1794 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



under the treaty, whether the vessels sent out by the city of Gloucester,. 

 the towns of Wellfleet and Marblehead, or other towns on the New Eng- 

 land coast, are manned by British subjects or foreigners ? Wehave it in 

 evidence that some of the fishermen are Portuguese, some Spaniards, 

 Portuguese certainly, and I am not sure but that some were Danes, and 

 men belonging to the more northern nations. Why not have prepared 

 a schedule, showing how many of those who fished in American vessels, 

 and made money in them, were Portuguese or Spaniards, and asked us 

 to make deduction because they were not American citizens? The 

 whole money and profits of the voyages, excepting the men's shares, 

 went into the pockets of the merchants. Never was such an argument 

 heard as that the United States should not pay one dollar, because fish 

 might have been caught by Portuguese, Spaniards, or Frenchmen on 

 board of United States vessels. The United States mus.t be reduced to 

 very great straits in supporting their failing case before they would use 

 such an argument. I could not help thinking, after the evidence got 

 fairly launched, that the American counsel were much abroad as to 

 what their own case really was. I do not for one instant charge upon 

 Mr. Foster that, in preparing his case, he put in a single statement that 

 he did not believe to be absolutely true ; he necessarily had to receive 

 the information from somebody else. Yet you see throughout the United 

 States "Answer" statements that are, and must be admitted to be, 

 wholly without foundation. 



Look at this statement as put forward in the United States Answer, 

 which will remain on record as a statement of the views of the Govern- 

 ment and of the facts which the Government of the United States 

 pledged itself to prove : 



The United States inshore fisheries for mackerel, in quality, quantity, and value, are un- 

 surpassed by any in the world. 



So far from this being the fact, we had from the lips of witness after 

 witness, called on behalf of the United States, that their inshore fisheries 

 have entirely failed; that last year there was, as far as mackerel was con- 

 cerned, an exceptionally good catch upon their own coast, but that the 

 body of that catch was not taken within United States territorial 

 waters at all; but extended over areas of the sea from ten to fifty miles 

 distant from the shores. Yet this extraordinary statement is put upon 

 record. I say again 1 do not assume for an instant that Mr. Foster 

 wrote this on behalf of the United States, not believing it to be true. 

 [ believe that some parties or other, I do not know who, have given him 

 false and incorrect information, and he has committed the United States 

 to a statement that is utterly and wholly at variance with the facts. 

 Ihe Answer says: 



Thfi United States inshore fisheries for mackerel, in quality, quautity, and value, are un- 



d by any in the world. They are within four hours' sail of the American market, 



the mackerel are sold fresh at a larger price than when salted and packed. 



-1 with mackerel seines can use the same means and facilities for taking 



it both fisheries can be pursued together. And they combine advantages 



ompared with which the Dominion fisheries are uncertain, poor in quality, and vastly less 



in quantity. J " 



In Heaven's name if these Dominion fisheries are " uncertain, poor in 



ity, and vastly less in quantity," how happens it that such an ex- 



teincut has been aroused, and such an incendiary address been made 



before this Commission, as was delivered by Mr. Dana, and to which I 



I have to call the attention'of your excellency and your honors f If 



ishenes are so " uncertain, poor in quality, and vastly less in 



quantity, and miles and miles away from their own coast, what did 



