants of Newfoundland in consequence of the provisions of the treaty. It is said that "it is not at all probable that, possessing the right to take the herring and caplin for themselves on all parts of the Newfoundland coast, the United States fishermen will continue to purchase bait as heretofore, and they will thus prevent the local fishermen, especially those of Fortune Bay, from engaging in a very lucrative employment, which formerly occupied them during a portion of the winter season, for the supply of the United States market." One of the British witnesses, Joseph Tierney, whose testimony is on page 371, in speaking of this matter of getting bait, says, in reply to the ques tion, "How do you get that bait ?" "Buy it from persons that go and catch it and sell it for so much a barrel. The American fishermen are not allowed to catch their own bait at all. Of course, they may jig their own squid around the vessel." And in reply to my question, "What would be done if they tried to catch bait?" the answer is, "They are pretty rough customers. I don't know what they would do." So it appears that American fishermen not only do not catch bait, but are not allowed to catch it. They buy the bait, and that, to my mind, is the end of the question. So far as the herring trade goes, we could not, if we were disposed to, carry it on successfully under the provisions of the treaty, for this herring trade is substantially a seining from the shore-a strand fishing, as it is called-and we have no right anywhere conferred by this treaty to go ashore and seine herring any more than we have to establish fish-traps. I remember brother Thom. son and Professor Baird were at issue on the question whether we had a right to 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 anywhere on the British territories except to dry nets and cure fish. I do not think that I ought to spend more time over the case of Newfoundland than this, except to call your attention to the circumstance that, in return for these few squid jigged at night, the islanders obtain an annual remission of duties averaging upwards of $50,000 a year.

We have been kindly furnished, in connection with the British affidavits upon page 128, Appendix A, with a statement showing the duties remitted upon exports from Newfoundland to the United States since the Treaty of Washington, and their annual average is made out to be $50,940.45. I submit to the Commission whether we do not pay, upon any view of political economy, a thousand fold for all the squid that our people jig after dark.

Let it not, however, for a moment be supposed that because I took up the case of Newfoundland for convenience' sake, as it is presented separately, that I regard it as a distinct part of the case. The United States has made no treaty with the Island of Newfoundland, which has not yet. hoisted the flag of the "Lone Star." When she does, perhaps we shall be happy to enter into treaty relations with her; but we know at present only Her Majesty's Government. We are dealing with the whole

aggregate of concessions, from the one side to the other, and Newfoundland comes in with the rest.

Leaving, then, the Island of Newfoundland, I come to the question of the value to the citizens of the United States of the concessions as to inshore fisheries in the territorial waters of the Dominion of Canada-that is, within three miles of the shore-for the five annual seasons past, and for seven years to come. In the first place, there is the right conceded to our fishermen to land in order to cure fish and dry nets-to land on unoccupied places, where they do not interfere with private property, nor with British fishermen exercising the same rights. In one of the oldest law reports, Popham's, an ancient sage of the law, Mr. Justice Doddridge remarks: "Fishermen, by the law of nations, may dry their nets on the land of any mau." Without asserting that as a correct rule of law, I think I may safely assert that it has been the practice permitted under the comity of nations from the beginning of human history, and that no nation or people, no kingdom or country, has ever excluded fishermen from landing on barren and unoccupied shores and rocks to dry their nets and cure their fish. If it was proved that the fishermen of the United States did use privileges of this kind, under the provisions of the Treaty of Washington, to a greater extent than before, I hardly think that you would be able to find a current coin of the realm sufficiently small in which to estimate compensation for such a concession. But, in point of fact, the thing is not done; there is no evidence that it is done. On the contrary, the evidence is that this practice belonged to the primitive usages of a by-gone generation. Seventy, sixty, perhaps fifty years ago, when a little fishing vessel left Massachusetts Bay, it would sail to Newfoundland, and after catching a few fish, the skipper would moor his craft near the shore, land in a boat, and dry the fish on the rocks; and when he had collected a fare of fish, and filled his vessel, he would either return back home, or quite as frequently would sail ou a commercial voyage to some foreign country, where he would dispose of the fish and take in a return cargo. But nothing of that sort has happened within the memory of any living man. It is something wholly disused, of no value whatever. And it must not be said that under this concession we acquire any right to fish from the shore, to haul nets from the shore, or to fish from rocks. Obviously, we do not. I agree entirely with the view of my brother Thomson, as mani. fested in his conversation with Professor Baird on that subject.

