weeks, and had never been within ten miles of the shore." I am inclined to concede, for the purposes of the argument, that of the mackerel caught by boats off the bend of Prince Edward Island, about one-third are taken within three miles of the shore. I believe it to be a very liberal estimate, and I have no idea that any such proportion was ever taken by a single United States vessel fishing in that vicinity. I have already alluded to the fact that the boat-fishing and the vessel-fishing are wholly different things, and to the necessity of a vessel being able to raise a great body of mackerel. Do you remember the testimony of Captain Hurlbert, pilot of the Speedwell, certainly one of the most intelligent and candid witnesses that has appeared here? He stated that you could not catch the mackerel in any quantities on board vessels off the bend of the island, because the water was not deep enough within three miles. Take the chart used by Professor Hind in connection with his testimony, and see within three miles of the shore how deep the water is. Ten to fifteen fathoms is the depth as far out as three miles. You will hardly find twenty fathoms of water anywhere within the three-mile zone. Captain Hurlbert 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 looking at the chart of the Magdalen Islands, and I have also considered the testimony as to the fishing in that vicinity. A great deal of the fishing at the Magdalen Islands is done more than three miles from the shore. The 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 you come to that locality, where I honestly believe a larger proportion of mackerel are caught within three miles than anywhere else—that is, off Margaree, 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 understood the Byron Islands and the Bird Rocks to be 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 included 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 of geography 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 he passed through a fleet of six or seven hundred American vessels in various positions, some within the headlands of the bays and some along the shores, but none within the three-miles interdiction. While cruising in the vicinity of Prince Edward Island, he states that there was not "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 410.)

There is something peculiar about this Prince Edward Island fishery and its relative proportion to the Nova Scotia fishery. As I said before, I am inclined to believe that the greatest proportion of mackerel caught anywhere inshore is caught off Margaree late in the autumn. The 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 Margaree Island; not between Margaree Island and the

mainland, but within three miles of the island shores; and just there is found water deep enough for vessel-fishing. Look at the chart, which fully explains to my mind the inshore fishing at this point. Margaree is a part of Nova Scotia, and Professor Hind says there is an immense boat-catch all along the outer coast of Nova Scotia, and estimates that of the Dominion mackerel catch Quebec furnishes 7 per cent. (he does not say where it comes from), Nova Scotia 80 per cent., New Brunswick 3 per cent., and Prince Edward Island 10 per cent. Considering the fact that the preponderance of the testimony in regard to the mackerel fishery comes from Prince Edward Island, is it not strange that it does not furnish more than 10 per cent. of the entire catch; that is, not more than 12 or 16,000 barrels of mackerel a year? But this accords with the report of J. C. Tache, deputy minister of agriculture (pages 43 and 44), which is the most intelligible report or statistical memoranda of the Canadian fisheries that I have found. It bears date 1876, and in narrow compass, is more intelligible to me, at least, than the separate statements which I am obliged to draw from the large volumes. Mr. Tache says that "the figures of the Fisheries' Report are a very great deal short of the real quantities caught every year, as regards cod and herring, although coming quite close to the catch of mackerel. The reason is, that it is specially from large commercial houses, which are principally exporters of fish, that the information is gathered by the fisheries officers; then it comes that mackerel, being principally obtained for exportation and held in bond by large dealers, is found almost adequately represented in these returns.

When I called Professor Hind's attention to these statements, and remarked to him that we had not heard much said about the places where mackerel were caught in Nova Scotia, he replied it was because there was an immense boat-catch on the coast. If there has been any evidence of United States vessels fishing for mackerel within three miles of the shores, or more than three miles from the shore of the outer coast of Nova Scotia, it has escaped my attention. There is no considerable evidence, I do not know but I might say no appreciable evidence of United States vessels fishing for mackerel off the coast of Nova Scotia (I am not now speaking of Margaree, but the coast of Nova Scotia). As to Cape Breton, very little evidence has been given except in reference to the waters in the neighborhood of Port Hood.

