2830 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



the spot; the catch consumed iii seaport towns and villages cannot be in- 

 cluded in this enumeration. 



Q. Are these caught within the treaty limits ? A. All those fish 

 which I have mentioned are caught east of Cape May. 



Q. Northeast? A. Yes; and all caught close to the shore, by traps or 

 pounds, usually within 100 to 300 yards of the shore, or by gill-nets and 

 hand-lines, used by men also from the shore. 



Q. The whole fishery, with pounds and nets, that goes on from the 

 shore, and with hook and line for market fish, all comes within the 

 treaty limits ? A. Yes, of course, the mullet and winter blnefish are 

 south of the treaty limits ; but all the fish are practically within the 

 treaty limits. 



Q. And in those fisheries the Canadians have the same rights as Amer- 

 icans ? A. The Canadians have the same rights there as we have. It 

 does not include the fishery, not of Cape Cod Bay and round to East- 

 port. 



Q. Can you make any comparison of the corresponding ratio per mile 

 or otherwise of the Canadian fisheries ? A. I do not think I could, be- 

 cause I believe the returns of the Canadian fisheries are not so large as 

 they should be. I do not believe the Canadian returns are in proportion 

 to the actual catch. I therefore think a comparative statement would 

 be fallacious, and I would rather not make it. 



Q. Some Canada tables have been published of the fisheries of 1876, 

 including, perhaps, cod and herring ? A. Those relate to all the fish- 

 eries. This estimate I submit is for weir-fishing on a limited coast. 



Q. The Canadian returns show a total amount of $11,000,000 ? A. I 

 think the total estimate of the Canadian fisheries for 1876 is between 

 $11,000,000 and $12,000,000. 



Q. If you put that of the United States at $50,000,000, would that be 

 a low or high estimate ? A. I think we could figure up over 840,000,000 

 without any difficulty ; that is, for all the fisheries. 



Q. Including the lake fisheries ? A. Including hake, ring, and shell- 

 fish. Our oyster fisheries are worth 830,000,000 a year. 



Q. That is nearly double the entire Canadian return ? A. Perhaps. 

 There are $3,000.000 worth of oysters put in cans in Baltimore yearly. 



Q. They are all included in the Canadian returns ? A. I think so. 

 Those industries with them are not so important as ours. Our off shore 

 codfish, lake and river, shad, salmon, herring, lobster, crab, oyster, and 

 clam fisheries are included. 



Q. Now, with reasonable legislation to limit certain methods of fishing, 

 is there in your judgment any danger of the existence of the inshore, 

 coast, and lake fisheries f A. I think that the lake fisheries would have 

 been exhausted and greatly destroyed in a comparatively limited num- 

 ber of years but for the timely warning taken by Canada and the United 

 States and the measures initiated in both countries for increasing the 

 supply. 



Q. You yourself have been very much engaged on the subject of the 

 propagation of fish ? A. Not so much in the lakes directly as in the 

 rivers. 



Q. You have shipped some of your fish by rail to California? A. 

 Yes. 



Q. I remember reading an account of one of your large collections for 

 California being lodged in one of the rivers by a bridge breaking down, 

 for which collection the State has never paid I A. Yes, a car of live fish 

 which was being sent to California. 



Q. In order to get some idea of the manipulation practiced in the breed- 







