t _! 



2-26 



a 



we ascertain from the Centennial hook, and Mr. Hind, speaking of the mackerel 

 fishery in 1875, and quotins^ his statistics from some reliable source, says, "The 

 numher of (iloiiccster vessels fiiuling cmploynumt in the mackerel fishery in 1875 

 was 180. (^f these 9.1 made soul hern trips, 1 17 lishcd off shore, and 58 visited the 

 Bay of St. Lawrence; (ilK fares were received, 133 from I lie south, 425 from olT- 

 shore, and (iO from the bay." (Hind's llcport, pp. 88, 8!>.) Kifly-eight vessels fnmi 

 Gloucester made 00 trips. 



Now, where are the Port Mids^rave reliirns for 1875? They were ni.ide, for we 

 have extracted that tact. We have called for them. 1 am sure we have called 

 often and loud cnouj^ji for the Port Mulfjrave returns of I87'> and 1370. Where 

 are ihcyr They are not produced, althoujyh the collector's aflidavit is here, as 

 well as the returns for 1H77, which we obtained, and of which I shall speak 

 hereaftvr. The iidcrciicc fnim the keepini;; back of these returns is irresistible. 

 Our (Vieiuls on the otlu'r side knew th.it the concealment of these returns was 

 conclusive evidence that they weie much worse than those of the previous year, 

 |n74; and yet they preferred to sul)mil to tiiat inevitable inference rather than 

 ha\e the real fact appear. Hatlicr than to liave it really appear how much the 

 lifty-cif;ht (ilouccstcr vessels cauj^ht in the bay (hat year, they prefer to submit 

 to the infereiu-e which must necessarily be drawn, which is tliis— and it is 

 corroiiorated by the testimony of many of tiieir witnesses — that that year tiie 

 fishin<; in tiic h;iy was a tot.d failure. I can throw a little nior • li<;ht on the 

 result of tiie (isliinj^ in the bav that \ear. There were firty-ciu;hl vessels from 

 (ilonccster. w liicii averaged ;i <'.i(ch of liH bbls., w liile 1 17 on tiie lJnite»i States' 

 coast <au{;lit an averai;c of Id'.) bbls. This comes from the statist ies for the 

 Centennial; lljOT^i bbls. of mackerel taken from the (Jiilf of St. Lawrence in 

 lh7'» is all that we know about. What more there were our friends will not tell 

 us, because the aj;s;r('i;;ite of ll,07HbbIs. canjjht by tilt y-iM^ht vessels, averaging 

 101 bbls. a vessel, is so much better result th.an the Port Mulgrave returns 

 w»nild sliow, tliat they prefer to keep the returns back. I think, ijcntlemen, that 

 this ar<;;unient, from the ollicial evidence in your ])ossession. is one that, under 

 tli^' circnnist.iiiees, \ou must e.xpcct to have drawn. Tiiat year, so far as we 

 know, «)iil\ 11.078 bbls, of m.iekcrcl came out of the <;ulf; but double it. Vou 

 will observe that more than half of the vessels have conic from (ilouccstcr every 

 \ar. Tlu' pit'vious \e.»r (here were IK out of Kil. Let us double the number 

 (I vessels that came from (Jloucester, Suppose that there were as many vessels 

 (■ imc from other places, ;ind tiiat they did .'is well. The resnil v.ould ijive you 

 •Ji,l,i(i bbls. Take the .ictii.il result of the (Jloucester vessels; suppose as many 

 I .ore came from other i)laces. wlien we know that the pri'vious year a majority 

 c ime from (i|oucest<-r (I want to be c.irebil in tliis, for I think it is imporiaiit), 

 and about 'J.H.OdO i)bls, of mackeii'l were taken out of the (iulf of .St. Lawrence 

 ill the year i^7■'^ .jf^ainst an importation of 77,.'>'1>^ bbls into tin* United Slates 

 liom the provinces, on which a duly w.is saved of l.'>."i,07'i doihirs. 



In the ye;ir 187*), by the ollicial statement which was lost, twenty-seven trips 

 were retuiiied to the Custom House as beintj m.nle by (iloui'csler vessels to tiie 

 (iulf of St. Lawicnee. I cannot verii'v (hat; it depends merely upon memory. 

 We have not had the Port Muij^rave returns. I <jivc my friends leave to put them 

 in now. it they will do so. or give us an opportunily to ex.imine them. I invite 

 them to |iiil Ihi'in in now, if (hey think I .im oveist.iiiny; I Ik- result. Thei'c were 

 (Avcnty-seveii (ihnicester vessels (I may be in error .about (his, it is mere memory) 

 came (o the ;;ulf in ls7(i. The Massachusetts inspection was 22."),'.MI bbls,; the 

 New Hampshire inspection w.-is '),.'<.)l libis, ; the United St.ites' importation was 

 7(<„")3h bbls.; duty sav<'d 1 ").'V07() doll.irs. To be sure tliey will say that 187;') and 

 |s7') were poor yc.irs. They were poor years; no doubl .liiout that. Hut a\erago 

 them with l's7'! and lK7l,and see if the result is in the least hi vou rable ; see if 

 the\ are able to show ;iny considcrraiiie benetil derived by our people I rom inshore 

 lishing, oranythin;:;- which compares wilii tiie saving in respec*. to duty that they 

 make. 



When we began this investigation, ncarh «'very witness that was examined 

 was asked wlicthi r I he prospects for tlie |>rescii( year were not very good — whether 

 il was not likely In be an admiral)lc mackerel ye;ir in the gulf, and they said " Ves," 

 i'hey said the golf w.is full of niaclvrrcl. Sonieiiow or other, that impression g«)t 

 abroad. ;md our vessels came down here in "-reater numbers than b(>fir(^ for several 



years. One witness has seen tiiiy or sevent\-live vessels there, 

 came from Ghiuceslcr. 'i'liere may have been Kit) there in al 



I think seven(y-six 

 You will recollect 