We come, then, to the inshore fishing. What is that? In the first place, there has been some attempt to show inshore halibut-fishing in the neighborhood of Cape Sable. It is very slight. It is contradicted by all our witnesses. No American fisherman can be found who has ever known of any halibut-fishing within three miles of the shore in that vicinity; and our fishermen all say that it is impossible that there should be halibut caught in any considerable quantities in any place where the waters are so shallow. There is also some evidence that up in the Gulf of St. Lawrence there was once a small local halibut fishery, but the same evidence that speaks of its existence there speaks of its discon tinuance years ago. The last instance of a vessel going there to fish for halibut that has been made known to us is the one that Mr. Sylvanus Smith testifies about, where a vessel of his strayed up into the gulf, was captured, and was released, prior to the Treaty of Washing ton. As to the inshore halibut fishery, there has been no name of a ves sel, except 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 the vicinity of Cape Sable. We have an affidavit from the captain of that schooner,

Benjamin Swim, saying that he did not take any fish within many miles of Cape Sable. He says he has been engaged in cod-fishing since April of this year, and "has landed 150,000 pounds of halibut, and caught them all, both codfish and halibut, on Western Banks. The nearest to the shore that I have caught fish of any kind this year is, at least, 40 miles." (Affidavit No. 242.)

So much for the inshore halibut fishery. I will, however, before leav. ing it, refer to the statement of one British witness, Thomas R. Pattilo, who testified that occasionally halibut may be caught inshore, as a boy may catch a codfish off the rocks; but, pursued as a business, halibut are caught in the sea, in deep water. "How deep do you say?" "The fishery is most successfully prosecuted in about 90 fathoms of water, and, later in the season, in as much as 150 fathoms."

So much for the inshore halibut fishery; and that brings me to the inshore cod fishery, as to which I am reminded of a chapter in an old history of Ireland that was entitled "On Suakes in Ireland," and the whole chapter was "There are no snakes in Ireland." So there is no inshore cod fishery pursued as a business by United States vessels anywhere. It is, like halibut-fishing, exclusively a deep-sea fishing. They caught a whale the other day in the harbor of Charlottetown, but I do not suppose our friends expect you to assess in this award against the United States any particular sum for the inshore whale fishery. There is no cod fishery or halibut fishery inshore, pursued by our vessels, any more than there is inshore whale fishery. We know and our witnesses know where our vessels go. If they go near the British shores at all they go to buy bait, and leave their money in payment for the bait. Will it be said that the cod fishery is indirectly to be paid for, because fresh bait must be used, and the cod fishery cannot profitably be pursued without fresh bait; and because we are here. after to be deprived of the right to buy bait by laws expected to be passed, and then shall have to stop and catch it, so that by and by, when some new statutes have been enacted, and we have been cut off from commercial privileges, we may be forced to catch bait for cod-fishing in British territorial waters? I think it will be time enough to meet that question when it arises. Any attempt to cut us off from the commercial privileges that are allowed in times of peace by the comity of civilized nations to all at peace with them, would of course be adjusted between the two governments in the spirit that becomes two imperial and Christian powers. I do not think that, looking forward to some unknown time when some unknown law will be passed, we need anticipate that we are to be cut off from the privilege of buying bait, and therefore you should award compensation against us for the bait which we may at that time find occasion ourselves to catch. But if it is worth while to spend a single moment upon that, how thoroughly it has been disposed of by the evidence, which shows that this practice of going from the fishing grounds on the Banks into harbors to purchase bait is one attended with great loss of time, and with other incidental disadvantages, so that the owners of the vessels much prefer to have their fishermen stay on the Banks and use salt bait, and whatever else they can get there. Saint Pierre and Miquelon are free ports; commercial intercourse is permitted there; bait can be bought there; and, as the British witnesses have told us, the traffic for bait between Newfoundland and the French islands is so great, and such a full supply of bait is brought to the French islands, more than there is a demand for, that it is sometimes thrown overboard in quantities that almost fill up the harbor. That was the statement of one of the witnesses. I do not

think, therefore, that I need spend more time, either upon the cod-fishery, or the question of buying bait or procuring bait for cod-fishing. What shall I say of the United States herring fishery, alleged to exist at Grand Manan and its vicinity? Three British witnesses testify to an annual catch of one million, or one and a half million dollars' worth by United States fishermen in that vicinity, all caught inshore. But these witnesses do not name a single vessel, or captain, or give the name of any place from which such vessels come, except to speak in general terms of the Gloucester fleet. These witnesses are McLean, McLeod, and McLaughlin. The fish alleged to be taken are chiefly herring. I shall not stop to read their evidence, or comment upon it in detail. They are contradicted by several witnesses, and by several depositions filed in the case, which you will find in the supplemental depositions lately printed; all of whom state, what we believe to be clearly true, that the herring trade by the United States vessels in the vicinity of Grand Manan is purely a commercial transaction; that our fishermen cannot afford the time to catch herring; that their crews are too large and their vessels too expensive to engage in catching so poor a fish as herring; that it is better for them to buy and pay for them, and that so they uniformly do. 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 report of the Commissioner on the New Brunswick Fisheries for 1876.

