AWARD OP THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2835 



Government of the United States; be has precisely the same right to 

 give authority to put down a pound, I think, as has Ashby, who was a 

 witness here and a native of Connecticut. 



Q. That is to say that Mr. Forbes, who owns the land, could allow me 

 to go and put down a pound there? A. There is not the slightest 

 question about it. 



Q. Could he not do that before this treaty was ratified ? A. I do 

 not know whether he could do so or not; I cannot say anything about 

 that ; that is a legal question. 



Q. He could have given me that right previous to the treaty just as 

 well as since? A. I do not know what exact right the treaty may 

 give in this relation ; but that is no reason why this might not be done. 

 1 consider that this fishery is now perfectly open to Canadians. 



Q. Has not the mode in which the rivers on the coast of Maine have 

 been treated for a number of years back depleted the waters on that 

 coast or on the New England coast of cod, for instance, which you say 

 was once one of the most important fish found there ? A. The destruc- 

 tion of river fish, in my opinion, has had more to do with the diminu- 

 tion of inshore fish, such as cod and haddock 



Q. And mackerel, too ? A. No, not mackerel ; this has nothing to 

 do with them. Mackerel cannot be considered in that connection, be- 

 cause they do not depend on the fish of those rivers for food ; but I think 

 that such destruction has more than anything else to do with the de- 

 crease of these fish I have mentioned, inshore ; and the result of the 

 measures which are now being taken by the States of Maine and Mass- 

 achusetts, in restoring the river fisheries, will bring back the original 

 historical abundance of the sea-fish inshore. 



Q. What this will do is as yet in the womb of the future ; but at pres- 

 ent are not those fisheries depleted *? A. The boat-fisheries for cod and 

 haddock are now much inferior in yield on most parts of that coast to 

 what was the case 50 or 100 years ago. 



Q. You now allude to the coast-fisheries within the three-mile limit? 

 A. Yes; the fisheries carried on in open boats, which go out as far as a 

 man can comfortably go in a day and come back again. 



Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand that this system of 

 treating the rivers has destroyed the food of sea-fish, and therefore that 

 the bait or food is not there to induce the cod to come inshore, but that 

 this has had no effect on the fish outside of the three-mile limit! A. I 

 cannot say how far out the effect extends, because some distance outside 

 of the limits there are other fishes, such as herring and mackerel, and 

 food of various kinds which they can get at. 



Q. Is it possible that the inshore fisheries can be either destroyed or 



ry considerably depleted within the three-mile limit and yet leave the 

 sheries just outside of this limit as good as ever ? A. I think so. 



JQ. And undiminished ? A. I think so, for the very reason that these 

 li naturally keep off from the shore. They are off-shore fish, and we 

 d them largely inshore at certain seasons of the year because they 

 then follow the fish that are coming inshore ; and if you had an enor- 

 mous number of shad and alewives and salmon, and especially of ale- 

 wives and shad inshore, that involves their pursuit by an enormous 

 number of predatory fish, such as cod and haddock and pollock, just 

 exactly as the same fish follow the herring and caplin on the coasts of 

 the Dominion and Newfoundland. 



Q. Then I understand you to mean that, although the food which 

 these fishes prey upon may be destroyed by reason of the depletion of 

 the rivers, this will only affect the fishing within three miles of the shore 



