which they have adopted with regard to the cod fishery in the gulf will not be that which the bankers will practice on the coast of Newfound. land? I cannot conceive it possible that my learned friend, Mr. Foster, will seriously contend, under the circumstances set forth in the above quoted evidence, that the Americans obtaining in this manner that which is indispensable for their efficient prosecution of the cod fishery, should, by a subtlety of reasoning which I contend is utterly unsustainable, be permitted to enjoy that which is of such infinite advantage to them, without 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, there is another feature to which I must draw your most serious attention. Prior to your decision of the 6th September, it was assumed alike by the Newfoundlanders and Americans that the right of traffic, transshipment, &c., was conceded by the Treaty of Washington to American fishing vessels. But as by that decision it has been ruled that this has not been conceded, and that according to the construction of that decision by the learned agent for the United States, there has been granted "no right to do anything except water-borne on our vessels, to go within the limits which had been previously forbidden," I must ask you to assume that hereafter there will be no breach of the treaty in this sense by American citizens. What would be the effect of this according to the 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 privilege on the basis that during the ensuing years of the operation of the Washington Treaty, United States citizens will be under the necessity of catching for themselves the bait which 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 Fortune Bay. It appears that from 40 to 50 United States vessels proceed there between the months of November and February, taking from thence cargoes of frozen herring of from 500 or 800 or 1,000 barrels. On this point, I would refer you to the affidavits by Mr. Hickman, Mr. Giovanninni, 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 that during the present year one vessel loaded 6,500 barrels. Mr. Pattillo, a United States witness, appreciated the right to catch so highly that he risked the confiscation of his vessel rather than abandon his determination to catch a cargo for himself. It is hardly possi ble, then, to conceive that the Americans will continue to buy, possessing, as they now do, the right to catch.

I desire next to pass on and consider the question as to the Americans exercising the privilege which has been conferred upon them of prosecuting those prolific cod-fisheries which I have shown to exist in the inshore waters of Newfoundland, where they have now the liberty to

fish.

The number of United States vessels engaged in the cod fishery on the Grand 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

ent time. Mr. Fraser, at p. 173, British Evidence, estimates the number at 500. The demands of a population of over forty millions necessa rily call for an extensive area for the fishing industry of the United States, and wherever they can pursue their labors with success, there will the United States fishermen be found. And the inshore fisheries of Newfoundland, containing an area of upwards of 11,000 square miles, is a valuable acquistion to their present fields of operation. The French enjoy a similar liberty on the northeast and west coasts of the island to that which the United States now have upon the east and south coasts. The latter 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 an extensive fishing business on the coasts where they have a right to fish. They send their vessels, of from 200 to 300 tons, from France, which an chor and lay up in the harbors, fishing in their boats in the neighborhood, close inshore, during the summer, and returning to France with their cargoes in the fall of the year. Again, other smaller French vessels pursue the cod-fishing all around the west coast; and as to the value set upon these fisheries by the French, some approximate idea may be arrived 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 considerable extent on most parts of the coast of Newfoundland, but still there is evidence of their having fished successfully on the southern coast. William N. Mulloy, of Gloucester, master mariner, states in his affidavit (p. 51, British Affidavits

I know of two United States vessels that fished for codfish inside the keys, Saint Mary's, that is on the inshore ground. I fished there myself.

Philip Snook swears (p. 57, British Affidavits):

United States fishing vessels have fished on the inshore fishing grounds, but I cannot give particulars further than that I have seen them so fishing off Danzig Cove, near south point of Fortune Bay.

George Sims (p. 133, British Affidavits) 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 made no records.

George Bishop, of Burin (p. 131, British Affidavits) also states:

American vessels have fished for codfish on our grounds off Cape St. Mary's. Amer ican masters partially refit their vessels occasionally at this port, but have not here transshipped their cargoes.

