including the Grand Bank, that these fish became scarce, and then the fishermen conceived the idea of going to Greenland for them; and they did so. Within a year or two back they have been fishing for halibut away off in deep water, where previously no one thought of trying for them. I have no doubt but that they now fish for halibut in water as deep as 200 fathoms.

Q. Whereabouts?-A. Anywhere in the gullies between the chain of Banks which extends from George's to Grand Bank, on La Have and Western Banks, &c.

Q. Is the cod-fishery, as pursued by the Americans, exclusively a deepsea fishery -A. Well, we will call it a deep-sea fishery; this is the case-the Labrador coast excepted, where it is prosecuted close in shorein the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on the Grand Bank, and on all the banks between that place and Cape Cod, and away out to sea in other parts. It is true that some codfish come inshore, but they do not do so to such an extent as to enable the catching of them to be made a business of.

Q. Is there any haddock fishery pursued by Americans distinct from the cod-fishery ?-A. When the fishermen go for haddock they proceed to fishing grounds where they do not expect to catch many fish but had dock, but they always like to catch cod, which are more valuable than haddock as a general thing. Haddock in the fresh state are brought in immense quantities into the Boston market. Nobody thinks much of salting haddock. They are a very cheap fish when salted, and it would hardly pay to salt them.

Q. Do they catch them anywhere within three miles of the shore, as far as you are aware?-A. They are caught up our way about Cape Cod, both inside and outside of the three-mile limit.

Q. In boats or vessels?-A. In boats. It is mostly carried on in market boats-small vessels. In 1867, as near as I could find it, about 75 vessels attended the market, and their business was almost always had. dock fishing. They were almost all manned by men who were born in Ireland. A great many of them came from Galway; they had been brought up to the fisheries there, and had been accustomed to use trawls, and this was the way in which the practice of trawling with long lines was introduced on the coast of Massachusetts. They pursued the haddock fishery, and they have done a good business at it, selling them fresh.

Q. What about hake and pollock?-A. These fish are caught to some extent along our coast. They are both very cheap fish, and our people do not make voyages to any distance for them.

Q. Do you regard the use of trawls as diminishing, in the long run, the catch of fish?-A. I think that their use in any given locality will decrease the supply of fish. Along our coast between Cape Cod and Cape Ann, where trawling has been prosecuted to any great extent, it has thinned the fish off pretty well. This is in the bays near my home. The fishing is thus overdone.

Q. Sometimes I suppose that the use of trawls destroys the predacious fishes and thus increases the number of small fish ?-A. Yes.

Q. To what extent do the Americans use the coasts of the British Dominion to cure fish and dry nets, as far as you are aware?-A. I only know of one man who made arrangements to cure fish on provincial territory. He went down to the south side of Cape Breton, to St. Peter's Harbor, I believe, and made arrangements to send 5 vessels to the Grand Bank, intending to have their cargoes landed there and to send them back to the Banks.

Q. He set up a fishing establishment on the shore?-A. Yes. But

his vessels were unsuccessful, and he never cured a fish there. He lost money in the venture, and having collected his traps, he came home. This is the only instance-I know of, with respect to the curing of fish on Dominion territory by any person from our part of Massachusetts, interested in the fisheries.

Q. Do the cod-fishermen who go to the Banks or anywhere else, make a practice of landing to dry their fish on the rocks-A. No; our fishermen do not.

Q. This practice has passed away?-A. I do not know of it being done by any of our American fishermen.

Q. Was that done in the earliest days of your youth ?-A. Then those that went to Labrador when done fishing, washed their fish and dried them on the rocks, bringing them home in that state; this was the case during one voyage I made there, but in my other two voyages there, we brought our fish home green.

Q. Has the mackerel-fishery, say from 1870 to the present time, been a prosperous and profitable business?-A. It has not been so profitable as the cod-fishery, and it has declined somewhat. Two of the principal firms in Provincetown fit out over one-half of the mackerel-fishing vessels which go from our place; they fit out over 15, and there are 30 of them, and they are in such a position that they cannot get out of this business very well. This fishery has been very unprofitable, while our neighbors who have prosecuted the Bank-fishery have done a fair busi

ness.

Q. Which has been the better during the last few years, the mackerel. fishery pursued on the coasts of the United States, or the mackerel-fishery prosecuted in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence?-A. Our vessels have made only 16 voyages to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence for mackerel since 1870, and I think, I may safely say, that their voyages were failures. They made little or no money at it. During this period, almost all our mackerel fishing was done on our own coast.

Q. Which would you prefer, and deem most beneficial, to have the former duties on British fish imposed at the United States custom-houses and to be excluded from fishing within the three-mile belt on the British shore, or to have free admission to the inshore-fisheries in British waters, and to have the fish caught by Canadians enter the American markets free of duty-A. I think that it would be more profitable to us, owing to the way in which we are situated, and the manner in which we fish, to have duties levied on Canadian fish, and to be ourselves excluded from fishing in British waters, inside of the three-mile line. Our conduct certainly shows that we believe our own fisheries to be the best, because since 1873 we have had only thirteen vessels out of all our fleet go to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. Still we pursued the Bank-fisheries. Our mackerel fleet has diminished in number, and this year we have only one vessel in the gulf. Two of our vessels went there last year, but they did not do anything. I do not know what the single vessel I mentioned has done. She has not been gone a great while.

Q. Are you aware of any place from which the mackerel fishery in British waters has been pursued profitably since 1873, and the going into effect of the Washington Treaty ?-A. I do not know of any place where our people could profitably prosecute the mackerel fishery in British waters. Our people have gone to what they consider the best fishing places, and I gave the result of their voyages yesterday.

By Mr. Thomson:

Q. How then do you account for American vessels coming into British waters at all, if they lose by their voyages here?—A. I do so in this way:

when I was fishing, I sometimes went out, expecting and hoping to do something, though in a faithless kind of way; and when I was through, I would find that I had done nothing.

Q. Did you follow that plan from year to year?-A, It is not the same vessels which so follow it up. The vessel which went to the gulf this year, did so because the fish were scarce; last year two vessels went to the gulf, and I was interested in one of them.

Q. You are now, of course, speaking of your own place, Provincetown?-A. Yes; I know that Gloucester sends out more vessels, because they own a great many more there, particularly as concerns the mackerel-fishing business, than in Provincetown.

Q. Had the Gloucester vessels failed in the same way, in their trips to the gulf?-A. I suppose so. I am not now engaged in this fishery. Q. You talk of the pains you took in collecting statistics before you came here, in Provincetown; and you conclude that your Provincetown vessels failed to make any money mackerel fishing?-A. Yes-in the gulf.

Q. But did you not take any pains to ascertain whether your Glou cester brethren were in the same predicament?-A. I intended to inquire after all the vessels, but being unwell at the time, and fully believing that some one as capable as myself would be able to give the required information respecting other places, and Gloucester in particu lar, I did not go there; but I collected all possible local information on the subject.

Q. Do you mean to imply that since the Treaty of Washinton, the mackerel fishery has failed, and not been a money-making business, on your own coast as well as in British waters?-A. The mackerel fishery has been a failure since 1873. My object in collecting statistics with relation to the mackerel fishery was to show how many vessels were employed in it on our own coast, and how many in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from our place, back to 1870, inclusive; this covers the ground since the Washington Treaty came into force.

Q. Did the mackerel fishers make money in our waters during the Reciprocity Treaty -A. Well, I should not like to express an opinion on that point. I had nothing to do with it, and did not go there during the Reciprocity Treaty.

Q. And none of your statistics will enable you to tell that ?-A. No. Q. Do I understand you to say that your statistics which regard the mackerel fishing from Provincetown since 1873, imply that your people have failed to profitably prosecute the mackerel fishery ?-A. Yes, in the gulf; and this fishery has not been very profitable on our coast. Our mackerel-fishing fleet has diminished in number; and I think that if they could get out of the business without loss, the fleet would be still less in number a year from now.

Q. Do you include your own mackerel fishery in that statement?—A. Yes. I do not know that any of our mackerel fishermen will make any money this year. There is no prospect, unless a good school comes in, of their making anything like fair voyages.

Q. On your own coast ?-A. Yes.

Q. During the last four or five years, have not very few mackerel been caught on your coast?-A. Well, yes, and during the years before, comparatively few also. The catch, I think, was larger in 1870 than it has ever been since. If my memory serves me right, over 300,000 barrels were then packed in the State of Massachusetts, and that quantity of mackerel, nor anything near it, has never been packed in this State with one exception.

By Mr. Dana:

Q. What is the exception ?-A. This occurred in 1831, when 383,559 barrels of mackerel were inspected in the State of Massachusetts.

By Mr. Thomson:

Q. Is packing and inspection the same thing?-A. Yes. They were chiefly the catch of our vessels. Another matter deserves remark: if mackerel imported from the British provinces fall into the hands of our inspectors, and they reinspect them, they put the American brand on them; and such fish would be included in the number of the catch. This, I think, is an important fact.

Q. I was going to ask you whether or not these fish were branded, irrespective of the nationality of the bottoms in which they were taken ?-A. Yes. I think that the fish which are now being sent from Halifax to Boston will be inspected. We have general inspectors.

Q. Would not these fish, so inspected, appear in your returns as American-caught fish?-A. I think that would be the case; they would appear in the whole product of the State.

Q. Then the finest fish that would come there from British waters would be inspected and marked either number one or mess mackerel, as coming from American waters?-A. Yes; if they were fat and big enough.

Q. And they would appear to be American-caught when in fact they were British-caught?-A. I do not think that any distinction would be made when mackerel are sold in large quantities; they are sold more particularly by their quality than by their brand.

Q. It is not the brand that then sells them ?-A. The brand does not determine the quality of the fish when they first change hands. Mackerel coming from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, when 13 inches long, and fat, are put in as number ones; and the fish caught on our own coast 13 inches long or over, are similarly branded. Mackerel that run between 13 and 14 inches in length, according to the Massachusetts inspection law, are number ones; and mackerel which are from 16 to 17 inches long are also branded as number ones, this being the highest brand. But when a purchaser comes along, the heads of the barrels are taken out and the quality of the fish is examined without regard to the brand

Q. But, in every case, fish that come down from British waters would appear as American-caught fish ?-A. This would be the case, I think, after they were packed.

Q. This being so, your returns would not be at all conclusive as to the quantity of the British catch which comes into your ports?-A. I do not think that they would.

Q. Boston, I think, is your great shipping center ?-A. Yes; it is a great shipping market.

Q. Does not the fish trade of New England center there ?-A. Yes. Q. And it is one of the largest centers of the fish trade in the United States -A. Yes.

Q. Is there any larger fish-trade center anywhere?-A. I do not know so much about New York as Boston, but I think that the latter is the greatest fish-trade center in the United States.

Q. This is one of the most important elements of the trade of Boston?— A. It is an important element in it.

Q. What office did you hold as a commissioner under the government of Massachusetts ?-A. I was appointed a commissioner to investigate into the question relating to the artificial propagation of fish, and to find out whether such propagation was pr

commission terminated in the course of six months, and subsequently a State commission was appointed in the same connection. This was done, I think, in 1864. My appointment took place in 1856.

Q. Some, at all events, of the duties of that commission were to fill with fish rivers which had been depleted of them?-A. That is the object of these commissioners.

Q. Are they succeeding?-A. It is said that they are. When first appointed, the chairman wanted me to go to the Merrimac and Connecticut Rivers in our States and collect what information I could on the subject. I spent a month at this work and I then made my report.

Q. Are they really increasing the number of the fish?-A. I have no personal knowledge as to this being the case. I do not know so much about our inland as about our sea fisheries.

Q. Have your inland fisheries, in your judgment, no effect on your off-shore fisheries?-A. Well, they have a little effect on the latter.

Q. Do not bait-fishes come down from the rivers?-A. Some dosuch as shad and alewives. They are used to some extent as bait for cod.

Q. Have not the States of Maine and Massachusetts of late years endeavored to protect, as much as possible, the shad-fishery -A. Yes; and their artificial propagation has been attempted.

Q. Are they succeeding in this respect in the State of Massachusetts-A. The commissioners report favorably, and say that they are making headway; but I have no personal knowledge regarding this matter.

Q. Has this commission no power over the sea fisheries along the coast-A. No such power has been delegated to them to my knowledge. A law passed the legislature last year, I believe, instructing the commission to issue circulars to those who had pounds, weirs, traps, purseseines, nets, and gill-nets along the coast inshore. These were required to keep a daily count of the different kinds of fish which were thus procured. These circulars were issued this year, and some were sent to me at Provincetown, where I distributed them.

Q. So that the object which the commission had in view was to prevent the destruction of fish in these traps, pounds, purse-seines, and gill-nets, &c.?-A. So much had been said about them that the commissioners wished to ascertain as nearly as possible the quantity of the different kinds of fish taken from year to year in their traps, nets, &c.

Q. So much had been said, I presume, against this mode of fishing ?— A. Some were against it and some were in its favor. People are not apt to talk in favor of a different mode of fishing if it makes others successful.

Q. But there had been a good deal of talk against this way of fishing-A. Yes.

Q. And the attention of the commission was directed to it?—A. Yes; and they desired to discover what its effect was.

Q. Have they made their report on this matter?-A. No; not to my knowledge.

Q. Have they made any report with regard to the evil effects of purseseining?-A. No. They have not investigated this question to my knowledge.

Q. Have they done so with respect to traps?—A. Yes.

Q. In your judgment are these traps injurious to your shore fisheries -A. I think that they are.

Q. How long have they been in operation ?-A. O, for quite a number