BRITISH, COLONIAL AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 459 



herring fishery, you only allowed them to increase their codfishery, 

 and thus do us a great harm indirectly. He, Mr. M., had pointed out 

 that he was not against the policy of refusing bait to the fishermen 

 of the United States, but he saw all the losses on the one side and all 

 the advantages on the other. What he wanted to be distinctly under- 

 stood in was that he was opposed to the loss of the winter herring 

 fishery. At the present time we caught the herring and sold them at 

 our own prices of $1.25 per barrel. We used our own measure, and 

 our own agents, and the fish went away under bond to the customs 

 that such was not to be used for bait, but was to be deposited in some 

 port in the United States, when the bond was delivered. It was true 

 we could not trace it after that, but we had the satisfaction of know- 

 ing that we had the control of them so far. This measure would only 

 prevent our people from selling them, and the American fishermen 

 would bring his own implements and have his own measure, and 

 would buy at his own price, and they would not go away under bond 

 and he would land them wherever he pleased. Was it not much 

 better to have them under bond to us so that we could control them, 

 and know their landing place. With this bill in force he thought we 

 could not. Was it not much better for the American to buy from 

 us than to catch them himself. Was it not better that he should use 

 our measure than his own, and have our fixed price than any price 

 he cared to put on them. They would have bait, and was it not as 

 well that they should buy it from us as catch it himself, and he 

 believed that the American fishermen preferred to buy from us 

 rather than catch it himself. If we allowed this fishery to pass out 

 of our own hands, and let them do their own catching, they would 

 never give it up, and we may get the Hay-Bond treaty, but we would 

 never get back our trade or our winter herring fishery. Once he gets 

 hired men to do the work for him he will never purchase bait again, 

 even though we invited him to come back. That was one reason 

 why he was opposed to the bill. Another reason was it did not go 

 far enough. He thought that such a measure regarding the bait 

 supply might be made permanent, and if it were not permanent then 

 it was no good. Further, he was against the principle of the bill. 

 Its principle was that of retaliation and not the expediency of a bait 

 supply. It may be asked what good would come of a permanent bill 

 and what harm would result from a transitory bill. If this were 

 enforced for one year, there would be no investors in the herring 

 fishery, and it would not build up a merchant marine. There would 

 be no encouragement to build up a business, because after a year the 

 bill may be repealed and the Americans could again come and fish 

 side by side and compete in the markets with our fishermen. What 

 harm could it do? He did not dispute that the herring fishery was 

 not so valuable as the cod fishery, but many of our people made good 

 money by the sale of herring to the fishermen of the United States. 

 This measure would not increase the number of vessels. A great 

 many would lose employment, and no good would result to the coun- 

 try at large. If the measure were only enforced temporarily the 

 injury would be permanent, whereas on the other hand in the end 

 it would do good for the people at large for then each could share in 

 the others prosperity. For these reasons he. Mr. M., would enforce 

 the restriction of bait permanently, and would not support a tem- 

 porary measure. This document was worthless when it was passed. 