You will observe that this estimate of the Prince Edward Island fisheries, ten per cent., must be nearly correct. It is larger than the returns of exportation, a little larger than Mr. Hall's estimate, and I think if I say that from 12 to 15,000 barrels of mackerel are annually exported from Prince Edward Island, I shall do full justice to the average quantity of fish caught there. Now it does seem to me that there has been no evidence that can tend to lead you to suppose that the quantity taken by United States vessels in that neighborhood since the Treaty of Washington, five years ago, compares at all in magnitude with the quantity taken by the island vessels themselves.

There are some other topics connected with the mackerel catch to which I want to call your attention. Remember, gentlemen, always, 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, 1873, or subsequent to twelve years later than that.

Now, I wish to present some figures relative to the years that have elapsed since the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington took effect. I will begin with 1873. That year the Massachusetts inspection of

mackerel was 185,748 barrels ; the Maine inspection was 22,193 barrels; the New Hampshire inspection was 2,398 barrels. (I am quoting now from Appendix O.) The total amount of the Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire inspection, for the year 1873, is 210,339 barrels. That is the entire amount caught by United States vessels and boats around our shores, coasts, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Whatever comes from our vessels appears in the inspection. During that year, we are favored with the returns from Port Mulgrave; and, allowing for a little natural spirit of exaggeration, which some might attribute to the patriotic feelings of the collector, and others to the disposition of American fishermen to tell as good stories of their catch as they can, we find the Port Mulgrave returns to be pretty accurate. They are a few per cent. in excess of the statistics of the catches, with which I have compared them to some extent; but still are tolerably accurate and fair returns for that year. They give 254 vessels, with an average catch of 348 seabarrels and 313 packed barrels, aggregating 88,012 sea-barrels. Taking off ten per cent. for loss by packing, which accords with the current of the testimony-the Port Mulgrave inspector estimates the loss by packing to be 7 per cent., and he estimates 15 barrels off, but the current of the testimony makes it ten per cent.-the aggregate was 79,211 packed barrels. Of the 254 vessels, 131 came from Gloucester. Of these 254 vessels, 25 were lost that year, a loss of ten per cent. of all the United States vessels that were in the gulf. One-tenth part of all the vessels that came to the gulf that year were lost. That is the largest catch that our vessels have made since the treaty. Of that 79,211 barrels, which were caught by United States vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the year 1873, what proportion are you prepared to assume was caught inshore? Is not a third a liberal estimate? Taking the Mag. dalen Islands, taking Bank Bradley, taking Orphan Bank, taking Miscou Bank, taking the Pigeon Hill grounds, taking the fishing off the bend of the island, that place where Captain Rowe said he always found the best and largest fish, inside of New London Head, 12 or 15 miles out-taking all these well-known localities into consideration, I ask whether there can be any doubt that it is a very liberal estimate, indeed, to say one-third was caught inshore? I do not think that all the mack. erel taken by the United States vessels inshore, in all parts of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, averages an eighth or a tenth of the total catch, but I will assume for the moment one-third, the proportion which the Executive Council of Prince Edward Island thought a fair average for the shores of their island. That would make 26,404 barrels caught in British territorial waters in that year, the first year of the treaty. What were these mackerel worth? Mr. Hall tells you that he buys them landed on shore for $3.75 a barrel. After they have been caught, after the time of the fishermen has been put into the business, he buys them for $3.75 a barrel. If they are worth $3.75 a barrel when they are caught, what proportion of that sum is it fair to call the right to fish for them worth? You may set your own figures on that. Call it one-half, one-third, or one-quarter. I should think it was somewhat extraordinary if the right to fish in a narrow zone three miles wide was worth any large portion of the value of the fish after they were caught and landed. But you may estimate that as you please. I will tell you how you will come out if you charge us with having caught a third of our fish inshore that year, and with the full value that Mr. Hall pays for them after they are caught. It is $99.015.

That was the first year of the treaty, and there were imported into the United States from the British Provinces 90,889 barrels, on which

the duty of $2 a barrel would amount to $181,778. The value of the fish that our people caught is $99,000, and the British fishermen gain in the remission of duties nearly $182,000.

