AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1611 



yet they preferred to submit to that inevitable inference rather than 

 have the real fact appear. Eather than to have it really appear how 

 much the 58 Gloucester vessels caught in the bay that year, they prefer 

 to submit to the inference which must necessarily be drawn, which is 

 this and it is corroborated by the testimony of many of their witnesses 

 that that year the fishing in the bay was a total failure. I can throw a 

 little more light on the result of the fishing in the bay that year. There 

 were 58 vessels from Gloucester, which averaged a catch of 191 barrels, 

 while 117 on the United States coast caught an average of 409 barrels. 

 This comes from the statistics for the Centennial: 11,078 barrels of 

 mackerel taken from the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1875 is all that we 

 know about. What more there were our friends will not tell us, because 

 the aggregate of 11,078 barrels caught by 58 vessels, averaging 191 

 barrels a vessel, is so much better result than the Port Mulgrave returns 

 would show, that they prefer to keep the returns back. I think, gentle- 

 men, that this argument from the official evidence in your possession 

 is one that, under the circumstances, you must expect to have drawn. 

 That year, so far as we know, only 11,078 barrels of mackerel came out 

 of the gulf; but double it. You will observe that more than half of the 

 vessels have come from Gloucester every year. The previous year, there 

 were 98 out of 164. Let us double the number of vessels that came 

 from Gloucester. Suppose that there were as many vessels came from 

 other places, and that they did as well. The result would give you 

 23,156 barrels. Take the actual result of the Gloucester vessels ; sup- 

 pose as many more came from other places, when we know that thcr 

 previous year a majority came from Gloucester, (I want to be careful in 

 this, for I think it is important), and about 23,000 barrels of mackerel 

 were taken out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the year 1875, against 

 an importation of 77,538 barrels into the United States from the prov- 

 inces, on which a duty was saved of $155,076. 



In the year 1876, by the official statement, which was lost, 27 trip* 

 were returned to the custom-house as being made by Gloucester vessels 

 to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I cannot verify that ; it depends merely 

 upon memory. We have not had the Port Mulgrave returns. I give 

 my friends leave to put them in now, if they will do so, or give us an 

 opportunity to examine them. I invite them to put them in now if they 

 think I am overstating the result. There were 27 Gloucester vessels (I 

 may be in error about this ; it is mere memory) came to the gulf in 1876. 

 The Massachusetts inspection was 225,941 barrels ; the New Hampshire 

 inspection was 5,351 barrels. The United States importation was 

 76,538 barrels. Duty saved, $153,076. To be sure, they will say that 

 1875 and 1876 were poor years. They were poor years no doubt about 

 that but average them with 1873 and 1874 and see if the result is in 

 the least favorable; see if they are able to show any considerable ban- 

 efit derived by our people from inshore fishing, or anything which com- 

 pares with the saving in respect to duty that they make. 



When we began this investigation nearly every witness that was ex- 

 amined was asked whether the prospects for the present year were not 

 very good ; whether it was not likely to be an admirable mackerel year 

 in the gulf, and they said " Yes." They said the gulf was full of mack- 

 erel. Somehow or other that impression got abroad, and our vessels 

 came down here in greater numbers than before for several years. One 

 witness has seen 50 or 75 vessels there. I think 76 came from Glouces- 

 ter. There may have been 100 there in all. You will recollect that one 

 witness said the traders in Canso telegraphed how fine the prospects 

 were, with a view probably to increase their custom ; but they did ex- 



