greatest possible extent for the residue of the term, when we should be left utterly without remedy.

I propose, then, first, to consider what has been conceded to the United States as concerns Newfoundland, and what is the value of that conces sion; and, secondly, what has been conceded by the United States to Newfoundland, and the value thereof.

The fisheries of Newfoundland are of historic celebrity, and have been so since the day when Cabot, with his five vessels, steering northwest, on June 24, 1497, caught the first glimpse of Terra Nova; and rejoicing in his success, named the high projecting promontory, which now bears the name of "Bona Vista"; and it is recorded that in such abun dance were the codfish seen, that Sebastian Cabot called the country Baccalaos, in allusion to the circumstance; a name which still designates an island upon the coast. Of that period, which embraces the first century 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 Hackluyt, no less than 400 vessels were annually engaged in this employ. From thence, until the Treaty of Utrecht, 1713, the French, always discerning the enormous value of these fisheries, availed themselves of every opportunity and pretext, for further and further acquisitions, and for securing a foothold in the island as a basis for fishing operations. By that treaty 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 portions of the shore, and in the use of the shore as far as was needed for certain purposes 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 Quirpon and Cape Ray on the west coast, and between Cape Ray and the Rameau Islands on the south coast. By the Treaty of Washington, of the 8th May, 1871, United States citizens acquired the right to take fish of every kind between Rameau Islands and Cape Race on the south coast, and between Cape Race and the Quirpon Islands, comprising a large area of the most valuable inshore fisheries of the world.

We find a steady increase in the products of Newfoundland fisheries, from 590,460 quintals of codfish exported in 1805, to 1,609,724 quintals exported in 1874. The exports of herring have also increased, from 36,259 barrels in 1851, to 291,751 barrels in 1876, and the value of exports of fish and products of fish, from $4,466,925 in 1851, to $8,511,710 in 1874. This, then, is the enormous annual product of the British fisheries of Newfoundland, almost the sole support and sustenance of about 160,000 people. And this, be it remembered, is exclusive of what is taken on the coast of that island at St. Pierre and Miquelon, on the coast of Labrador, and on the Grand Bank and other Banks by the French and by the Americans, of the amount of which we have no exact evidence before us; and it is also exclusive of the large quantity of bait fishes exported from Newfoundland to supply the French at St. Pierre. This result is the product of the labors of the Newfoundland fishermen, taken wholly from waters within three miles of the shore, except for I wish to be particularly correct-the trifling quantity of about eight or ten thousand quintals of codfish, which Mr. Killigrew and Judge Bennett say may possibly be taken outside that limit.

wish particularly to impress upon this Commission the fact of the codfish being so taken close inshore, because it has been asserted, both in the United States Answer and in the arguments of my learned friends on the other side, that the cod fishery is a deep-sea fishery, and not carried on within territorial waters. Add to this, then, the large catch of fish by the French vessels upon the coast, and of the French and United States vessels upon the Banks, the former, according to the statistics handed in by Professor Hind, averaging for a period of 8 years 217 vessels with 8,729 men; the latter forming a very large portion of the entire fishing fleet of the United States. Some approximate idea may thus be arrived at of the great wealth extracted from the Newfound. land fisheries. And it will no longer be a matter of surprise that this well-named Eldorado should have excited the cupidity of the French and of the United States.

The above includes the whole fishery of Newfoundland, Labrador, and the Banks. It will be seen what proportion of it is exclusively taken within the inshore limits thrown open to United States citizens by the Treaty of Washington, by the statements of Judge Bennett and Mr. Fraser, whose evidences will be found on pages 134 and 169, and who testify that it amounts, according to the statistical returns of the island, to $6,000,000 per annum, taken by 15,000 men, excepting, as I before mentioned, about eight or ten thousand quintals, which may possibly be taken outside the three-mile limit, and in some cases, as Judge Bennett tells us, within hailing distance of the fishermen's homes.

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, and these annual results are derived from the evidence of witnesses, whose testimony is incontrovertiblewhich 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, aud gentlemen interested in the biology of fishes, has been engaged for five years in the prosecu tion of enquiries into the condition of the fisheries, and that his principal object has been to ascertain what natural, physical, or moral causes influenced 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 people, the production of which is of so much importance, or which is applied to such a variety of purposes. The commercial yield is very great, and its capture is the main occupation of a large portion of the inhabitants of the sea-coast region of the Northern Hemisphere." As far as he can ascertain, there is a partial migration of the cod fish. They change their situation in search of food, or in consequence of the variation of temperature, the percentage of salt in the water, or some other cause; and at the south of Cape Cod the fishery is largely off shore; that is, the fish are off the shore in the cooler waters in the summer, and as the temper ature falls toward autumn, they come in and are taken within a few miles of the coast. The fish generally go off-shore in the winter, but on the south coast of Newfoundland they maintain their stay inshore, or else come in in large abundance; and the professor refers to the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland as specially favored localities-as places inshore where, among others, the largest catches of cod are taken, and, says the professor (p. 478 of United States Evidence), "it is certainly a notorious fact that herring are much more abundant on the coast of Newfoundland than they are on the coast of the United States; though whether the herring that are wanted on the United States coast could

or could not be had in the United States, I cannot say, but I do think that herring are vastly more abundant in Newfoundland and the Bay of Fundy than they are farther south."

