2022 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



little shanty and set mackerel-nets, and are now prosecuting the net- 

 fisbing there. They went last year and did not do anything, and hav- 

 ing the fishing-gear they went this year, but I don't know what the 

 result will be. I want to state this because they belong to my own 

 town. 



Q. Is il not singular that they should follow an unprofitable business 

 a second year? A. Xo; not in fishing. 



Q. Would you do so? A. Here is the inducement: A man goes into 

 the fishery business, and gets apparatus to work with, which costs money, 

 and he prosecutes the fishery, but makes a failure that year. He has 

 all the gear left on which he spent hundreds of dollars, and only needs 

 to spend a little to replace some articles, so lie tries again and hopes for 

 better luck. That is the way with fishermen. 



Q. Would they go three, four, five, or six years if unsuccessful ? A. 

 If they don't do anything this year they may wind up. Half a dozen 

 went last year and have gone again this year. What the future will be 

 with them I don't know. 



Q. Is it not a fair conclusion to arrive at, that their business was 

 profitable last year, as they have gone again this year? A. Xo. I 

 know it was not profitable last year from the quantity of fish they 

 caught and brought in ; they would hardly pay their expenses. 



Q. Is it in accord with the American acuteness and keenness in busi- 

 ness to follow up a business that is unprofitable ? A. Men are not ac- 

 customed to follow a business that is unprofitable, but a second year 

 might be tried. These men went with good faith last year, and they 

 said mackerel did nor come. I will give you the reason why the mack- 

 erel did not come. The ice remained in the gulf last year very late, 

 hence the water was colder than it would have been under ordinary cir- 

 cumstances. When the ice went away the mackerel did not come in, as 

 was expected. The ice went away earlier this season, and men have 

 done better. 



Q. That is another result from what you have heard ! A. I heard all 

 about that. I did not go there. 



Q. Did I understand you correctly that your people had not carried 

 on mackerel-fishing profitably since IS13 ; is that the case ? A. On our 

 coasts ? 



Q. In the gulf? A. They have not made any profit in fishing in the 

 gulf for mackerel since 1873. All the fishing there has been poor. 



Q. Nor on your own coasts ? A. On our own coasts it has not been a 

 successful and lucrative business. Our fleet has been gradually dimin- 

 ishing. 



Q. Do you consider it strange that from the commencement of the 

 operation of the Washington Treaty the mackerel fishery should have 

 been unsuccessful ? A. I don't think the mackerel know anything 

 about the Washington Treaty, but those who went there years before 

 the Washington Treaty went into effect caught 261 barrels on an aver- 

 age those were three vessels which went there and since we have had 

 the right to fish inshore they have not averaged anywhere near as many. 

 That statement I gave in on paper in my remarks yesterday. 

 By Mr. Thomson : 



Q. I was speaking to you about mackerel ; are yon aware that in the 

 opening of the year, as they come on the coast they are blind ? A. 1 

 know the fishermen have got the notion that they are blind, that they 

 have scales over the eyes. 



Q. Do you agree with that idea ? A. They compute it to be because 

 they don't bite ; but I don't think that is the reason they don't bite. 



