(''' 



—A- 



i 



222 



Brilish Ainprit'an watiTH, is wholly iiiiHuit(>(i to the piirHiiit of the mnckerel which 

 hnH lioen m» largely earricd on I'V Uniteil Stnten' Hslicrmen. ImineiiHe mIidoIs of 

 mackerel are Ireqiiently left iiiimoU'sted in the jjiilf and on the eoant of NewTmind- 

 Innd, in innsecinenee of the tishernien lieinjj niinrovided with Hnilal)le veHNels and 

 iiMhin}; gear. It is, however, a reserve for the Itiliire, which at no distant day will 

 be ntili'/.ed." Then he goes on to remark that the use of the tilcgrapl) is likelv to 

 beeontc of great value in connection with these tisheric; , 



Now, is there any e\|ilanation of these statements, except that the *iulk of the 

 mackerel are caught n»ore than three miles oil, in the luxiv of the gulf ? If it is 

 a '* special iiulustry " to which hoats are wholly unsiiited, can it possilily he true 

 that a great proportion of the Hsh is caught within three miles of tlie shore i I low 

 can you account for these statements of their scientiiic wilniss in his elahorale 

 Report, except l»y the fact that he knows that the mackerel fishery is, so large a 

 part of it, a liNhcry more tlian three miles oil' the coast that it can profitably be 

 pursued only in vessels? 



There are two «>thcr things that lie beyond the range of controverHy to which I 

 wish to call yt.ur attention. In the first place, there is a statement made by the 

 I'nited Slates' ('t)nsul at Prince Kdward Island, J. II. Sherman, back in IWH, in a 

 communication to the Secretary of State at Washington, long before any (picstion 

 of compensation had arisen; a confidential comnninication to his own Ciovernment 

 by a man who had c\cry opportunity to observe, and no motive to mislead. Il(> 

 was writing with reference to the value of the inshore fisheries, and the Htatement 

 so perfectly <'(irrespoiids with what I lielie\c to be the real truth that I desire to 

 re.id it: "Tiie Hcciprocify Treaty seems to have been an unalloyed boon to the 

 Ciilony. The principal benefit that was expected to aceriw to the Uiutcd States by 

 its operation was from the removal of the restrictions upon our vessels engaged in 

 the fisheries, to a distance of three marine miles from the shore; but whatever 

 adxantage might have been anticipated from that cau.se has failed to he realized. 



"The number of vessels (-ngaged in the fisheries on the shores of this Colony 

 has greativ dinnnished since the adoption of that Treaty, so that it is now less than 

 oiie-h.iif the form<'r nuinlier. The restriction to three marine miles from the shore 

 (which we imposed upon ourselves under a former Tre.ity) has, I am assured, but 

 few, if an\ disadvantages, as the best fish are caught outside that distance, and the 

 vessels are filled in less time, from the fact that the men urc liable to no loss of time 

 from idling on the shore." 



Next take Appendix K of the British Case. Look at the Meport of the Kxecu- 

 tive Council of i'rince Kdward Island, made to the Ottawa (iovernment in IS71, 

 with reference to the preparation of this very <ase. They are uiider'aking to .show 

 how large a claim can be made in behalf of the inshore fisheries of the island, and 

 what do they say ? Page '.i, paragraph H: — " From the 1st July to the 1st October 

 is the mackerel season around our coasts, during which time the Cnitetl States' 

 fishing fleet pursues its work, and it has been shown" (I d(f not know where it 

 has been shown) "that in IH72 over l,(KK) sail of Unite<l States' schooners, from 40 

 to 100 tons, were enu^iged in the mackerel fishery alone." .More than the whole 

 number of ti.e I'nited States' vessels licensed to pursue the mackerel and cod 

 fisheries in that year; so that those statistics were large, ami the gentUrmen wlio 

 prepared this slateiuent were not indisposed to do full justice to their claims. Tiiuy 

 did not mean to understate the use made of the iisluM'ies of the island, nor the 

 import.incc of ihem to the United Stales' fishenneii. ''This fact, together with our 

 experience in the collection of ' IJght-money,' now abolished, as well .is Irom actual 

 observation, a fair average of United States' vessels fishing around our coasts during 

 the season referred to ma\ be safely stated at 1500 sail; and as a season's work is 

 usually alioiit (500 barrels per vessel, ire win/ fairly put down oitf-llnril of the calch an 

 lakm insldr of IIip ihrce-milp limit." 



Such w.is the ext<'nt of the claim of the Prince Edward l8lan<l (iovernment 

 with refereiK-e to the proportion of the inshore and oH'shore catch of mackerel, 

 when they began to jirepare this case. After this, they may pile afiidavits as high 

 as they plci^e. they can never do away with the effect of that statement. Those 

 gentlemen know tix' truth. The rest of this paragraph goes on to estimate that 

 5 dollars a barrel is the net cost of the fish, but I will not go into that. 



Mr. T/i';/'ivo/i — You will not adopt that whole paragraph? 



Mr. rosier. — Hardly. I adopt the statement, that in the judgment of the 

 Executive Cnuncil of the islan<l, the strongest claim that they could make us tu 

 the proportion of mackerel taken within three miles of the shore was one-third. 



