Page images
PDF
EPUB

We will let the other half million be supposed to consist of smoked herring in boxes. How many barrels of herring does it take? Why, it takes three or four hundred thousand. The herring sell for from two to four dollars a barrel. It takes 250,000, 300,000, or 400,000 barrels of herring, and a duty of a dollar is remitted upon each barrel, a duty which would exclude them from our market if it were reimposed. Is not that a sufficient compensation? If you believe that our people catch herring there to any considerable extent, is not that market from which these people derive, according to their own showing, so large sums of money, an equivalent? Remember, they say we catch a million to a million and a half dollars' worth; they say they catch as many; they say it nearly all goes to our market; the duty saved is a dollar a barrel; and, according to their own figures, they must be reaping a golden harvest. Happy fisherman of New Brunswick! By the statistics they earn four or five times as much as the fishermen of Prince Edward Island, and the witnesses say that they earn really two or three times as much as the statistics show. They are receiving from a million to a million and a half dollars for fish sold chiefly in the markets of the United States, and the saving in duty is several hundred thousand dollars. It is true that we cannot find imported into the United States any such quantity of herring; still that is the account that they give of it.

This brings me, gentlemen, to the question of the inshore mackerel fishery; that portion of the Case which seems to me, upon the evidence, to be the principal part, I might almost say the only part, requiring to be discussed. Your jurisdiction is to ascertain the value of those fisheries for a period of twelve years from July 1, 1873, to July 1, 1885.

Of those twelve years, five have already elapsed; one fishing-year has passed since the session of this Commission began. Inasmuch as the twelve years will terminate before the beginning of the fishing-year in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 1885, it is precisely correct to say, that five years have elapsed and seven remain. It is of no consequence how valuable these fisheries have been at periods antecedent to the treaty, nor how valuable or valueless you may think they are likely to become after the treaty shall have expired. The twelve years' space of time limits your jurisdiction, and five-twelfths of that time is to be judged of by the testimony as to the past. The results of the five years are before you. As to the seven remaining years, the burden of proof is upon Her Majesty's Government to show what benefit the citizens of the United States may reasonably be expected to derive during that time from these fisheries. It will be for you to estimate the future by the past as well as you may be able.

This is purely a business question. Although it arises between two great governments, it is to be decided upon the same principles of evidence 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. Lawrence to fish for mackerel ought to pay out of his own pocket. We are engaged in what the London Times has truly called a "great international 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 technicalities of any particular system of law, but by those great general principles which prevail wherever, among civilized men, justice is administered. He who makes a claim is to prove his claim and the amount of it. This is not a question to be decided upon diplomatic considerations; it is a question of proof. Money is to be paid for value received, and he who claims the money is to show that the value has been received or will be. If there are extravagant expectatious on the one side, that is no

reason for awarding a sum of money. If there is a belief on the other side that the results of the treaty are injurious to a great industry, which nearly all civilized nations have thought it worth while to foster by bounties, that is no argument against rendering compensation. Whatever benefit the citizens of the United States are proved to derive from the inshore mackerel fisheries, within three miles of the shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for that you are to make an award, having regard to the offset, of which it will be my duty to speak at a later period. The inquiry divides itself into these two heads: First, What has been the value from July 1, 1873, down to the present time? and, second, What is it going to be hereafter? I invite your attention to the proof that is before you as to the value of the mackerel fishery since the treaty went into effect. And here I must deal with the question, What proportion of the mackerel is caught in territorial waters, viz, within three miles from the shore? A great mass of testimony has been adduced on both sides, and it might seem to be in irreconcilable conflict. But let us not be dismayed at this appearance. There are certain land-marks which cannot be changed, by a careful attention to which I think we may expect to arrive at a tolerably certain conclusion. In the first place, it has been proved, has it not, by a great body of evidence, that there is, and always has been, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, a very extensive mackerel fishery clearly beyond British jurisdiction, as to which no new rights are derived by the citizens of the United States from the Treaty of Washington. It is true that the map filed in the British Case, and the original statement of that case, make no distinction between the inshore and the deep-sea mackerel fisheries. To look at this map, and to read the British Case, you would think that the old claims of exclusive jurisdiction throughout the gulf were still kept up, and that all the mackerel caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were, as one of the witnesses expressed himself, "British subjects." But we know perfectly well that a United States vessel, passing through the Gut of Canso to catch mackerel in the gulf, will find numerous places where, for many years, the fishing has been the best, where the fish are the largest, and where the catches are the greatest, wholly away from the shore. The map attached to the British Case tells this story, for all through the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the gentlemen who formed that map have put down the places where mackerel are caught; and if the map itself does not indicate that seven-eighths of the mackerel fishing-grounds must be clearly far away from the shore, I am very much mistaken. At the Magdalen Islands, where we have always had the right to fish as near as we pleased to the shore, the largest and the best mackerel are taken. At Bird Rocks, near the Magdalen Islands, where there is deep water close to the rocks, and where the mackerel are undoubtedly taken close inshore (within two or three miles of the Bird Rocks you will find the water to be twenty fathoms deep), all around the Magdalen Islands, the mackerel fishing is stated by the experts who prepared this map to be good the season through. Then we have the Bank Bradley, the Bank Miscou, the Orphan Bank, the Fisherman's Bank, and we have the fishing ground of Pigeon Hill; all these grounds are far away from the shore, where there cannot be the least doubt that our fishermen have always had the right to fish, aside from any provisions of the present treaty. The most experienced and successful fishermen who have testified before you say that those have been places to which they have resorted, and that there they were most successful.

