219 



to mc tli.-it somebody would know something more definite about it than has appeared 

 in tills ovidciice. ("ortaiidy, there has been earnest zeal, and the most indefa- 

 tigable industry in the preparation of tiie Uritish Case. Nobody doubts that. 

 There has iiecii every facility to procure evidence ; and arc we not entitled to require 

 at llic hiiiids of llcr Majesty's (iovcrnment something that is more definite and 

 tan<>-ible than has a|)pearcd on this subject ? I have made all the inquiry in my 

 power, and I cannot hnd out what the vessels arc, who their captains arc, from what 

 |)orls they conic, or to what .narlxcts they return. Wc know very well what the 

 (iloiiccstcr herring fleet is. It is a fleet that goes to buy iicrringi that buys it at 

 (irandManan ; that buys it at the Magdalen islands; thui ouys it in Newfoundland; 

 but of any fleet that lishcs for herring in the territorial waters of New Brunswick, 

 alter the utmost incjuiry we can make, we remain totally ignorant. 



There is another \'w\v of this sul)ject, which ought, it seems to me, to be 

 (leeisive. Everybody admits that herring is one of tlic chea|K'st and poorest of 

 fish, and liial the lornier duty of 1 dollar a barrel, and 5 c. a box on smoked herring, 

 would bi; al>solutely prohibitory in the markets of the United States. Now, how 

 much must these New Hrunswiek fishermen gain if they have as large a lisliery as wc 

 have, and we have a fishery of l,50(),()0() dollars in that vicinity? That is their 

 statement; the Hrilish fishery is about equal to the American; the American is 

 very near to I.'jOU.OOO dollars a year in that vicinity; the Uritish caught fish go 

 to the United States' markets almost exclusively -1 think one witness did say 

 two-thirds; everybody else has spoken as if the herring market was in the United 

 Slates ••ilmiiMl allogelliei'. llow niaiiv i)airels of herring does it take to come 

 to 1,000,000 dollars.' We will let the other ijOO.OOO dollars l)e supposed to 

 consist of siiiokc«l herrin-;- in boxes. How manv barrels of herring does it take ? 

 \\'\\\, it takes 300,(H)() or 1UO,OI)3. The herring sell for from 2 to 4 dollars a barrel. 

 It t.ikes 2.')(l,()0(), ;iU(),<)i)(), or ^00.000 barrels of herring— and a duty of 1 dollar is 

 remitted upon each 'jaini, — a duty which would exclude them from our market, 

 li if were reimposed. Is not that a sullicicnt compensation? If you believe that 

 our people eateh herring there to any considerable extent, is not that market, from 

 w hich tiicse people derive, according to their own showing, .so large sums of money, 

 air c(|uivalent? Remember, they say we catch 1,0!)'),()00 to 1,500,000 dollars' 

 worth; they say they ealcii as many; they say it nearly all goed to our market; 

 the duty saved is 1 dollar a l)arrel ; and according to tiieir own figures, they must 

 be reapiiii;- a golden iiarvest. Happy lishcrmcn of New Brunswick! By the 

 statistics, titev earn four oi' five times as miieii as the fishermen of Prince Edward 

 l.^l.ind, and the witnesses sav that tliev earn reallv two or three times as much as 

 the statistics show! They are receiving from 1,<)(I(),0U0 to 1,500,000 dollars for 

 tish sold eiiieilv in the markets of the rnitcd States, and the saving in duty is 

 several hiiiulred thousand dollars. It is true that we cannot find imported into 

 the United Slates any such quantity of herring ; still, that is the account that they 

 give of it. 



This brings me, gentlemen, to the question of the inshore mackerel fishery — that 

 portion of the case which seems to mc, upon the evidence, to be the priucipul part, I 

 might almost say the only part, re(juiring to be discussed. Y' jr jurisdiction is to 

 ascertain the value of those fisheries for a period of twelve years, Ironi .July 1, 1873, 

 to .luly 1, 18N.>, Of (li()sc twelve years, five have already elapsed ; one fishing year 

 has passed since the session of this Commission began. Inasmuch as the twelve 

 years w ill terminate hei'ore the beginning of the fishing year in the Gulf of St. 

 Lawrenee lor iSSo, if is precisely correct to say, that five years have elapsed and 

 seven remain. It is of no conset|ucncc how valuable these fisheries have been at 

 perioiis ant<-eedent to the Treaty, nor how valuable or valueless you may think 

 they are likely to become al'icr the Treaty shall have expired. The twelve years' 

 s|)ace oC lime limits your jurisdiction, and five-twelfths of that time is to be judged 

 oi', by the testimony, as to the past. The results of the five years are before you. 

 As to the seven reuiaiiiing \ ears, the burden of proof is upon Her Majesty's 

 {iovernmeiii lo show what benefit the citizens of the Uuitetl States may reasonably 

 be e\j)eeted to derive (luring that time liom these fisheries. It will be for you to 

 estimate the fuliire by the past, as well as you may be able. 



T'lis i.-, a jiiirely l>nsiness (juestion. Although it arises between two great 

 (iovcinnieiits, it is to l.>e dccitied upon the same principles of evidence as if it were 

 a el.iim between two men, as if it was a (piestion how much each skipper that 

 enters thednii of St. Lawrence to tish for mackerel «)ught to payout of his own 

 pocket, Wc are engaged in what the London "Times" ha- truly called a "great 



