AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2259 



Q. I understand the impression you wish to leave is that the fleet 

 were not fishing with you ? A. The vessels were lying around from one 

 place to another, but there niight be six .or a dozen at the same time 

 when we hove to. 



Q. What impression do you want to leave as to whether the fleet was 

 fishing around you at Margaree or not? A. We didn't fish there long. 



Q. I do not care whether you fished there a day or a week. You can- 

 not tell ? A. How can I tell whether they were fishing ; there might 

 be a whole fleet. 



Q. The reason I want to know is that I have the evidence here of 

 men who did fish there. I want to see whether you state that fish were 

 not caught there that year. A. I say when we tried there was none. 



Q. You will not state whether the fleet was fishing with you ? A. 

 A part might be. 



Q. What number? A. A dozen vessels might run by us when we 

 hove to, and they would not heave to if they saw we were catching 

 nothing. 



Q. When were you first inspector of customs in Gloucester? A. 1863, 

 I think. 



Q. Have you been so ever since ? A. Yes. 



Q. What was the number of the fleet in 1865 ? A. There were 525 to 

 575 registered vessels. 



Q. From Gloucester alone? A. Yes. 



Q. Fishing- vessels, I mean ? A. No. Perhaps 400 fishing-vessels. 

 I am not positive about that. 



Q. Are there as many to-day ? A. Gloucester, as I speak of it now, 

 includes Eockport, Essex, and Manchester. 



Q. Say what it includes. A. Eockport, Manchester, and Essex. 

 There is one vessel or two in Manchester and none in Essex. 

 '. Q. Then 398 is the number for Gloucester. Has that fleet increased 

 or not ? A. ' It has decreased since that time, I think. 



Q. To any material extent ? A. Yes, sir. 



Q. What would you say I A. Perhaps 10 or 15 vessels fall off, and 

 then catch up again. 



Q. Does it now range about the same as it then did? A. I should 

 judge it had fallen off. 



Q. How much ? A. I don't know. I did not take the pains to inform 

 myself. I might have easily done so. 



"Q. I' refer to the fishing- vessels. How much have they fallen off; ten 

 or fifteen ? A. I should not like to say, because I don't know. 



Mr. DANA. You are inquiring as to the whole fishing-fleet? 



Mr. DAVIES. J am speaking generally first. 



Q. I see here in a list of vessels belonging to Gloucester, published by 

 John S. E. Eogers do you know him ? A. Yes. 

 . Q. Is he a reliable authority ? A. I suppose he calculates to be as near 

 as he can get. 



Q. He says : 



The foregoing list of vessels enrolled in the district of Gloucester is made up to August, 

 1876, and comprises the names of five hundred and thirteen vessels, of an aggregate touuage 

 of 31,841.07 tons, which is an increase of fourteen vessels and 1,706.31 tons, as compared 

 with the list of 1875. The new vessels which have come into the district average larger 

 than those which have gone out, consequently the increase of tonnage is much larger, m 

 proportion to the increase of number of vessels, than the average tonnage of the whole dis- 



