1606 AWARD OF 1HE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



wa* from the removal of the restrictions upon our vessels engaged in the fisheries to a 

 diMaiu-e of time marine miles from the shore ; but whatever advantage might have 

 been anticipated from that cause has failed to be realized. 



The number of vessels engaged iu the fisheries on the shores of this colony has 

 creatlv diminished since tin; adoption of that treaty, so that it is now less than one- 

 half the former number. The restriction to three marine miles from the shore (which 

 we imiH>sed upon ourselves under a former treaty) has, I am assured, but a few, if any 

 alvaiita"es, as the best tish are caught outside of that distance, and the vessels are 

 tilled iii le.-V time, from the fact that the men are liable to no loss of time from idling 

 on the shore. 



Xext take Appendix E of the British Case. Look at the report of the 

 executive council of Priuce Edward Island, made to the Ottawa Gov- 

 ernment in 1874, with reference to the preparation of this very case. 

 They are undertaking to show how large a claim can he made in behalf 

 of the inshore fisheries of the island, and what do they say (page 3, 

 paragraph 8) ? 



From the 1st of July to the 1st of October is the mackerel season around our coasts, 

 during which time the United States fishing-fleet pursues its work, and as it has been 

 shown 



I do not know where it has been shown 



that in 1-72 over one thousand sail of United States schooners, from 40 to 100 tons, 

 were engaged in the mackerel fishery alone. 



More than the whole number of the United States vessels licensed to 

 pursue the mackerel and cod fisheries in that year; so that those statis- 

 tics were large, and the gentlemen who prepared this statement were 

 not indisposed to do full justice to their claims. They did not mean to 

 understate the use made of the fisheries of the island nor the impor- 

 tance of them to the United States fishermen. 



This fact, together with our experience in the collection of " light-money,'' now 

 abolished, as well as from actual observation, a fair average of United States vessels 

 fishing around our coast during the season referred to may be safely stated at three 

 hundred sail, and as a season's work is usually about six hundred barrels per vessel, 

 K* may fairly put doicn one-third of the catch as taken inside of the three-mile limit. 



Such was the extent of the claim of the Prince Edward Island Gov- 

 ernment with reference to the proportion of the inshore and off shore 

 catch of mackerel when they began to prepare this case. After this, 

 they may pile affidavits as high as they please, they can never do away 

 with the effect of that statement. Those gentlemen know the truth. 

 The rest of this paragraph goes on to estimate that $5 a barrel is the 

 net cost of the tish ; but I will not go into that. 

 Mr. THOMSON. You will adopt that whole paragraph? 

 Mr. FOSTER. Hardly. I adopt the statement that, in the judgment 

 of the executive council of the island, the strongest claim that they could 

 make as to the proportion of mackerel taken within three miles of the 

 shore was one-third. 



Hut we have more evidence about this inshore fishery, for I am now 



trying to call your attention to those matters that lie outside the range 



itroversy, where you cannot say that the witnesses, under the 



pressure f excited feeling, are making extravagant statements. Let 



t Hie statement was in the debates upon the adoption of the 



Dr. Tapper, of Halifax, in giving an account of the state of the 



"The member for West Durham stated that if Canada' 



tinned the policy of exclusion, the American fisheries would very 



lave utterly failed, and they would have been at our mercy. This 



great mistake. Last summer he went down in a steamer from 



isle to Pictou, and fell in with a fleet of thirty American fishing- 



l, which had averaged three hundred barrels of mackerel in three 



