fessor Hind's evidence. The cause is this: that the fish then suddenly find themselves in a zone of warmer water in which they do not care to live, consequently they at once dive to a greater depth for the purpose of finding a zone of water more congenial to their habits of life, and by and by they find their way back to the shore. Another piece of evi dence which Professor Hind gave struck me as being of great impor tance in this case. He pointed out one extraordinary phenomenon, which is observable in the great Bay of St. Lawrence. He says that the tides come in through the Straits of Belle Isle, and are divided by the Mag. dalen Islands into two portions. One portion runs away along the southern coast of Labrador, around the island of Anticosti, and up the northern bank of the river St. Lawrence, while the other portion passes down to Prince Edward Island and into the Strait of Northumberland. He says that, in consequence of the great distance which one portion of the tide has traversed while the other has traveled a shorter distance, the tide coming down from the northern coast meets the ebb tide about the middle of the island, and as a consequence of that there is really high water always found about the center of the island; and for that reason the island presents the peculiar appearance it does, having been hollowed out year after year by the action of these tides. The effect of that phenomenon is-and it is a phenomenon which I think Professor Hind stated only occurs in one or two other places in the habitable globe-that the whole of the fish food is carried inshore. The cold water which is necessary to the existence of these food-fish of commerce, such as the mackerel and the cod and the halibut, is carried inshore in the bight of Prince Edward Island; it is carried inshore along the southern coast of Labrador; it is carried inshore along the northern bank of the River St. Lawrence. All this he points out as being the necessary result of that tide. These fish are thus brought inshore, and they necessarily have to remain inshore in order to get the food which they most desire to feed upon.

I then put this question to Professor Hind: "If there should be two classes of witnesses here, each of them being a numerous class, and if one class swears that the catch of mackerel off the Prince Edward Island shore is very slight within the three-mile limit, and the other that this catch is very good within the three-mile limit, which would you say, in a scientific point of view, is telling the truth?" "Undoubtedly," he replied, "those who swear that a very great portion of the catch is taken there within the three-mile limit, because science says that this must be the case."

So you see that, supposing these witnesses came here and honestly told what they believed to be the truth, we have science stepping in and deciding the question, and moreover deciding the question entirely in favor of the British case. I shall therefore not trouble your excellency and your honors any further with the evidence upon that point, but pass to another branch of my argument. I believe that I stated yesterday in the course of my argument, that were we to assume the American account of the inshore catch of mackerel in the gulf to be correct, and fix it at one-third, that even then it would be quite impossible for them to prosecute successfully mackerel fishing in the gulf, without having access to the inshore fisheries. The business would not pay. They would eventually be compelled to abandon the Gulf of Saint Lawrence altogether, and in that case their market would not be supplied with mackerel. The evidence shows that although an exceptional catch may be made in the bay without going near the shore at all, yet that no man in his senses would fit out vessels and send them into the bay unless he had

the privilege of following the schools of mackerel to the shore. There is a consensus of evidence on that point, I submit.

There was a statement made with reference to this fishery by Mr. Foster in his speech in connection with the evidence of George Mackenzie, which I think I can convince Mr. Foster was erroneous. No doubt he unwittingly misrepresented Mr. Mackenzie's statement.

Mr. FOSTER. What is it about?

Mr. THOMSON. You put in his mouth this language; it is quoted in your speech: "There has not been for seven years a good vessel mackerel fishery, and for the last two years it has been growing worse and worse." Now, he did not say anything of the kind; and I want to show that this is the case. I will read you what you said:

We have the statement of one of the Prince Edward Island witnesses, George Mackenzie, on page 132 of the British Evidence, who, after describing the gradual decrease of the American fishery by vessels, says, "There has not been for seven years a good vessel mackerel fishery, and for the last two years it has been growing worse and worse."

I wish to call the attention of the Commission to this matter to prevent their being misled by this statement. I do not, of coures, charge any willful misstatement upon my learned friend, and consider that he has fallen into an unintentional error. Such language was never used by the witness in question; he never said "and for the last two years it has been growing worse and worse." If my learned friend will turn up the evidence and point such a statement out, I will withdraw this assertion; but though I have carefully gone through his evidence, I can. not find it.

Mr. FOSTER. Do you think that I am quoting that expression of opinion?

Mr. THOMSON. It is printed with quotation marks. You put forward this statement as having been made by him; and I undertake to say that this statement in that respect has never been made.

Mr. FOSTER. I am put down as having quoted that continuously. I may say that I did not correct that portion or a great portion of my speech.

