T«r 



•J'J4 



!!' 



h 



furniahos 7 per cent, (he does not say where it eonies I'rom) ; Nova Scotia, 80 per 

 cent. ; New Itninswiek, :\ |)cr cent. , and Prinee Kdward Ishmd, 10 per cent. Con- 

 sidering the fact that the preponderunee oi" the testimony in ref;ard to the mackerel 

 fishery comes I'ronj Prince Kdward Island, is it not stranj^c that it tioes not rnrnish 

 niore'tlian U> per cent, of the entire catch? Tliat is, not more than I'J.iHUJor 

 10,000 barrels ol' mackerel a-vear. Hut this accords with the Report ol J. ('. Tach<j, 

 l)c|)Uty Alinister of Aj;ricuitHre, pages 4.'5 and 44, which is the most intclli};il)ic 

 report, or statistical memoranda, of the Canadian Kisheries that I have I'onnd. It 

 bears date 1870, and in narrow contpass, is more intt llif^ihle tt) me, at least, than 

 the separate statements which I am ol»li};ed to draw I'rom the large volumes. 

 Mr. Tachc says that "the ligurcs of the Fisheries Report are a very great deal 

 short of the real (piantities caught every year as regards cod and herring, altlioiigh 

 coming (jiiitc close to the catch of mackerel. The reason is that it is specially from 

 large commercial houses, wiiieh are principally exporters of lish, that the informa- 

 tion is gathere.! by the Kisheries ollicers ; then it comes tiiat mackerel, being princi- 

 pally ttbtained for exportation, and held in bond by large dealers, is found almost 

 ade(piately represented in these returns." 



When I jailed Professor Hind's attention to tluse statements, and rem.irkcd 

 to him that we had iiol heard much said about the places where mackerel were 

 caught iu Nova S'otia, he r<'plie»l it was because there was an invMcnse boat- 

 catch on tlie coast. If there has been any evidence of United iStates' vess«'ls 

 fi-jhing for mackerel within three miles of the shores, nr more than three mih's from 

 the shore of the outer coast of Nova Scolia, it has esiaped my attention. 'I'liere is 

 no c»)nsideralil(> evidence, I do not know but I might say, no appreciable evidence, 

 of United St;iles' vessels fishing for mackerel <ifr the cn.'ist of Nova Scotia (I am 

 not now s|)eaking of Maigaree, but the coast of Nova Si'olia). As to Capr Rreton, 

 very little evidence has been given except in reference to the waters in the neigh- 

 bourhood of Port Hood. 



You will observe that this estimate of the Prince Kdward Island fisheries, 

 10 |)er cent., musi be nearly correct. It is l.irger than the returns of ex|)ortation. a 

 little larger than .Mr. Mall's e.timate, and I think if I sa\ that from I'J.dOO to l.'i.OOO 

 barrels of mackerel are annually exported from Prince KdwanI Island, I shall do 

 full justice to the aveiage (piantiiy ol li'^ii i.iiiglit there. Now, it does seem to me 

 that there has been no evidi-nci; that can tend to lead you to suppose that the 

 (piantity taken i)y United States" vessels in that neighbourhood since the Treaty of 

 Washington, live years ago, compares at .ill in magnitude with the (pijinlity taken 

 by the island vessels themselves. 



There are some other topics coiiiieclcd with tlw in.aekeiel catch to which I wjint 

 to call your attention .Hjineinbei', gentlemen, alwjiys, that we hold this investi- 

 gation down to the prriod of the Treaty ; and tii.it < ou have no right to mak,' any 

 award against the United .States for anything interioi to the 1st (lay of July, 1h7;^, 

 or subseipieiit to twelve years later th.aii that. 



Now, 1 wish to presenr some figures relative to the years that have elapsiMl 

 since the lislieiy eliuises oflh"- Treaty of Washington took elleet. I will begin with 

 1k73. That \ear, tlie .Mas.saehusetts inspection ol inaekerel was iN.'i.riS bbls. ; the 

 Maine inspection was 22,1 '.).'l bbls. ; the S'l-w I l.iinpshire iiispeelioii w ,is 2,;<!).S bids. 

 (I am tpioting now from .Appendix ().) The total amount ot the .Massachnselts, 

 Alaine, and New I l.ampshire ins|u'etion for tin- \ear l^?-?, is 'JiO.IW.t blils. 'I'liat is 

 the entire amount eau;;ht by I'liited Stales' vessels and boats around our shores, 

 coasts, and in the (Julf of .St. liawienei'. Whatever comes from our \es.s(is appears 

 in the inspeelion. During that \e;ir we are favoiiied witli the returns from Port 

 Mulgrave: and, allowing for a little natural spirit of ex.iggeration, which some 

 migl ' attribute to thr- patriotic icelings uf the eolleetor, and others to the disposition 

 of .\nierie;in (isheinn'ii to tell as good st«)ries of their catch .as tliev c;ii;, we find the 

 Port .Mulgrave ret urns to be pretty .•ieeiir;ite. Tln'\ aic a few per cent, in excess of 

 the statistics ol tiie citelH's, with whi<h I ha\e eonipaied them to souu; extent ; but 

 still are tolerably accurate and fair returns for that year. They give 'J51 vessels, 

 with an average catch of :)4s sea barrels, and ."il.'J packed liarrcds, aggregating 

 8s,()l2 sea barrels. Taking olf lo per cent, for loss by p.aeking. which ai ; onis with 

 the current of tin' testimony the Port .Mulgrave inspector estimates the loss by 

 packing to be 7i jjer cent, and he estimates If) bbls. oil', but the current .if the 

 testimony makes it 10 per cent. — the aggregate was 7'.),'Jl I |.:ieked barrels. Of the 

 2o I vessels, l.'t! came from (Jloiiec-ler. Of these 'J.'it vessels. 'j') wcmc lost that year, 

 a loss of 10 per cent, of all tli(! United .Stales' \cssels hat were in the gull. t)ne- 