William Collins (p. 62, British Affidavits) 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 (p. 58), says:

I have seen our shore surrounded by American fishermen fishing for halibut and eodfish, but cannot say that all these vessels were inside three miles of a line from headland to headland; I have frequently seen United States vessels fishing between Pass Island and Brunette Island; in some instances these vessels have been fishing up the bay among the skiffs. I cannot speak of the quantity or value of their catches, but I do know that they destroyed the halibut fishery about Pass Island, and largely damaged the cod fishery of Fortune Bay; one of their captains told me "it was no 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 made good catches there. Captain Jacobs, of schooner is said to have been offered nine

thousand dollars for his load taken about Pass Island. American fishing vessels fishing off and about Pass Island fished for halibut and codtish, but chiefly for halibut. My estimate of the value of their catch is at least equal to ten thousand dollars per annum, and such fishery was conducted exclusively within three miles of our shores. There is no reason for supposing that the United States will not exercise the privilege which they have, to an equal or even greater degree than the French use theirs. The prospects for lucrative results are more promising to the United States than to France. The fishing grounds are 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 Newfoundland for bait. From 1873 to 1876 the number increased every year; 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 Miquelon, 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 markets 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 possess for supplying those markets which now are the outlet of our products. This business, by Americans, is evidently a growing one, and as they acquire more and more intimate knowledge of the coast, its harbors, and fishing grounds, and their extent and productiveness; as they find out, which they will do, that they can obtain their fish close upon the coast, with all the conveniences which our inshore fishery affords, including the ready facilities for obtaining bait close at hand, with excellent harbors available for the security of their property, is it possible to conceive that there are not those who will prefer this investment of their capital rather than incur the risk of life and property and those expensive equipments which are incident to vessels engaged on the Bank fishery!

Mr. Foster, in an early portion of his speech, undertakes to show "why the fishermen and people of the United States have always manifested such a feverish anxiety" to gain access to the inshore fisheries. His explanation is that, at the time the various treaties which contain provisions respecting the fisheries were concluded, the mackerel fishery in the Gulf 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 States vessels in Canadian waters sprung up at a period subsequent to the Convention of 1818. With the circumstances under which this branch of the fishing business was commenced I am unacquainted; but, doubtless, a more intimate knowledge of the value of the inshore fisheries, acquired by constant resort, under the privileges accorded by the convention, to the coasts of British North America, coupled with the requisite knowledge of the localities, harbors, and fishing grounds, led those fishermen who had previously confined their operations to the cod, halibut, and hake fisheries, to enter upon the new and, as it has subsequently proved, lucrative pursuit of the mackerel. This development of the American mackerel fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence affords a fair illustration of that which will take place with regard to the Newfoundland inshore fisheries. Unquestionably the proceedings of this Commission, and the testimony which has been taken of the most successful and enterprising fishermen, will be studied by those engaged in the fishing business. New

ideas will be suggested to them, and wherever there appears to be a profitable field for the investment of capital, it will find its way in that direction, and to those places which may hitherto have been unknown or unappreciated by them.

I have only now to deal with the privileges conferred upon Newfoundland by the United States, and their value. As to the value of the United States fishing to us, that question has been summarily disposed of by learned friend Mr. Dana, as of not much account. It has not been deemed worthy of consideration by any of the learned counsel on the opposite side, nor has it been attempted to set it forth as of any worth to us. Therefore, it is unnecessary that I should further comment upon it, beyond calling your attention to the mass of unanimous testimony that Newfoundland vessels never have or can make profitable use of it. The question of free-market in the United States for fish and fish-oil I may also dispose of in a short space. It will be fully dealt with by my learned friend Mr. Thomson. I will merely draw attention to certain facts in evidence in order that his arguments hereafter may be more easily applied to the Newfoundland branch of this case. The principal markets for Newfoundland cured codfish are the Brazils, West Indies, and Europe. The American market is very limited. By a return filed in this case (Appendix I), headed "Return showing the value of fish and products of fish imported from the United States of America, and exported to the United States and other countries from the colony of Newfoundland during each year from 1851 to 1876 inclusive," it appears that during these 26 years, which, of course, include 12 years under the Reciprocity Treaty, the average annual export from Newfoundland to the United States amounted to $323,728 as against $6,043,961, exports to other countries. It appears also that the United States market is decreasing, for the average annual export to that country for the 7 years between the Reciprocity Treaty and the Washington Treaty was $348,281 as against $6,876,080 to other countries, whilst the average annual export for the three years under the Treaty of Wash ington, viz, 1874, 1875, 1876, was $222,112 to the United States as against $7,792,859 to other countries, and further that there has been a steady falling off in the exports to the United States from $285,250 in 1874 to $155,447 in 1876. To what cause this is attributable it is diffi cult to say, but it may be to some extent accounted for by the increased facilities which the United States now possess and use under the Treaty of Washington, and by means of which they are enabled to supply their own wants in codfish. On the other hand it has been proved that a very considerable market for small codfish has been opened up in Newfoundland to United States banking vessels; that fish which was heretofore thrown overboard as unsuitable for the American market is now carried to Newfoundland and sold at remunerative prices. Captain Mulloy, a master of a United States banker, Mr. Charles Barnet, and others state as follows: The former, at page 51, British Affidavits, says: The quantity of small codfish caught by each banker during the season will be fully two hundred and fifty quintals upon an average of every two loads of codfish caught upon the Banks. The number of United States vessels prosecuting the cod-fishery on the Banks off Newfoundland each season from the port of Gloucester is about three hundred; there are vessels fitted out from other ports in the United States besides Gloucester, but not to so large an extent. The average catch per vessel on the Banks will be two thousand five hundred quintals codfish, the value of which will be about twelve thousand dollars to the owner.