Look at it in another way. Does anybody doubt that, barrel for barrel, the right to import mackerel free of duty is worth more than the right to fish for them? Is not the right to carry into the United States market, after they are caught, a barrel of mackerel, worth as much 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 caught in the gulf by American vessels, 79,211 barrels. That is the first year of the treaty, and by far the best year.

The next year, 1874, the Massachusetts inspection was 255,380 barrels. Since 1873 there has been no return from Maine. There is no 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, you will do full justice to it, for the Maine mackerel fishery, according to the testimony, has obviously declined for years. The inspection in New Hampshire was 5,519 barrels. There was imported into the United States that year from the provinces, 89,693 barrels, on which there was saved a duty of $179,386. That year the Port Mulgrave returns show 164 vessels to have been in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, of which 98 came from Gloucester; 63,078 sea-barrels, or 56,770 packed barrels, were taken. The Gloucester vessels caught 48,813 barrels. Take these 56,770 packed barrels as the aggregate catch in the year 1874 in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, by United States vessels, and set them off against the 89,693 barrels imported into the United States, and where do you come out? Pursuing the same estimate, that one-third may have been caught inshore-an estimate which I insist is largely in excess of the fact-there would be 18,923 barrels caught inshore, which would be worth $70,961, 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 on American duties. That is the second year.

Now, come to 1875. That year the catch was small. The Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts inspection, in proportion. The duty saved is $155,076. Fiftyeight 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 fishery in 1875 was 180. Of these, 93 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 off shore, and 60 from the bay." (Hind's Report, pp. 88, 89.) Fifty-eight vessels from Gloucester made 60 trips. Now, where are the Port Mulgrave returns for 1875? They were made, for we have extracted that fact. We have called for them. I am sure we have called often and loud enough for the Port Mulgrave returns of 1875 and 1876. Where are they? They are not produced, although the collector's affidavit is here, as well as the returns for 1877, which we obtained, and of which I shall speak hereafter. The inference from the keeping back of these returns is irresistible. Our friends on the 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

yet they preferred to submit to that inevitable inference rather than have the real fact appear. Rather than to have it really appear how much the 58 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 bay was a total failure. I can throw a little more light on the result of the fishing in the bay that year. There were 58 vessels from Gloucester, which averaged a catch of 191 barrels, while 117 on the United States coast caught an average of 409 barrels. This comes from the statistics for the Centennial: 11,078 barrels of mackerel taken from the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1875 is all that we know about. What more there were our friends will not tell us, because the aggregate of 11,078 barrels caught by 58 vessels, averaging 191 barrels a vessel, is so much better result than the Port Mulgrave returns would show, that they prefer to keep the returns back. I think, gentlemen, that this argument from the official evidence in your possession is one 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 of 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 23,156 barrels. Take the actual result of the Gloucester vessels; suppose 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 an importation of 77,538 barrels into the United States from the provinces, on which a duty was saved of $155,076.

In the year 1876, by the official statement, which was lost, 27 trips 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 think I am overstating the result. There were 27 Gloucester vessels (I may be in error about this; it is mere memory) came to the gulf in 1876. The Massachusetts inspection was 225,941 barrels; the New Hampshire inspection was 5,351 barrels. The United States importation was 76,538 barrels. Duty saved, $153,076. To be sure, they will say that 1875 and 1876 were poor years. They were poor years-no doubt about that-but average them with 1873 and 1874 and see if the result is in the least favorable; see if they are able to show any considerable benefit derived by our people from inshore fishing, or anything which compares with the saving in respect to duty that they make.

When we began this investigation nearly every witness that was examined was asked whether the prospects for the present year were not very good; whether it was not likely to be an admirable mackerel year in the gulf, and they said "Yes." They said the gulf was full of mackerel. Somehow or other that impression got abroad, and our vessels came down here in greater numbers than before for several years. One witness has seen 50 or 75 vessels there. I think 76 came from Gloucester. There may have been 100 there in all. You will recollect that one witness said the traders in Canso telegraphed how fine the prospects were, with a view probably to increase their custom; but they did ex