THE SEA FISHERIES OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA. 199 
the fish of the future, is mere matter of speculation, is it not ?—A. It is nothing more 
than what I judge from the excellence of this fish, the ease with which they are taken, 
and the ease with which they are cured, and the extent to which it is practiced as a 
local fishery by the people of North Carolina and other Southern States. 
Q. Has not that fishery been known for a great many years ?—A. I cannot say. I 
have only known it since 1872 and 1873. It probably has been known as a fishery for 
some years. 
Q. Persons have eaten these mullet twenty or thirty years ago down South 7?—A, 
Yes. 
Q. And it has not progressed at all as food for Northern consumption ?7—A. It is not 
now used as a food-fish in the North; but it isa fish which occupies the place of 
Northern fish through a large portion of the Southern States. 
Q. Do you know from definite personal knowledge of your own whether they would 
not rather have there one single salt mackerel than a whole barrel of mullet ?—A. 
No, I cannot say anything about that—as to their preference. 
Q. I was told that this was the case no longer ago than this morning by a lady who 
has lived there, and I wanted to know what your experience in this respect was.—A. 
I must to my shame confess that I have never tasted a salt mullet; but I propose, as 
soon as I go home, to get a barrel of them and I will send some to Halifax for the 
Commission. I hope they will make up their minds to try them; I willdo it the very 
first thing after I reach home, and I hope you will all try them. 
Q. Is it not a fact well known to those who are engaged in the sea-fisheries that 
Southern fish, or, in other words, fish taken in warm waters, are fish that will not 
bear transportation to Northern climates ?—A. I cannot say anything about that at 
all, but I know the only peculiarity about mullet is, that itis a fall and winter fishery. 
It is a cold-water fishery. It begins in September and lasts until Novem ber and De- 
cember. 
Q. You say it is a cold-water fishery, but the water is nothing like as cold there as 
it is in our waters during the same months ?—A. No; but the water there is about as 
cold in winter—if not then quite as cold—as it is here-in the summer time. 
Q. Could cod, from your knowledge, live in the waters which are frequented by the 
mullet?—A. No; neither could the mullet live in the waters which are frequented 
: by the cod. 
Q. Are not the mullet also a fat fish ?—A. Yes; they are very fat. 
Q. Is not this fact also against transportation ?—A. Ido not know. Iam not 
versed in the physics of transportation. 
Q. How long ago is it since you first turned your attention tothe fisheries at all ?— 
A. Ihave done so since 1871. 
Q. Previous to that time your specialty lay in another direction ?—A. No; I have 
always been interested in fish as a branch of zoology for a great many years. I have 
been a specialist in icthyology, and I described, prior to that date, hundreds of new 
species, 
Q. Speaking about the pounds established along the New England shore, how 
many of them did you say were there 7—A. Ninety-four. 
Q. In answer to Mr. Dana you stated that this kind of fishing was open under the 
Washington treaty to British fishermen; do you think that you are quite right in stat- 
ing that ?—A. Yes. 
Q. Do you think that under this treaty we have a right to set down pounds upon 
American soil?—A. You can, subject to the consent of the owners of the shore—just 
the’same as with respect to any fishery so prosecuted in the Dominion. 
Q. is it possible for any person to carry on the business of pound fishing, except he 
is a resident on the coast ?—A. I see no reason why any one from Canada could not 
go to Long Island Sound or to Vineyard Sound and prosecute this fishery. 
Q. Then such a person must reside there?7—A. No; very few of these pounds, and 
I think I may say that not one-half of the pound fishing in Buzzard’s Bay and Vine- 
yard Sound, are prosecuted by citizens of the State. 
