Mr. DOUTRE. I think at this hour we must understand the bearing of the testimony, or we will never do so. The fisheries in Maine have been completely destroyed, and no longer exist. I will read from the testimony on that point in a few moments. The number of American vessels frequenting the British-American waters could not be estimated with any degree of precision. Witnesses could only speak of what they had seen, and but very few of them could, within a short time, go over all the fishing-grounds and make an estimate, even if they had gone round with that object in view. They had to trust to what they had heard from other parties, who about the same time had been in other portions of these waters, and by combining the knowledge acquired from others with their own they were able to give a statement of the number of vessels frequenting those waters. Captain Fortin (p. 328 of British Evidence) states that in the Province of Quebec only, the extent of the coast on which the fisheries of Canada are conducted is about 1,000 miles; and Professor Hind (p. vii of his valuable paper) estimates the area of coastal waters conceded to the United States by the treaty to be about 11,900 square miles. Americans have been in the habit of fishing all around the Bay of Fundy and on the southeast coast of Nova Scotia, without counting the gulf; but the bulk of the American fleet entered the gulf, principally by the Gut of Canso, and also by going round Cape Breton, or by the Strait of Belle Isle, coming from Newfoundland. We have a mass of evidence that they were on all points at the same time and in large numbers. Babson, 20th American affidavit, estimates the American fleet at 750 sail; Plumer, 22d American affidavit, estimates the American fleet at 700 sail; Pierce, 24th American affidavit, says from 700 to 800 sail; Gerring, 26th American affidavit, says 700 sail; Wonson, 30th American affidavit, says 700 sail; Embree, 167th American affidavit, says 700 to 800 sail; Grant, 186th American affidavit, says 700 sail. Bradley, the first American witness examined before the Commission, in answer to the American counsel (p. 2): Q. Give an approximate amount to the best of your judgment.-A. 600 or 700 certainly. I have been in the bay with 900 sail of American vessels, but the number rather diminished along the last years I went there. Everything tended to drive them out of the bay, cutters. and one thing and another, and finally I went fishing in our own waters and did a good deal better. Graham (p. 106 of American Evidence) undertakes to contradict Bradley, but finally he has no better data than Bradley to guide himself, and after all his efforts he admits the number to have been 600 sail. This was during the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty, and on this point, as well as on all others, it is to that period that we must refer to find analogy of circumstances. The average catch of these vessels presents naturally a great diversity of appreciation, and on this, the causes which divided the witnesses are more numerous than those concerning the number of vessels. First the tonnage of the fishing-vessels, varying from 30 to 200 tons, must have regulated the catch more or less. When a vessel had a full cargo, she had to go home, even if fish had continued to swarm around her. Then the most favored spots could not admit of the whole fleet at the same time. They had to scatter over the whole fishing area with fluctuations of luck and mishap. We must add to this that many of the crews were composed of raw material, who had to obtain their edu cation and could not bring very large fares. Some naturalists have expressed the opinion that fish are inexhaustible, and that no amount of fishing can ever affect the quantity in any manner. When it is thought that one single cod carries from three to five millions of eggs for reproduction, one mackerel half a million, and one herring 30,000, as testified by Professor Baird, on pages 456 to 461 of the United States Evidence, there was some foundation for that opinion, but several causes have been admitted as diminishing and sometimes ruining altogether some species of fish. Predaceous fish, such as shark, horse-mackerel, dogfish, bluefish, and probably many others, have had both effects on some species. (See Professor Baird's evidence, at pages 462, 476, and 477.) A more rapid mode of destruction has been universally recognized in the use of seines or purse-seines, by which immense quantities of fish of all kinds and sizes are taken at one time. By that means the mother fish is destroyed while loaded with eggs. Fish too young for consumption or for market are killed and thrown away. It is the universal opinion among fishermen that the inevitable effect of using purseseines must eventually destroy the most abundant fisheries, and many American witnesses attribute the failure of the mackerel fishery on their own coast in 1877 to that cause. It is true that this theory is not accepted by Professor Baird, who, however has no decided opinion on the subject, and who has given the authority of a publication which he controls to the positive assertion that this mode of catching fish is most injurious. (Pp. 476, 477.) When a vessel of sufficient tonnage is employed, that is from 40 tons upwards, the catch of mackerel has varied from 300 to 1,550 barrels in a season for each vessel. Here is the evidence on the subject of mackerel : Chiverie, British Evidence, p. 11, makes the average 450 barrels per vessel in a period of 27 years. Some years that average reached 700 barrels per vessel. MacLean, p. 25, says the average has been 500 per vessel during the twenty years, from 1854 to 1874. Campion, pp. 32, 34, 38, average for 1863, 650 