Mr. THOMSON. You say that this statement is to be found on page 133. Mr. FOSTER. The following portion of his examination is to be found on page 133:

Q. The fisheries failed pretty suddenly, did they not?-A. No. For a good many years they were failing.

Q. Which was the last good year?-A. We have not really had a good year during the last seven years.

I think you are right. I do not think that the exact words of the expression which is placed in quotation-marks are to be found there; but that statement contains the spirit of his evidence.

Mr. THOMSON. On page 128 he gives an opposite view.

Mr. FOSTER. I have just read from page 133. I must compare the statements, and see how they correspond. I should hate to be responsible for the accuracy of the printing.

Mr. THOMSON. I will not take up any more time about this matter, further than to say to the Commissioners that I have carefully gone through this evidence, and I cannot find it.

Mr. FOSTER. I say that the substance of this statement is there. Mr. THOMSON. I differ from you on that point; but if you show that it is there I will withdraw what I have said about it.

Mr. FOSTER. I have already pointed out the substance of it on page

Mr. THOMSON. And I say that the substance of the statements which appear on page 128 is exactly the opposite.

Mr. FOSTER. I dare say. Mr. Davies was then examining; but the statements from which I quoted were made in cross examination.

Mr. THOMSON. The following statement appears on page 44 of Mr. Foster's argument:

That would make 26,404 barrels caught in British territorial waters 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.

This is the point to which I wish to call your attention. I cannot comprehend why Mr. Foster should assume the value of the privilege of taking these fish to be fixed by the cost of procuring them. It seems to me quite clear that the value of fish in the water is just their value in the market, less the cost of procuring them and transporting them thither.

However, taking his own method of valuation, this calculation is based on the statement which Mr. Hall makes, that he bought up these mackerel for $3.75 a barrel. I have looked over Mr. Hall's evidence, but it is very difficult to say whether he meant that he paid $3.75 a barrel by reason of having his men in his employ on particular terms, or that he got them at that price; but George McKenzie, who was also a witness, states on page 132 of his evidence that he paid $6 a barrel for mackerel this year. Now, these two statements are entirely at variance, if Mr. Hall meant that such was the actual value of the fish when they were taken out of the water and transferred to him.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. McKenzie testified as follows, on page 132:

Q. Then do you pay as high as $6 a barrel for fresh fish ?-A. Yes. Q. How much did you pay last year?-A. We did not then pay higher than $1.50.

Q. That would be $4.50 a barrel ?-A. Yes.

Q. And the year before last?—A. The price then was the same as it was last year.

Q. How much did you pay four years ago?-A. About the same, from $1 to $1.50.

Mr. THOMSON. As you will perceive, Mr. McKenzie states, as I said, that he has given $6 a barrel for these fish this year, as against the price which Mr. Hall chose to say he only pays, or $3.75 a barrel. Mr. McKenzie says that these fish cost him $6 a barrel. Mr. Foster's calcu lation is based on the statement made by Mr. Hall, and this is here confronted with the evidence of Mr. McKenzie.

If your excellency and your honors believe that the evidence given on this point by Mr. McKenzie is correct, and you must judge between the two-the calculation of Mr. Foster is necessarily at fault.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. McKenzie buys his fish by the hundred, and he estimates the number of fish contained in a barrel; that is the way in which he makes out the price as being $6 a barrel.

Mr. THOMSON. Mr. Foster says, "That would make 26,404 barrels caught in British territorial waters that year," which was 1873. Now I take Mr. Foster's own figures in this matter. He further says, on page 44:

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 remission of duties nearly $182,000.

This is the only year which Mr. Foster has selected.

Mr. FOSTER. I have taken the figures for every year since the Washington Treaty went into effect.

Mr. THOMSON. Even allowing, as the United States affidavits affirm, that the part of the gulf catch which is taken by them within the threemile limit only amounts to one-half, we have 40,000 barrels. To this quantity you have to add the quantity imported from Canada, which is nearly all taken inshore, amounting to 91,000 barrels, the total is 131,000 barrels, and consequently it appears from these figures that there were taken from British territorial waters about 45 per cent. of the entire consumption of the United States. And if the proportion of the voyages made in the gulf and taken within the three-mile limit be twothirds, then these figures are increased to 150,000, or to over 50 per cent., and this is the result which follows from Mr. Foster's own figures. Mr. FOSTER. That is-you add the catch of your own people to the catch of our people, in the gulf, and say that is such a percentage of the total amount that went into the United States market. I dare say it may be so.

Mr. THOMSON. So, as United States fishermen obtained in the gulf that year 80,000 barrels, and there were imported into their market from the British Provinces about 91,000 barrels, that makes a total catch in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence of 171,000 barrels; that is to say, the catch on the United States coast was 130,339 barrels, or 43 per cent., and the catch in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence 171,000 barrels, or 57 per cent.; this makes a total of 301,339 barrels. Now these very figures themselves are about the very best evidence that can be advanced as to the relative value of these two fisheries.