Mr. Venuing, the inspector of fisheries for New Brunswick, quotes in his report on Charlotte County (pp. 266 and 267), from Overseer Cunningham, of the Inner Bay. Some attempt was made to show that Overseer Cunningham, although the official appointed for the purpose, did not know much about it; but it will be observed that his statements, as well as those of Overseer Best (whose evidence is next quoted), are affirmed by Mr. Venning, the inspector of fisheries for New Brunswick, 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 relating to the fisheries of his own province were not likely to creep into official documents and remain there unobjected to. I think we must assume that these official statements are truer and more reliable than the accounts that come from witnesses. Overseer Cunningham says:

The winter herring fishery, I am sorry to say, shows a decrease from the yield of last year. This, I believe, is owing to the large quantity of nets, in fact miles of them, being set by United States fishermen all the way from Grand Manan to Lepreau, and far out in the bay, by the Wolves, sunk from 20 to 25 fathoms, which kept the fish from coming into this bay. In this view I am borne out by all the fishermen with whom I have conversed on the subject. Our fishermen who own vessels have now to go a distance of six to eight miles off shore before they can catch any. The poorer class of fishermen, who have nothing but small boats, made but a poor catch. However, during the winter months, there were caught and sold in a frozen state to United States vessels 1,900 barrels, at from $4 to $5 per barrel. The price being somewhat better than last year, helped to make up the deficiency in their catch.

Then he 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 speaks of the falling off in line-fishing, but says that the yield of herring has exceeded that of the previous year, disagreeing with his friend, Overseer Cunningham. He

attributes the deficiency in line-fishing to the use of trawls. He goes on to say, "The catch was made chiefly in deep water this year, as far out as five to seven miles off the coast, and no line-fish have been taken within two miles, except haddock." He says:

The winter fishing was principally done in deep water. As rough weather prevailed most of the time, the fishermen found it very difficult to take care of their nets, a great many of which are lost. A large number of American vessels now frequent our coasts to engage in this fishery, and pay but little attention to our laws, which prohibit Sunday fishing and throwing over gurry. This I am powerless to prevent over a stretch of 20 miles of coast, on which from 60 to 100 vessels are engaged. A suitable vessel is necessary for this work, and she should cruise around among the fishinggrounds and see that the laws are respected by those who are participating in the benefits of our fisheries.

Of course, it is difficult to prove a negative; but ought not the British Agent to be required, upon a subject of such magnitude as this, to produce some more satisfactory evidence? If a large fleet of American vessels are year by year catching herring within three miles of land, among an equal body of British fishermen, within a limited space near Graud Manau, and if they are taking from a million to a million and a half dollars' worth a year, is it not possible for our friends the minister of marine and fisheries and the learned counsel both from New Brunswick to furnish the names of just one or two vessels, or one or two captains among the great number that are so engaged? A million to a million and a half dollars' worth is the estimate that they put upon the fishery. How many herring do you suppose it takes to come to a million or a million and a half dollars? It takes more than all the herring that are imported into the United States, by the statistics. Just in that little vicinity they say that a greater amount of such fish are taken than are imported into the United States. Now, if an operation of that enormous magnitude is going on, it does seem to me that somebody would know something more definite about it than has appeared in this evidence. Certainly there has been earnest zeal and the most indefatigable industry in the preparation of the British Case. Nobody doubts that. There has been every facility to procure evidence; and are we not entitled to require at the hands of Her Majesty's Government something that is more definite and tangible than has appeared on this subject? I have made all the inquiry in my power, and I cannot find out what the vessels are, who their captains are, from what ports they come, or to what markets they return. We know very well what the Gloucester berring-fleet is. It is a fleet that goes to buy herring; that buys it at Grand Manan; that buys it at the Magdalen Islands; that buys it in Newfoundland. But of any fleet that fishes for herring in the territorial waters of New Brunswick, after the utmost inquiry we can make, we remain totally ignorant.

There is another view of this subject which ought, it seems to me, to be decisive. Everybody admits that herring is one of the cheapest and poorest of fish, and that the former duty of a dollar a barrel, and five cents a box on smoked herring, would be absolutely prohibitory in the markets of the United States. Now, how much must these New Bruns wick fishermen gain if they have as large a fishery as we have, and we have a fishery of a million and a half dollars in that vicinity? That is their statement; the British fishery is about equal to the American; the American is very near to one and a half million dollars a year in that vicinity; the British-caught fish go to the United States markets almost exclusively-I think one witness did say two-thirds; everybody else has spoken as if the herring-market was in the United States almost altogether. How many barrels of herring does it take to come to a million dollars?