barrels; 1864, from 600 to 700; 1865, over 670; 1877, some caught 300 barrels with seines, in one week. One vessel seined a school estimated at 1,000 barrels. Poirier, p. 62, average catch 500 to 600 per vessel in one season. McGuire, p. 210, average catch of mackerel 600 per season. Forty-four other witnesses, examined on behalf of the Crown, and cross-examined before the Commission, have stated the same fact. These statements are confirmed by the following American witnesses: Bradley, American Evidence, p. 2, 600 barrels. Freeman, p. 10, 600 " Stapleton, Kemp, Friend, Orne, Leighton, 466 per season. Riggs, Rowe, p. 127, 233 per trip In order that any one may verify the correctness of this estimate for every witness, I may state that this is the process through which I arrived at it: I took the number of barrels caught in each trip by every witness, and divided the total by the number of trips. Some witnesses have made more than that average; others have made less. I abstain from taking the larger and the smaller catches; and, in this respect, I have followed a mode of estimating the matter which has been incorporated in our legislation. When, in 1854, seigniorial tenure was abolished in Lower Canada, indemnity was to be paid to the seigniors who conceded for lods-et-ventes; that is to say, a kind of penalty upon any sale or mu tation of property which took place, consisting of one-twelfth of purchase money. There was no fine imposed on property being transmitted by inheritance, only in case of mutation by sale, or anything equivalent to a sale, such as exchange. Then to estimate the value of that right, which was so variable, because during some years there would be almost no mutations in a seigniory, while during other years there would be many, a rule was adopted by which the income of the seigniory from that source for 14 years was taken, the two highest and two lowest years struck out, and the 10 other years held to constitute an average, and the amount capitalized at 6 per cent. was to be paid. In that matter they were dealing with facts which could be found in the books of the seigniories; it was not based upon what my learned friend, Mr. Dana, has so well called the swimming basis; while here the calculation is certainly surrounded with much greater difficulty. Some of the fishermen have made only one trip in a year, but it was their own fault, as they could have made two and three. I have calculated on two trips a year only, although many have made three, and would have justified me in adding a third to the amount per season. I remained within that me. dium where the Latin proverb says that truth dwells. I have given the calculations for mackerel. Here is that for codfish: Purcell, p. 198. Has known of 1,000, but does not state whether quintals or barrels. Bigelow, p. 221. Spring cod-fisheries on Western and La Have Banks, summer and autumn fisheries on the Grand Bank. They make from six to twenty trips in a year, with fresh cod. No quantity stated. Stapleton, p. 226. Caught 600 quintals within 24 miles of Prince Ed ward Island. Baker, p. 269. Has seen 200 American vessels cod-fishing in one part, between Cape Gaspé and Bay Chaleur, each vessel catching 700 quintals. Flynn, p. 270. 700 quintals per vessel, caught on Miscou and Orphan Banks, all the bait for which is caught inshore, and consist in mackerel and herring. Lebrun, p. 289. 700 to 800 quintals, from Cape Chatte to Gaspé, per vessel. Roy, p. 293. Has seen 250 to 300 American vessels cod-fishing. Sinnett, p. 85. 300 draughts or 600 quintals. The following relates to herring : Fox, customs officer; Brit. Evid., p. 114. 600,000 barrels entered outward since 1854; at least one-half of the vessels have failed to report. This is near Magdalens. Purcell, p. 198. rels. McLean, p. 235. In Bay of Fundy, 100 to 125 American vessels fishing for herring in winter, and catching 7 to 10 million herrings, which went to Eastport. Fifty vessels fishing and catching each 1,000 bar Lord, p. 245. From $900,000 to $1,000,000 worth of herring caught annually by Americans from Point Lepreaux, including West Isles, Campobello, and Grand Manan, Bay of Fundy. McLaughlin, p. 254, 255, estimates at $1,500,000 the annual catch of herring by Americans around the island and the mainland of Bay of Fundy. How Halibut, pollock, hake, haddock were caught by Americans all over Canadian waters, but in smaller quantity, and their separate mention here would take more time and space than the matter is worth. ever, we will see what is said concerning these different kinds in the summary of evidence concerning the inshore fisheries. In the discharge of my duty to my government I have thought proper to go over grounds which lay at the threshold of the question at issue; first, because the representatives of the United States Government had selected them as a fair field for surrounding that question with artificial clouds of prejudice and fictitious combination of facts and fancy; and in the second place, because I thought that the main question would be better understood if the path leading to it was paved with a substantial and truthful narration of the circumstances which had brought this Commission together. The United States are bound to pay compensation, not for fishing generally in waters surrounded by British territory, but for being allowed to fish within a zone of three miles, to be measured at low-water mark from the coast or shores of that territory, and from the entrance of any of its bays, creeks, or harbors, always remembering that they had the right to fish all around Magdalen Islands and the coast of Lab. rador, without restriction as to distance. The functions of this Commission consist in determining the value of