Q. And your business of late years has been that of deputy inspector of mackerel ?-A. Packer and inspector of mackerel.

Q. Have you some of your books with you?—A. I have.

Q. Turn to the account of the trip of the James Seward in 1857. I will ask you, before you begin to read the trip, if you know Wm. McDonnell?-A. I know him well.

Q. By what name did he go on board?-A. Bill Mack.

Q. You have no doubt about the man ?-A. Not in the least.

Q. He was on board the James Seward ?-A. Yes, my memory is perfectly clear about the man.

Q. Read the entry of the trip from your book.-A. Schooner James Seward, September 8, 1857, packed 242 barrels of mackerel. Mack caught of that trip 21 barrels No. 1 mackerel, 85 pounds of No. 2, and 10 pounds No. 3. These were packed barrels.

Q. What is the difference, on an average, between sea barrels and packed barrels ?-A. We reckon ten per cent.

Q. McDonnell's statement was that James Seward was a 300-barrel vessel, and got two full fares. Did James Seward make a second trip? A. Yes, two trips that year.

Q. What was the second trip?-A. She packed out on November 20, 1857, two hundred and five and three-quarters packed barrels.

Q. We will now take the Mohenia, of which Macdonnell was captain in 1865-A. I have the statement.

Q. Give it.-A. The Mohenia packed, September 2, 1858, 162 packed barrels. William Mack was captain.

Q. Take the second trip of the Mohenia that year?-A. On December 4, 1858, she packed out 1544 packed barrels. Wm. Mack captain. Q. McDonnell's statement about the Mohenia was as follows:

Q. What fares did you take ?-A. I think about 150 barrels the first trip and perhaps 30 barrels the second trip. It was a 300-barrel vessel and we generally got fares.

Mr. DAVIES asked how the statement of McDonnell fixed the year. Mr. FOSTER said the testimony of McDounell was as follows:

Q. You afterwards became captain of the vessel?—A. Yes.

Q. What vessel?-A. The Mohenia.

Q. What was the size of the vessel ?-A. About 75 tons, I think.

Q. How many trips did you make?-A. Two.

What fares did you make?-A. I think about 250 barrels the first trip, and about 300 barrels the second trip. It was a 300-barrel vessel and we generally got fares.

The fair inference is it was the first year he was captain. That is what I assume.

WITNESS. Those two years are the only two Macdonnell was captain of the Mohenia. I owned part of her and my partner the rest.

Q. Take 1859, the same schooner.-A. I have the statement.

Q. Read the result.-A. November 25, 1859, Mohenia packed 1934 packed barrels.

Q. Did she make in 1859 more than one trip?-A. Only one trip; mackerel were very scarce that year.

Q. Macdonnell's statement reads:

Q. The next year, I believe, you went again in the Mohenia?-A. Yes, we made two trips.

Q. With similar results to those of the previous year?—A. About the same.

WITNESS. The first year he was to my knowledge skipper of the Mohenia he went two trips to the bay with the result stated, and the next year one trip in the bay. He was never afterward, or before, master of the Mohenia.

Q. Turn to the S. A. Parkhurst, in 1866. Peter Deagle's statement in regard to it was as follows:

I fished in the Safronia from Gloucester, and that season we caught 700 barrels. The next year I was in the S. A. Parkhurst, and we caught 600 barrels.

Q. Give me the voyage of the S. A. Packhurst in 1866.-A. Novem. ber 9, 1866, schooner S. A. Parkhurst packed 310 packed barrels.

Q. Do you know Deagle ?-A. I did know him. I have no very definite recollection of him.

Q. Did she make more than one trip that year?—A. No. On Nov. 9 the trip was packed. That is correct with the settlement we made with him.

Q. You have a statement of the settlement of Deagle and a statement of the settlement of William Mack ?-A. Yes.

Q. As you are mackerel inspector I should like to have you state exactly what net stock is. As you have shown me in your books the settlement of one of Captain Layton's voyages in the Rattler stated very distinctly, I will ask you to read it and put in a copy. Witness read following statement from his book:

GLOUCESTER, November 4, 1835.

7,501 67

Schooner Rattler packed: 57 bbls. 80 lbs. mess mackerel, at $20.... $1,148 00
441 bbls. 55 lbs. No. 1 mackerel at 17....
16 bbls. 55 lbs. No. 1 mackerel, at 13....
9 bbls. lbs. No. 3 mackerel, at 10....