Look at the testimony of Andrew Leighton, whom we heard of from

the other side early as one of the most successful fishermen that ever was in the gulf. He speaks of the largest season's fishing any man ever had in the bay, 1,515 barrels. He says, "I got the mackerel the first trip at Orphan's and the Magdalens; the second trip at the Magdalens; the third trip at Fisherman's Bank; and I ran down to Margaree and got 215 barrels there, and went home." All the mackerel at Margaree, he says, were caught within two miles of the shore, within the admitted limits. Recall the evidence of Sylvanus Smith and Joseph Rowe, experienced and successful fishermen, who tell you that they cared little for the privilege of fishing within three miles of the land; that they did not believe that vessel-fishing could be prosecuted successfully there, because it required deeper water than is usually fourd within the distance of three miles to raise a body of mackerel sufficient for the fishermen on a vessel to take the fish profitably; that boat-fishing is a wholly distinct thing from vessel-fishing; that boats may anchor within three miles of the land and pick up a load in the course of a day, at one spot, where mackerel would be too few and too small for a vessel with fifteen men to fish to any advantage. Almost all the evidence in this case of fishing within three miles of the shore relates to the bend of Prince Edward Island and to the vicinity of Margaree. As to the bend of the island it appears, in the first place, that many of our fishermen regard it as a dangerous place, and shun it on that account, not daring to come as near the shore as within three miles, because in case of a gale blowing on shore their vessel would be likely to be wrecked. It appears, also, that even a large part of the boat-fishing there is carried ou more than three miles from the shore. Undoubtedly many of the fishermen have testified to the contrary; many of the boat-fishermen from the island have testified that nearly all their fish were caught within three miles; still it does appear, by evidence that nobody can controvert, that a great part of the boat-fishing is more than three miles out. One of the witnesses from the island, James McDonald, says, in his deposition, that from the middle of September to the first of November not one barrel in five thousand is caught outside the limits, and he gives as a reason that the water will not permit fishing any distance from the shore because it is too rough. But it is perfectly obvious that a man who so testifies either is speaking of fishing in the very smallest kind of boats, little dories that are not fit to go off three miles from the shore, and, therefore, knows nothing of vessel or large boat fishing, or else that he is under the same delusion that appears in the testimony of two other witnesses to which I referred in another connection. McNeill, who, on page 42 of the British affidavits, describes the three-mile limit thus: "A line drawn between two points, taken three miles off the North Cape and East Point of this island ;" and John A. McLeod, on page 228, who defines the three-mile limit as "a line drawn from points three miles off the headlands." When a witness comes here and testifies that after September not one barrel of mackerel in five thousand is taken outside of the three-mile limit because it is too rough to go so far out, he is either speaking of a little cockleshell of a boat that is never fit to go out more than one or two miles, or else he retains the old notion that the headland-line is to be measured from the two points, and that three miles outside that line (which would be something like twenty-five or thirty miles out from the deepest part of the bend of the island) is the territorial limit.