that inshore fisheries, as compared to a privilege of a similar character, granted by the United States to the subjects of Her Majesty, on some parts of the United States coasts, and then to inquire what appreciable benefit may result to the Canadians, from the admission of the produce of their fisheries in the United States, free of duty, in excess of a similar privilege granted to the United States citizens in Canada; and if such excess should be ascertained, then to apply it as a set-off against the excess of the grant made to the United States over that made to the subjects of Her Majesty. As the learned Agent and counsel, representing the United States, have often criticised the acts of the colonists, when they constrained the Americans to execute the treaties and to obey the municipal laws, first of the separate provinces, and then of the Dominion, probably with the object of contrasting the liberality of their government with the illiberality of our own, I would like to ask which of the two governments went more open-handed in the framing of the fishery clauses of the Treaty of Washington? Did we restrict the operations of the Americans to any latitude or geographical point over any part of our waters? Not at all. We admitted them everywhere; while on their part they marked the 39th parallel of north latitude on one of their coasts, to wit, the eastern sea-coast or shores, as the herculean column beyond which we could not be admitted. The immediate and practical consequence was that we granted the liberty to fish over 11,900 miles of sea-coasts, where the bulk of the fishing is located; and we were granted the right to fish over 3,500 miles of sea-coasts, where no fishing is done, of any consequence, by the Americans themselves, and where no British subject has ever been seen. (As to area, see Prof. Hind's paper, page VII.) In this instance the Americans cannot contrast the good will of the Imperial Government with the illiberality of the colonists, because the latter were represented in the Joint High Commission by their first minister, who assented to the treaty, and the Dominion Parliament, and the legislatures of Prince Edward Island, and of Newfoundland, equally assented, through solemn parliamentary acts. In dealing with the value and extent of the North British-American coast fisheries, I think I may, with all safety, say, that in the waters surrounding the three-mile limits there is no deep-sea fisheries at all. The assertion may appear hazardous to our American friends, but I am sure they will agree with me when I remind them of the whole bearing of their own evidence. No doubt their witnesses have made use of the words deep-sea fisheries in contradistinction to the shore fisheries proper; but is there one of their witnesses who has ever pretended to have caught fish in any place other than banks, when it was not inshore ? The whole of the witnesses on both sides have testified that when they were not fishing inshore they were fishing around Magdalen Islands, which is another shore, on Orphan, Bradley, or Miscou, or other Banks; but as regards a deep-sea fishery in contradistinction to banks or shore fishery, there is no such thing in the whole evidence. Sir ALEXANDER GALT. Are you now referring to the fisheries generally, or to the mackerel fishery in particular? Mr. DOUTRE. To the cod fishery also. Codfish is taken on banks. Mr. DANA. It is a question of names-what you call a bank fishery. Mr. DOUTRE. Is not the result of the whole evidence, on both sides, that fish is to be found on the coast, within a few miles, or on banks, and nowhere else? This is the practical experience of all fishermen. Now, science explains why it is so. That class of evidence is unanimous on this most important particular, namely, as to the temperature necessary to the existence of the cold-water fish in commercial abundance, such as the cod and its tribe, the mackerel and the herring, which include all the fish valuable to our commerce. According to the evidence I shall quote, the increasing warmth of the coastal waters of the United States as summer advances, drives the fish off the coast south of New England into the deep sea, and puts a stop to the summer fishing for these fish on those parts of the coast in the United States-a condition of things due to the shoreward swing of the Gulf Stream there. On the other hand, it is stated that on the coasts of British America, where the Arctic current prevails, the fish come inshore during the summer months, and retire to the deep sea in the winter months. Professor Baird says, on page 455 of his evidence before the Commission, speaking of the codfish in answer to the question put by Mr. Dana, "What do you say of their migrations?" Answer. The cod is a fish the migrations of which cannot be followed readily, because it is a deep-sea fish and does not show on the surface, as the mackerel and herring; but so far as we can ascertain, there is a partial migration, at least some of the fish don't seem to remain in the same localities the year round. They change their situation in search of food, or in consequence of the variations in the temperature, the percentage of salt in the water, or some other cause. In the south of New England, south of Cape Cod, the fishing is largely off shore. That is to say, the fish are all the coast in the cooler water in the summer, and as the temperature falls approaching autumn, and the shores are cooled down to a cer tain degree, they come in and are taken within a few miles of the coast. In the northern waters, as far as I can understand from the writings of Professor Hind, the fish generally go off shore in the winter time, excepting on the south side of Newfoundland, where, I am in |