customs officers or magistrates. I believe that they are very scarce around the coast. It is very thinly settled, and has very few customhouse officers stationed along it. There are not nearly as many of them as are required now, whatever may have been the case in former times. More are now needed, because there is more inducement presented to violate the law than there was before the Washington Treaty was negotiated.

Q. And there are now more facilities for smuggling?—A. O, precisely. There is no doubt about that.

Q. The population of the island is about 150,000?-A. Yes.

Q. How are the people located around the coast-A. The farthest official of the Newfoundland Government is stationed at Channel. Then there are three on this southern coast until you arrive at Briton Harbor, where one is stationed; and then, say for sixty miles up the bay, there are no customs officers or magistrates, unfortunately.

Q. The officials of the government of Newfoundland are stationed between Channel on the south and around to where ?-A. To Tilt Cove on the north; but there is no government official on the north of the island. Q. And there is none between Cape John and Cape Ray on the other coast-A. No.

Q. And you say that they are even scarce on the portion of the coast you have pointed out?-A. O, there are large tracts of the country where there is no government official.

Q. Are the people living in every small cove and inlet along the coast-A. Yes; on this southern coast they are.

Q. And north, too?-A. In the north every harbor is settled; but the harbors are not so numerous on the southern part of the island. Q. They are in smaller numbers?-A. Yes.

Q. Do all of them carry on the fishery?-A. Yes. When I say all, I might explain that the agriculturists are very few in number. The cen sus will show that they are not numerous, and they are not really agriculturists, because they pursue fishery and agriculture combined.

Q. You spoke of the herring fishery at Fortune Bay; is there a large winter fishery carried on there?-A. This has been the case for a number of years. During the Reciprocity Treaty it was prosperous; in fact, it was the only branch of commerce in Newfoundland that benefited to any extent by the Reciprocity Treaty. At that time there was a large herring fishery for the supply of the slaves of the Southern States, principally Virginia and North and South Carolina, and also for the supply of the West Indies. The description of herring caught in this bay is very suitable for hot climates and these markets. From 60,000 to 70,000 barrels of herring were annually taken for the purpose of being exported from Fortune Bay alone for several years, until the war broke out.

Q. These were not caught, I think, by Americans, but purchased from Fortune Bay people?-A. The Americans themselves did not engage in it. During the first six years of the Reciprocity Treaty it was wholly in the hands of those doing business on the Newfoundland coast.

Q. And, during the last four years of the Reciprocity Treaty, you say that it was altogether carried on by the Americans by purchasing from Newfoundlanders?-A. Yes.

Q. They did not fish there themselves?-A. No; not during the existence of the Reciprocity Treaty.

Q. Since the Washington Treaty came into operation, has any new trade in herring, in which the Americans are concerned, sprung up?-A. They began, four years before the Reciprocity Treaty terminated, to ship herring in a frozen state to supply the New York market and to supply

their fishermen at Cape Ann with early bait for the George's Bank. They fish on the George's Bank during February and March. Some 30 or 40 vessels commenced to come there perhaps two or three years before the Reciprocity Treaty expired, and afterwards they still continued to come.

Q. Have American vessels during the last two or three years, since the Washington Treaty has come in operation, taken large cargoes of herring to Sweden and other countries from Fortune Bay ?-A. I believe so. I have heard so, and I believe that it is a fact.

Q. You have no doubt of it?-A. None at all. I have not observed it myself, but there is no doubt of the fact at all.

Q. And as a matter of fact, you also know that the herring fishery of Fortune Bay and Placentia Bay is very prolific?-A. Yes.

Q. Do they take or purchase the herring sent to Sweden and the States-A. I think they generally purchase. I have known them, however, to catch herring themselves. I remember that a steamer called Montecello came there and caught large cargoes. This was some four years ago, I think.

Q. You were a member of the legislature for some time?-A. Yes; for eleven or twelve years.

Q. And you have some knowledge concerning general statistical information and customs returns relating to the island?-A. Yes.

Q. Will you kindly refer to those returns and read their heading?— A. This is a return showing the quantities and values of fish and products of fish imported from the United States of America, and exported to the United States and all other countries from the Colony of New. foundland during each year from 1851 to 1876 included.

Q. That relates to twenty-six years?-A. Yes.

Q. Judging from these returns, what advantage is, or is any advan tage, derived by Newfoundland from the concessions made to you by the Washington Treaty ?-A. You cannot infer from these returns that Newfoundland has reaped any advantage from any commercial concession made under the Washington Treaty. On the contrary, the exports of Newfoundland products to the United States since the ratification of the Washington Treaty have been very much lower than they were during the period when there was a heavy duty on these products. They have since been very much less. The average value of these exports for the four years preceding the Reciprocity Treaty amounted to $225,722, and for the twelve years ending with the Reciprocity Treaty, $367,500, and for the seven years after the abrogation of that treaty, $348.281; and during the three years the Washington Treaty has been in existence the average value of the exports of Newfoundland to the United States has been $222,112.