With reference to the value which the United States themselves put on our fisheries, I want to cite some of their own figures; and the value which the Americans themselves have set on these fisheries is very conclusively shown by admissions of their own public men.

Sir ALEXANDER GALT. Before you take up that point, Mr. Thomson, will you be kind enough to tell me what the proportion of the catch you claim as taken inshore, bore to the whole American consumption, 50 per cent. you have made it, and I think it was 33 per cent.

Mr. THOMSON. I say that if the proportion of the voyages, taken inshore, within the three-mile limit be two-thirds, there were taken in British territorial waters about 50 per cent.

Sir ALEXANDER GALT. Fifty per cent.

Mг. THOMSON. Yes. I will read the proposition again: Now; allowing as the United States affidavits affirm, that one-half of the catch was taken inshore, viz, 40,000 barrels, add importations from Canada, 91,000 barrels, which makes 131,000 barrels; and therefore there have been taken in British territorial waters 45 per cent. of the entire consumption of the United States. That is what I said.

Mr. FOSTER. That is assuming the whole of your catch to have been taken inshore ?

Mr. THOMSON. Yes; and if the portion vouched for as taken from within the three-mile limit be two-thirds, then these figures would make 152,000, or over fifty per cent. of that consumption.

Mr. FOSTER. I hope that the Commission will not charge us for the privilege possessed by British fishermen of catching mackerel.

Mr. DANA. Some of the British catch is taken eight miles from land. Mr. THOMSON. In order to show the value, as stated by Americans themselves, of these fisheries, I will quote the language of Mr. Secretary

Seward, which is quoted on page 16 of the British reply to the United States Answer. Mr. Secretary Seward said:

Will the Senate please to notice that the principal fisheries in the waters to which these limitations apply are the mackerel and the herring fisheries, and that these are what are called "shoal fisheries," that is to say, the best fishing for mackerel and herring is within three miles of the shore. Therefore, by that renunciation, the United States renounced the best mackerel and herring fisheries. Senators, please to notice also, that the privilege of resort to the shore constantly, to cure and dry fish, is very important. Fish can be cured sooner, and the sooner cured the better they are, and the better is the market price. This circumstance has given to the colonies a great advantage in this trade. That stimu lated their desire to abridge the American fishing as much as possible; and, indeed, they seek naturally enough to procure our exclusion altogether from the fishing-grounds.

Mr. FOSTER. What year was that?

Mr. THOMSON. 1852. Touching the mode in which the Treaty of 1818, as regards large bays, shall be construed, Mr. Secretary Seward said this:

While that question is kept up, the American fisheries, which were once in a most pros perous condition, are comparatively stationary or declining, although supported by large bounties. At the same time, the provincial fisheries are gaining in the quantity of fish exported to this country, and largely gaining in their exportations abroad.

Our fishermen want all that our own construction of the convention gives them, and want and must have more-they want and must have the privilege of fishing within the three inhibited miles, and of curing fish on the shore.

Certainly the circumstances which induced Mr. Secretary Seward to use that language in 1852, have not since changed in such a manner as to authorize the United States or any of her public men to use differ ent language to-day.

Senator Hamlin, after describing the magnitude and importance of the American fishery as the greatest fountain of their commercial prosperity and naval power, declared that if the American fishermen were kept out of our inshore water, an immense amount of property thus invested would become useless, and the fishermen would be left in waut and beggary, or imprisoned in foreign jails.

And in the House of Representatives, Mr. Scudder, of Massachusetts, referring to this subject, said:

These fish are taken in the waters nearer the coast than the codfish are. A considerable proportion, from one-third to one-half, are taken on the coast and in the bays and gulfs of the British Provinces.

Now, upon that question, not only as to the value of our fisheries, but also as to the proportion of the catch which is there taken, this seems to be very strong testimony coming from an American statesman. He continues:

The inhabitants of the Provinces take many of them in boats and with seines. The boat and seine fishery is the more successful and profitable, and would be pursued by our fishermen, were it not for the stipulations of the Convention of 1818, betwixt the United States and Great Britain, by which it is contended that all the fisheries within three miles of the coast, with few unimportant exceptions, are secured to the Provinces alone.

Mr. Tuck, of New Hampshire, said:

This shore fishery which we have renounced is of great value, and extremely important to American fishermen. * From the first of September to the close of the season, the mackerel run near the shore, and it is next to impossible for our vessels to obtain fares without taking fish within the prohibited limits. The truth is, our fishermen need absolutely, and must have, the thousands of miles of shore fishery which have been renounced, or they must always do an uncertain business.

He may well call them thousands of miles, because we have shown by evidence here that they amount to no less than 11,900 square miles.