211 37

90 00

$2,951 04

1,047 90

7,903 14

483 00

70 00

70

3.00

2.50
1 50

560 70

2)7,342 44

3,671 22

That sum of $3,671.22 is divided among the crew. There are other expenses which come out of the crew. Originally the crews used to cook by turns. Now they agree among themselves, and have done so for years, to have a man to cook and engage to pay him, so that when we make up the trip we have to take off the pay of the cook, which comes out of the crew and not out of the vessel. The statement was made up by me in order to settle with the crew of Captain Layton's vessel, he having packed the Rattler with me.

By Hon. Mr. Kellogg :

Q. Was it made up by you as inspector?-A. No; as packer. In Gloucester each firm has its own inspector when they carry on business and own vessels and pack other vessels, as it is necessary that one of the firm should inspect in order to take care of their own mackerel. In Newburyport there is a State inspector, who goes about in his official capacity and inspects mackerel for everybody, but in Gloucester the custom is different.

By Mr. Foster:

Q. Will you now take a settlement with one of the crew and read it? —A. I will take the settlement with Captain Bearse.

Q. Does the captain have one man's share?-A. Yes; with a per centage for being captain.

Q. That percentage comes out of the vessel ?-A. Yes.

Q. He has an advantage in the place from which to fish-A. Yes. Q. What is that?-A. He has the first pick of the berths to fish from. Q. Explain it.-A. Of course the captain has the choice of the place where he will stand and fish from, and he takes the best place. He also throws the bait, which is additional trouble. The others draw lots for choice.

Q. Take the captain's settlement; I suppose those of the rest of the crew are just like it ?-A. Yes; every man gets half of the price of the mackerel he catches, after expenses are taken out. Witness then read the following statement:

GLOUCESTER, November 4, 1865. Schooner Rattler (Benjamin Bearse) packed 4 bbls, 105 lbs., mess mackerel, at $20. $90 50 25 bbls., 165 lbs., No 1 mackerel, at 17. 439 02 60 lbs., No. 2 mackerel, at 13. 100 lbs, No. 3 mackerel, at 10.

Packing, at $2.

Bait and cook..

3.90

5.00

538 42

62 30

2) 476 12

238 06

26 83

211 23

Q. How much is received by the owners of the vessel for the whole voyage?-A. $3,671.22.

Q. What have the owners to pay out of that, or what has been paid? -A. They have to pay for the vessel, wear and tear, insurance, fitting out, provisions, and all other expenses that a vessel is liable to incur.

Q. What do you mean by fitting out?-A. Provisions, Manila rope, anchors, &c.

Q. They pay for the charter of the vessel ?-A. The use of the vessel. Q. The owner has to pay for wear and tear, insurance, fitting out, which includes provisions, and what else?-A. Ship's tackling, sails, anchors, ropes, cooking-utensils, and everything that is used.

Q. How is the salt paid for ?-A. The salt which is put on board the vessel is paid for by the vessel, and is included in the outfit.

Q. No part of that is included in packing?-A. No. When we repack the mackerel from sea barrels to barrels for market we use salt, which is included in the $2 per barrel for packing; but the salt which goes on board to keep the mackerel until they come in port is paid for by the

owners.

Q. That particular voyage was settled on when?-A. November 4, 1865.

Q. Does it represent the number caught for the whole season?—A. No, there was another trip in the same vessel.

Q. That was a great year?--A. Yes.

Q. The Rattler made another trip the same year?-A. There was another trip which the Rattler made the same year.

Q. That was the end of the season?-A. This is the trip which she brought home.

Q. Was that an uncommonly profitable voyage?-A. It was. It was an uncommonly profitable year and voyage.

Q. It was an extraordinary voyage?—A. Yes, an extraordinary voy age.

By Mr. Davies:

Q. What position did you hold in Gloucester at the time of which you are speaking-A. I was a packer and inspector of mackerel.

Q. In Mr. Layton's firm?-A. No.

Q. You had no connection with Mr. Layton's business?-A. No, except packing his mackerel.

Q. Was packing and inspecting fish a distinct branch of the fishing business, and had Mr. Layton no interest in it?-A. No interest at all. Q. These are your own books as a packer and inspector?-A. At that time I was in the employ of D. A. Parkhurst as his clerk; he was inspector.

Q. Is it the custom for men to inspect their own fish there?-A. Yes. Q. When you get fish in from the bay, you inspect and mark them No. 1, 2, and 3?—A. Yes.

Q. You put your own brand on them?-A. The inspector inspects the mackerel from vessels in which he is connected.

Q. When your vessels come in from Bay St. Lawrence with mackerel how do you brand them?-A. We brand them with a hot iron, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to the quality.