Mr. THOMSON. If you will read the other portion of his deposition, you 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

shore. In October the 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 off 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 whole of them are caught within three miles of the shore." (McLeod, p. 228.) Somewhere the expression "not one barrel in five thousand " occurs. It is in 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 caught within five or six miles of the shore; and he applied that statement to the specimen mackerel which were brought here for our inspection and our taste; and Mr. Myrick, from Rustico, told the same story. Moreover, all their witnesses, in speaking of the prosperity of the fishing business of the island, which has been dwelt upon and dilated upon so much, speak of the fact that not only are the boats becoming more numerous, but they build them larger every year-longer, deeper, and bigger boats-why? To go farther from the shore. 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. What does Professor Hind say on that subject? In the report that has been furnished us, he says (page 90):

Mackerel-catching is a special industry, and requires sea-going vessels. The boat equipment so common throughout British American waters is wholly unsuited to the pursuit of the mackerel, which has been so largely carried on by the United States fishermen. Immense schools of mackerel are frequently left unmolested in the gulf and on the coasts of Newfoundland, in consequence of the fishermen being unprovided with suitable vessels and fishing gear. It is, however, a reserve for the future, which at no distant day will be utilized.

Then he goes on to remark that the use of the telegraph is likely to become of great value in connection with these fisheries.

Now, is there any explanation of these statements, except that the bulk of the mackerel are caught more than three miles off, in the body of the gulf? If it is a "special industry," to which boats are wholly unsuited, can it possibly be true that a great proportion of the fish is caught within three miles of the shore? How can you account for these statements of their scientific witness in his elaborate report, except by the fact that he knows that the mackerel fishery is so large a part of it, a fishery more than three miles off the coast, that it can profitably be pursued only in vessels ?

There are two other things, that lie beyond the range of controversy, to which I wish to call your attention. In the first place, there is a statement made by the United States consul at Prince Edward Island, J. H. Sherman, back in 1864, in a communication to the Secretary of State at Washington, long before any question of compensation had arisen-a confidential communication to his own government, by a man who had every opportunity to observe and no motive to mislead. He was writing with reference to the value of the inshore fisheries, and the statement so perfectly corresponds with what I believe to be the real truth, that I desire to read it.

The Reciprocity Treaty seems to have been an unalloyed boon to the colony. The principal benefit that was expected to accrue to the United States by its operation

was from the removal of the restrictions upon our vessels engaged in the fisheries to a distance of three marine miles from the shore; but whatever advantage might have been anticipated from that cause has failed to be realized.

The number of vessels engaged in the fisheries on the shores of this colony has greatly diminished since the adoption of that treaty, so that it is now less than onehalf the former number. The restriction to three marine miles from the shore (which we imposed upon ourselves under a former treaty) has, I am assured, but a few, if any advantages, as the best fish are caught outside of that distance, and the vessels are filled in less time, from the fact that the men are liable to no loss of time from idling on the shore.

Next take Appendix E of the British Case. Look at the report of the executive council of Prince Edward Island, made to the Ottawa Government in 1874, with reference to the preparation of this very case. They are undertaking to show how large a claim can be made in behalf of the inshore fisheries of the island, and what do they say (page 3, paragraph 8)?

From the 1st of July to the 1st of October is the mackerel season around our coasts, during which time the United States fishing-fleet pursues its work, and as it has been shown

I do not know where it has been shown

that in 1872 over one thousand sail of United States schooners, from 40 to 100 tons, were engaged in the mackerel fishery alone.

More than the whole number of the United States vessels licensed to pursue the mackerel and cod fisheries in that year; so that those statistics were large, and the gentlemen who prepared this statement were not indisposed to do full justice to their claims. They did not mean to understate the use made of the fisheries of the island nor the impor tance of them to the United States fishermen.

This fact, together with our experience in the collection of "light-money," now abolished, as well as from actual observation, a fair average of United States vessels fishing around our coast during the season referred to may be safely stated at three hundred sail, and as a season's work is usually about six hundred barrels per vessel, we may fairly put down one-third of the catch as taken inside of the three-mile limit.

Such was the extent of the claim of the Prince Edward Island Government with reference to the proportion of the inshore and off shore catch of mackerel when they began to prepare this case. After this, they may pile affidavits as high as they please, they can never do away with the effect of that statement. Those gentlemen know the truth. The rest of this paragraph goes on to estimate that $5 a barrel is the net cost of the fish; but I will not go into that.

Mr. THOMSON. You will adopt that whole paragraph?

Mr. FOSTER. Hardly. I adopt the statement that, in the judgment of the executive council of the island, the strongest claim that they could make as to the proportion of mackerel taken within three miles of the 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 Canada had continued the policy of exclusion, the American fisheries would very soon have utterly failed, and they would have been at our mercy. This 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 fishingvessels, which had averaged three hundred barrels of mackerel in three

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »