1G10 AWAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



the (hit v of 62 a barrel would amount to $181,778. The value of the fish 

 hat our people caught is $1)9,000, ami the British fishermen gain in the 

 irmission of duties nearly $182,000. 



I^xtk at it in another way. Does anybody doubt that, barrel for bar- 

 rel, the right to import mackerel free of duty is worth more than the 

 ig'ht to fish for them ? Is not the right to carry into the United States 

 market, after they are caught, a barrel of mackerel, worth as much as 

 the right to fish fora barrel of mackerel off the bight of the island! 

 Estimating it so, 00,889 barrels came in duty free, and there were caught 

 in the gulf by American vessels, 79,211 barrels. That is the first year 

 of the treaty, and by far the best year. 



The next year, 1874, the Massachusetts inspection was 255,380 bar- 

 rels. Since 1873 there has been no return from Maine. There is no 

 general insj>ector, and the Secretary of State informs us that the local 

 inspectors do not make any returns. I suppose that if you call the Maine 

 catch 2i',000 barrels, the same as the year before, you will do full justice 

 to it, for the Maine mackerel fishery, according to the testimony, has 

 obviously declined for years. The inspection in New Hampshire was 

 5,519 barrels. There was imported into the United States that year 

 from the provinces, 89,693 barrels, on which there was saved a duty of 

 * 179,386. That year the Port Mul grave returns show 164 vessels to 

 have been in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, of which 98 came from Glouces- 

 ter: G3,078i sea-barrels, or 56,770 packed barrels, were taken. The 

 Gloucester vessels caught 48,813 barrels. Take these 56,770 packed 

 barrels as the aggregate catch in the year 1874 in the Gulf of Saint 

 I^awrence, by United States vessels, and set them off against the 89,693 

 barrels imported into the United States, and where do you come out? 

 Pursuing the same estimate, that one-third may have been caught in- 

 shore an estimate which I insist is largely in excess of the fact there 

 would be 18,923 barrels caught inshore, which would be worth $70,961, 

 at Mr. Hall's prices; and you have 870,961 as the value, after they are 

 caught and landed, of the mackerel we took out of British territorial 

 waters, to set against a saving of $179,386 on American duties. That 

 is the second year. 



Now, come to 1875. That year the catch was small. The Massachu- 

 < inspection was only 130,064; the New Hampshire inspection, 

 barrels. The provincial importation into the United States is 

 77,538 barrels. That fell off somewhat, but far less than the Massa- 

 msetts inspection, in proportion. The duty saved is $155,076. Fifty - 

 ght Gloucester vessels are found in the bay, as we ascertain from the 

 I.entennial book, and Mr. Hind, speaking of the mackerel fishery in 

 , and quoting his statistics from some reliable source, says, " the 

 umber of Gloucester vessels finding employment in the mackerel fish- 

 Of these, 93 made southern trips, 117 fished off 



O " * ^' *^'VV*4.UkJ l\ > 1 *.\J | *J . J_ UC\ TT V/4. V 1 t I l i 



lave extracted that fact. We have called for them. I am sure 



d often and loud enough for the Port Mulgrave returns of 



\\ here are they ? They are not produced, although the 



i affidavit is here, as well as the returns for 1877, which we 



1 >t which I shall speak hereafter. The inference from the 



these returns is irresistible. Our friends on the other 



the concealment of these returns was conclusive evidence 



ere much worse than those of the previous vear, 1874; and 