Q. Do they appear by your inspectors to be bay mackerel or shore mackerel ?-A. They do not by the inspection.

Q. You put them on the market as Nos. 1, 2, 3, or 4, irrespective of where they were caught?-A. They are branded irrespective of where caught.

Q. Do I understand you that you put them on the market in that way?-A. The buyers usually inquire whether they are bay or shore, and buy accordingly, but nothing is branded on them which shows any difference.

Q. Nothing on the barrels themselves?-A. No; nothing.

Q. You have been inspector of mackerel yourself?-A. Yes; for 10

years.

Q. Can you name all the different kinds of mackerel ?—A. I can name the different brands.

Q. Name them.-A. Nos. 1, 2, 3 large, 3, and 4. There are five different legal brands.

Q. Do you make any distinction between mackerel caught inshore. and off shore?-A. Not in culling them.

Q. Suppose there was a barrel full of mackerel, could you tell what were taken inshore and what out; what were taken within three miles and what 4, 5, or 6 miles out?-A. No; I could not.

Q. Do you as inspector know a particular kind of mackerel as illgrass mackerel, as distinct from any other?-A. We don't make any such distinction.

Q. Do you know of any such distinction ?-A. No; not in our branding or inspection.

Q. Do you know any mackerel as ill-grass mackerel in your inspec tion?-A. I never heard of any as inspector.

Q. During the ten years you have been inspector you never heard of that?-A. Not as inspector.

Q. Practically, it is not known among inspectors ?-A. No.

Q. In regard to No. 1 mess mackerel, I suppose there is such a thing from the bay?-A. Yes; when you cut off their heads and fix them.

Q. Do No. 1 mess mackerel from the bay range as high as No. 1 mess mackerel, say from Georges Bank?-A. For the last two years I should say that our shore mackerel were the better mackerel.

Q. And previous to that?-A. I should say they would average to be so when we got large mackerel off our shores.

Q. That is not a very clear answer.-A. Mess mackerel is supposed to be the first quality, and, to be marketable, must be large, with the heads cut off, cleaned and prepared to be "mess mackerel." The larger and fatter the mackerel, the better mess mackerel they are. I don't think that the mess mackerel from the bay are considered as good, or have been during the last eight or ten years, as those got off our shores when we have got large mackerel off our shores.

Q. Were they considered as good previously?-A. That covers my time as inspector.

Q. From your knowledge, do you know whether No. 1 mess mackerel from the bay was considered as good or inferior to No. 1 mess shore mackerel?-A. The better qualities of shore mackerel usually ranged higher than the better qualities of bay mackerel.

Q. Before this limit of time, was Bay No. 1 mess mackerel equal or superior to No. 1 mess mackerel caught on the American coast-A. I don't care to state about that, because I was not inspector.

Q. As you do not personally know, you do not care to state ?-A. No. Q. Is there much difference between No. 1 mess from the bay and No. 1 mess from Georges Bank?—A. The larger kinds of mackerel from our shores have fetched considerably more than No. 1 from the bay this present year.

Q. Are you not aware that No. 1 are not taken in the bay to any extent until fall?-A. Not large mackerel. Fat mackerel are not taken anywhere till late in the year.

Q. Is there any appreciable difference in price between No. 1 Bay and No. 1 from Georges Banks?-A. We have not had many mackerel this year from Georges Banks. Georges Bank is a very small place on our shores.

Q. I will take the mackerel caught off the United States coast ?—A. They have been of better quality during the last two years, and fetched a higher price.

Q. Did the No. 2 or No. 1 not mess bring higher prices?-A. As regards No. 1 not mess, the only difference is that one quality had the heads cut off.

Q. Did those caught on the American coast bring a higher price ?— A. Yes, this year.

Q. Taking a run of years?-A. I think so.

Q. And in regard to No. 21-A. There is a great variatiou in No. 2 mackerel.

Q. I want to know whether mackerel caught on the American coast sold at higher prices in the American market than the same brands of mackerel caught in the bay ?-A. I would like to explain in regard to No. 2 mackerel. The law under which I inspect requires that No. 1 shall be 13 inches long, and no matter how fat the mackerel may be, if it is a quarter of an inch short, it is nothing but No. 2. Consequently, a great number of mackerel, when mackerel are mixed, lack a trifle of 13 inches, though they are just as good as No. 1, and are branded No. 2. So there is a great difference in No. 2 mackerel about the quality, although they are the same brand. No. 2 may be as fat mackerel as was ever in the sea, but as it is only 13 inches, it can only be No. 2. Therefore No. 2 quality is inspected by buyers more particularly than any other brand according to the value and quality of the fish. Q. That extends generally over all mackerel? A. Yes.