Q. Then they were less under the present Washington Treaty than they were while there were beavy duties imposed ?—A. They were very much so.

Q. What deduction do you draw from that?-A. That the quantity exported to the United States is so trifling it has no appreciable effect on the commerce of Newfoundland. For instance, the quantity of fish shipped last year from Newfoundland to the United States was about 9,000 or 10,000 quintals out of a catch of 1,300,000 quintals. It is a mere bagatelle.

Q. Who supplies, then, the American market with fish ?-A. They supply themselves. They have greater facilities to do so under the treaty than they had before. There is no likelihood of Newfoundland ever having to supply them now, whatever it might have done before

granting them the privilege to catch fish inshore and take bait on the

coast.

Q. Your exports to the United States amounted to far more when the duty existed than now the duty is off?-A. Yes.

Q. The Americans, having now the privilege to catch fish and bait on the Newfoundland coast, they, you say, supply themselves?—A. To a large extent.

Q. What are the markets essentially of Newfoundland?-A. Our largest markets are the Brazils, the Mediterranean, and England. To Spain, Portugal, Italy, and England we send the Labrador fish, an inferior description. But our best markets are certainly the Brazils.

Q. Are your fish cured in a particular manner to suit the requirements of those markets?-A. They are. The Brazils require a very hard-cured fish, and a very superior quality of fish; and in Spain they require a very hard and well and carefully cured fish; also up the Mediterranean.

Q. Are you aware as to whether fish have been imported into the United States from Newfoundland, and exported to the Brazils, West Indies, and other tropical markets?—A. I am not personally aware of it, but I believe such is the case. I have heard so from those who told me they exported fish.

Q. Are you aware of any difference in the mode of curing American and Newfoundland fish ?—A. There is a very great difference. I have observed curing at the establishments at Cape Ann, Gloucester, and have visited there. The usual mode was to dry the fish three or four days, not generally more than four days, they told me, and then it was fit for home consumption. It would not stand a hot climate, nor would it answer to keep.

Q. Their fish is brought in in salt from the banks?-A. And then it is put in pickle in the stores, and, as required, it was sold out, perhaps 100 quintals with three days' drying, and another hundred quintals might require five days' drying, according to the distance it had to go. This was the system they told me they had pursued at Gloucester.

Q. Would fish so cured be suitable for the Brazil or Mediterranean market?-A. No. Our fish is kept on hand sometimes for six months. It would not answer at all unless it was hard-cured, and that requires from four to six weeks, under a moderate sun and cool winds.

Q. You are well aware of the climate of Cape Ann, Gloucester, and that neighborhood, and also of Newfoundland. What is your opinion, with regard to that climate, as to suitability for curing fish for tropical markets?-A. I don't think it is suited. It is too humid and too hot. I find it oppressively hot here, and I know it is much hotter at Gloucester and Cape Ann.

Q. What would be the effect upon the fish?-A. I am certain the fish would melt-would fall to pieces. If they attempted to cure with light salting, as in Newfoundland, where the curing is found more suitable for the Brazils and European markets, I am sure the fish would be sunburnt and fall to pieces, and it would not be a merchantable article. I am quite certain of that.

Q. How long does it take to cure fish in Newfoundland ?-A. To thoroughly cure fish fit for those markets, from 4 to 6 weeks.

Q. Then, in your opinion, the opening out of the United States markets, coupled with the concession to the Americans to fish on our coasts, is really no advantage whatever to the people of Newfoundland ?—A. Í think not. The statistics prove it is no advantage; they speak better than any other testimony.

Q. You are fully aware of the mode in which the Americans formerly

got their bait to fish on the banks of deep sea?-A. Yes; I am aware of their mode of procuring bait. They usually used clams, pogies, or menhaden.

Q. What was the value of the bait which they brought down in the spring of the year to commence bank fishing, and what was the value of the bait they used during a season's fishing ?-A. I have paid myself $8 per barrel for clams and $7 for pogies. I believe the average cost might be fairly estimated at $6 per barrel to American fishermen.

Q. What was the quantity used during a season?--A. It is only a short time ago since one of them admitted that each used from 150 to 200 barrels of herring and other bait during the season; they could not conduct a season's bank fishing with less than 100 barrels of bait-not successfully.

Q. An average of what?-A. An average of 100 barrels; they could not conduct fishing successfully with less than 100 barrels of bait.