Prior to 1874, United States bankers threw away all fish less than 22 inches split, or twenty-eight inches as caught; now the small fish is brought into Newfoundland ports, and there sold, slightly salted, to advantage. I, last year, sold one hundred and fifty quintals of such fish at nine shillings and sixpence per quintal. The privilege of

selling oil in Newfoundland ports is of importance-also as providing necessary funds for the purchase of bait, and for refitting.

And the latter, at page 31:

Deponent bought small codfish and cod-oil from United States fishermen last year in payment of bait, ice, and cost of refitting their vessels; in some instances, deponent purchased small codfish, for which he paid in cash. The total quantity of small codfish purchased by deponent last year from United States fishermen was upwards of three hundred quintals, for which he paid prices ranging from eight shillings to eleven shillings per quintal of 112 lbs., green fish.

Deponent also purchased a considerable quantity of cod-oil from United States fishermen, particulars of which he has not at hand.

Also, Richard Cashin, page 69, British Affidavits :

United States fishermen have sold small codfish and cod-oil in this neighborhood. I have purchased codfish and cod-oil from them. The prices paid have been eight and nine shillings per cwt. for green codfish, and two shillings and sixpence per gallon for eod-oil. Eighty quintals fish and two and one-half tons oil is what I purchased.

And Richard Paul, page 63, British Affidavits:

American fishermen have sold fish and oil in this neighborhood. I only know of their selling thirty-seven quintals at 78. per quintal, and seventy gallons of oil at half a dollar. I understand from their statements the past season, that hereafter they intend to sell to our people all the codfish they catch under 22 inches in length.

Phillip Hubert, sub-collector customs, Harbor Briton, Fortune Bay, page 54:

American fishermen have sold small codfish in this bay; some vessels sold one hundred quintals, the price ranging from 7 to 108. per cwt., green.

In addition to which there are numerous affidavits in support of the same fact as regards the general sale of small codfish.

Previously to the Washington Treaty there had been a duty of $1.30 per quintal on fish imported into Newfoundland, which, of course, is now removed, as far as concerns the United States. The utilization of this small fish is unquestionably an important item of gain to them. If there is a benefit to Newfoundland in a free market with the United States it has been reduced to its very minimum by the United States Government taking the tins in which salmon is put up, and by the rcfusal to admit seal-oil, an article of extensive export from Newfoundland, as a fish-oil, although in their own commercial language it is placed under that category. This, however, I presume, is a matter over which you have no jurisdiction; neither have you over the question of $128,185 duties paid in the United States on fish and fish products imported from Newfoundland between 1871-1874 (referred to on page 173 British Evidence), when the United States were allowed to enjoy the benefits of the Washington Treaty on the distinct understanding that the enjoyment should be reciprocal, but which understanding was subsequently repudiated by the United States, and the above-mentioned amount of duties levied during those years remains unrefunded to the present day. There is a ground of defense relied upon by my learned friends opposite, as to which I wish to offer one or two remarks. They contend, as I understand them, that the fishermen of Newfoundland are benefited by Americans coming to the coast and trading with the people; that that trading breaks down a system of business which they allege to exist between the merchant and the fisherman, by which the latter is held in bondage to the former; and as a proof of the existence of such a system, they put in evidence a memorial from the people of Placentia, dated August 19, 1800, praying for the establishment of certain fishery regulations which then existed in St. John's. The memorial will be found at (p. 167, British Evidence.) I will not detain you by reading it.