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 current, and the effect of the Gulf stream, for a number of years; agreeing with Professor Baird, he gives the cod a primary position among fishes, and that it requires water of a low temperature. It always seeks the coldest water whenever 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 upon the American coast it is only where the Arctic current strikes 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 Bank of Newfoundland, and, to use the professor's words, "that amazing fishing ground on the south coast of Newfoundland." "There is no portion of the world," he says, "where there is such an amazing supply of cod. It has been so for three hundred years and upwards. Compared with European fisheries, the Newfoundland and Labrador are far superior in every respect.” That the Newfoundland coast fishery is, on an average, compared with the Norwegian fisheries, including the Lofoden Islands (which Professor Baird speaks of as being one of the most important and productive fishing grounds), as five is to three, or where five quintals of fish are taken at Newfoundland, three are only taken on the coast of Norway, includ ing the Lofoden Islands. He says the bays and all along the coast of Newfoundland, and also part of the Grand Bank, may be considered as the great spawning 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 peculiarly 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 southern part of the island."

The diagram carefully prepared by Professor Hind, showing the progress of the Newfoundland fisheries from 1804 to 1876, is conclusive evidence 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, the 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, captains 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 is capable of vast expansion and development, toward which the privilege of baiting and refitting in the harbors of Newfoundland is indispensable."

And Capt. Joseph P. Deneef (British Affidavits, No 52, p. 50, Appendix G), confirms this statement in every particular.

It is sufficient for me to observe that the scientific researches and

study of these learned professors, and the practical experience of these United States masters of vessels, combine to prove the vast source of wealth now existing in the Newfoundland waters, and the probability, nay, almost certainty, of there being still a richer mine of fishery-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 Americans 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 fitting 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 occupations, no doubt, gave him knowledge to speak with authority. He produces from the books of Mr. Steele an account of a cod-fishing 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 Roland'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 in 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 he 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-"damaged codfish?"-A. 13,150 pounds of damaged cod at 1 cent, $131.50.

Q. Why should there be this damaged codfish; what is the cause of it?

[Here the gallant major 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 my 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 much, and didn't put so much salt on it. When 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 -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 been any damaged fish for these three years, 1874, 1875, and 1876?-A. The schooner Knight Templar. (Reads items of outfit, among others an item showing she was on a salt-bait trip.) Q. Then there is damaged fish on a salt-bait trip ?-A. Yes.

Q. Now find another case on a fresh-bait trip. (Witness refers to book.)

Q. I don't think you will find any. You see, fish may be damaged on board a saltbait vessel fishing on the Banks as well as on a fresh-bait trip?-A. I see it.

Q. Now you find there are damaged fish as well with salt-bait fishing as with fresh.— A. I do find it.

Q. And it is upon that one case of damaged fish with fresh bait that you arrive at this conclusion?-A. I could not account for it in any other way.

Q. But it is this one case that you draw the conclusion from?-A. Yes.

Q. And you would lead the Commission to believe, then, that fish was l'able to be damaged because of vessels going in for fresh bait, because of this one vessel on this one cruise?-A. No, I don't now. I have seen that other case.

Q. You withdraw what you said before?—A. I withdraw as far as that is concerned. 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 fished on the Banks for five and twenty years, his last voyage was November, 1851, and was really incapable of expressing an opinion from experi ence, having never used fresh bait. He endeavored to lead you gentlemen to believe that it was the opinion of all vessel-owners and agents of vessels in Provincetown that the going in for fresh bait was of no advantage, and that they purposed discontinuing it. He said that he had interviewed the agent of every vessel in Provincetown, but upon cross-examination it really appears that out of twenty-three or twentyfour agents of vessels he had beld communication with four only, Cook, Waugh, Paine, and Joseph (p. 58, ibid.), and it would seem that Mr. Atwood had certain theories, and that he tried to enforce his opinion upon others as to this question of fresh bait. But what say practical witnesses, who have been called on the part of the United States and examined by my learned friends upon this subject. Edward Stapleton has been using fresh bait, obtained on the coast of Newfoundland, for the last three years, and carrying on the Bank fishery, and says at page 12: "If a vessel alongside of you has fresh bait, you are not going to catch your share of fish with salt bait." And at page 18:

Q. You consider salt bait superior to fresh bait, I believe ?—A. O, no; I think fresh bait is the best.

Q. You do admit, 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 ?-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 ?-A. O, 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.

Q. Is it not more generally used?-A. When you can get it.

Q. If you can it is much better than salt?-A. Yes.

Q. Practically, the salt bait cannot compete with the fresh bait?-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 ?-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. Yes.

Q. You are certain of it?-A. Yes.

Mr. Lewis, at page 90, says, in answer to the query:

Q. It has been stated before us 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, but they will take it if they cannot get anything else, and if they cannot get fresh bait.