Q. Do you mean for the whole season or each trip?—A. For the season I mean.

Q. What would those 100 barrels of bait cost prior to the Americans having the privilege of getting that bait on the coast of Newfoundland?A. Suppose there are 300 vessels on the banks fishing-and I believe there is pretty good evidence that there are 600 sail this season; admit that there are 300 sail

Q. Take an individual vessel.-A. An individual vessel, 100 barrels, at $6 per barrel, would be $600.

Q. For what can that bait be obtained on the coast of Newfound land?-A. For about $40. I am certain they never, during my knowl. edge, paid more than $40 for 100 barrels of herring.

Q. That would be a saving of $560 upon each vessel ?—A. Yes; there would be a saving of that much.

Q. That, for 300 vessels, would be a large sum?-A. A saving of over $160,000 a year.

Q. Upon 300 vessels ?-A. Yes, upon 300 vessels.

Q. Resulting from the privilege being granted them of getting herring and bait at Newfoundland instead of having to bring it from the United States or Nova Scotia ?-A. Resulting from the privilege of getting bait on the Newfoundland coast instead of bringing it from their own country.

Q. Are you aware as to any practice on the part of the American bank or deep-sea fishermen of throwing small fish overboard? A. Yes; I have been on many occasions told they always threw the small fish overboard-fish under 22 inches in length, they told me. These fish were not suited to their market and were thrown overboard. That had been their practice, I know, for years.

Q. Since the operation of the Washington Treaty, what practice has grown up with regard to those small fish?-A. They save the fish now and bring them into Newfoundland market, and sell them there at from $1.50 to $2 per quintal.

Q. And over, I believe?-A. I believe so, but I speak within the mark when I say from $1.50 to $2 per quintal. The quantity each vessel would catch would be about 200 quintals. That is, the quantity every vessel would otherwise have thrown overboard would be 200 quintals. Q. How do you get your information ?-A. I got it through the captain of an American vessel.

Q. His estimate was that every American banker would throw overboard 200 quintals?-A. About 200 quintals of small fish during a successful voyage.

Q. Now, that is entirely utilized by it being sold in Newfoundland?—

A. Yes; and there is a duty on fish brought into Newfoundland of $1.30 per quintal, which the American fishermen are now relieved of under the Washington Treaty.

Q. Figure that amount up, supposing the vessels to number 300.-A. 300 vessels at 200 quintals each vessel, would be 60,000 quintals of fish, which at $1.30 per quintal would give $78,000 as the amount of duty saved by 300 sail of vessel on fish brought into Newfoundland. There is also the value of the fish which would be thrown overboard if the American fishermen were not permitted to bring it into the Newfoundland market. At the low estimate of $1.50 per quintal the amount would be $90,000; and at $2, $120,000.

Q. That fish is very lightly salted-A. It is lightly salted; they salt it to meet the Newfoundland market; they formerly threw it away. So soon as they discovered there was a market for the small fish, that it was well adapted for the Brazils, they immediately salted it lightly, as the Newfoundland manner is, for sale in Newfoundland. They would otherwise have thrown it away.

Q. What quantity of salt would be used on that fish-100 quintals?— A. About 12 hogsheads to 100 quintals.

Q. How much is it per hogshead?-A. The price in Newfoundland is about 78. per hogshead.

Q. Then, I suppose, there is the labor of putting it down into salt, which would be comparatively trifling?-A. The oil would pay well for salt and labor. I have not computed the value, but it is the usual computation in Newfoundland that the oil pays handsomely for salt and labor of salting the fish.

Q. But the oil would be saved whether the fish were thrown overboard or not?-A. That I cannot speak of.

Q. Presuming the small fish were thrown overboard immediately they were taken out of the water, and the livers were not saved, you say the oil in the small fish would pay for the salt and labor used in curing them?-A. Undoubtedly, it would handsomely pay for them.

Q. Then you arrive at the conclusion that the value of that fish sold to Newfoundland, heretofore thrown away, is clear profit to the American fishermen ?-A. There is no doubt about that. I have no doubt that the remission of duties on that quantity of fish is far larger than the remission of duty on all products sent by Newfoundland to the United States market.

Q. What is the average amount of duties on Newfoundland products remitted by the United States during the last four or five years?—A. I did not make up the average for the last five years. In the last three years the average amount of duties remitted on products shipped by Newfoundland to the United States is $49,000.

Q. Then the actual remission of duties under the Washington Treaty by the United States amounts to under $50,000, while the actual amount remitted by Newfoundland is $60,000?-A. Seventy-eight thousand dollars.

Q. So that in remission of duties alone the account stands $28,000 in your favor?-A. Precisely.

Q. Did you ever know a Newfoundland fisherman to go to the coast of the United States to fish?-A. You mean a Newfoundland vessel ?

Q. Yes.-A. Never; such a thing was never known. I never knew them leave the Newfoundland coast, except on one occasion, twelve years ago, when four vessels tried the experiment of fishing round the Magdalen Islands-British fisheries in the gulf-but found the fish so