By Senator EDMUNDS: Q. Except the Fortune Bay affair and things of that kind?-A. There were some little things like that, but they were of no consequence. NUMBER OF VESSELS IN BRITISH WATERS. Q. How many vessels altogether do you think have gone to those northeastern waters to fish for mackerel, cod, and halibut this year? The WITNESS. Where do you mean? Senator EDMUNDS. I mean the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. A. They don't go on that coast at all. The fleet that has gone into Nova Scotia waters are mackerel catchers, and occasionally they take a few halibut. The cod fishers don't go there. Q. What I want to get at is the number of vessels that, if they had the free right to go in, as they had before, would have been in a situation where they might have used it.-A. It would depend altogether upon circumstances. Previous to this present year none would have gone if they had had the privilege. [A bystander stated that there were 90 to 95 vessels from the port of Gloucester that had gone into the Canadian waters this year.] HADDOCK, MACKEREL, AND HALIBUT. By Senator SAULSBURY: Q. Are haddock caught in our waters?-A. Yes, sir; and our vessels do not go up there for them. There is no fish they go there for except mackerel. The present year has been a marked exception. For fourteen years mackerel fishing was better on our shores, and it was a loss for them to go up there at all. Q. Are haddock caught up there in their waters?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Are they brought here by the Canadians?-A. I think not. They may be to a limited extent. Q. Where are the halibut caught?-A. Sometimes 3 or 4 miles offshore; very rarely inshore. They are caught off the Georges and in waters that are open to the fishermen of all the world. Q. Are halibut sent here by the Canadians?-A. Only very little. They don't follow that business at all. Q. Then the only Canadian fish, as I understand it, that come in competition with yours, are the mackerel and codfish? A. Mackerel and codfish. The Canadian ports are closed, substantially, six months in the year by ice, during which time all their fishing grounds are full of ice; you can't get within a hundred miles of them. If the American fisheries were destroyed you could not get a substitute for them from the Canadians, only to a limited extent, because, as I say, their fishing grounds are closed up by ice, and they can't get in there until June. Their waters are unnavigable for some four or five months on account of the ice, and their ports all along down are so far north that they are substantially closed in the winter time. Senator EDMUNDS. There is a great deal of the time that the Strait of Northumberland is closed. DUTY. The WITNESS. This fish question opens up a wide field for the consideration of political economists. From my observation I am led to the conclusion that, taking the duties as they are to-day, you might fairly say that the advantage, if anything, is in favor of the Canadians, even with our duties against them. By Senator EDMUNDS: Q. You are speaking of salt fish?-A. Salt and fresh; all kinds. Q. There is no duty on fresh fish now?-A. No. By Senator SAULSBURY: SALT AND FRESH FISH. Q. What proportion of the fish caught by our fishermen are fresh, and what proportion salt?-A. I should say that in value perhaps 25 per cent are fresh. SOUTHERN MACKEREL FISHING. Q. Do your vessels go down the Southern coast as far as Cape Hatteras?-A. Oh, yes; they go down there in the early spring, and follow along the coast during the summer and fish off the Georges. Q. Does the whole fleet go there, or only a part?-A. Only a certain portion. By Senator EDMUNDS: Q. They only go there for mackerel, I suppose?-A. Only for mackerel. They go as far south as Nantucket for codfish. Our business has been more largely the catching and marketing of codfish, because it has been generally more steady and there has been a larger demand for that class of fish. TESTIMONY OF JAMES G. TARR. JAMES G. TARR sworn and examined. By Senator EDMUNDS: Q. What is your age?-A. Fifty-six. Q. Where do you reside?-A. Gloucester. GLOUCESTER, MASS., October 5, 1886. Q. What is your occupation?-A. Commission merchant. Q. And owner of fishing vessels as well?-A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you been in the business?-A. Thirty years. Q. How many vessels have you?-A. Twelve. Q. What kind of fishing have you been engaged in?-A. Mackerel, halibut, and codfish. Q. Did your vessels fish for mackerel in what we, for short, call Dominion waters from 1870 on, during the time of free fish and free right to go in?-A. Yes, sir. 3-MILE LIMIT. Q. Where were the larger part of the mackerel up there taken during that time?— A. The larger part were reported by the captains to have been taken on Bank Bradley and Bank Orphan. Q. How far from the shores?-A. From 15 to 20 miles. Q. What portion of all the catch you know anything about of mackerel in those waters has been taken in the last ten or fifteen years inside of 3 miles from land?—A. About one-eighth of the catch of our vessels. Q. Of what value would you regard the right of your vessels, and those of people similarly engaged, to fish for mackerel within 3 miles of the shore up there?-A. Very slight. Q. Mackerel are now taken entirely by seine and not by bait with hook and line, I suppose?-A. Yes, sir. Q. How far is it necessary for your vessels to go in toward the shore while engaged in mackerel fishing? The WITNESS. To pursue fish? Senator EDMUNDS. For any purpose. A. Stress of weather, of course, is one of the causes for them to seek harbors, and for wood and water. This season we have sent but few, and those vessels have been so fitted that they have had no occasion to purchase anything ashore aside from wood and water. Q. How much of an inconvenience or loss to your business has it been that they have not been allowed to go in this year?-A. None whatever. COD FISHING. Q. Where has your cod fishing been done?-A. Principally on the Georges Banks. We have had only one at the Grand Banks. Q. The Georges are the nearest Banks to this port, are they not?-A. Yes, sir. Q. How many miles is it to the Georges?-A. Two hundred or more. Q. Take your Grand Banks fisheries and the Banks around Sable Island, etc., how far is it necessary for your cod-fishing vessels to go into Canadian ports?-A. Only for wood and water. Q. And shelter, I suppose, in case of storm?-A. Yes, sir. SHELTER. Q. Do the vessels generally run in from the Grand Banks for shelter in case of storm?-A. No, sir. Q. They are too far from land?-A. Yes, sir. So those off the Georges never run for shelter. VESSELS AND CREWS. Q. Is the size of your vessels about the same as has been mentioned by the other witnesses whom you have heard?-A. Yes, sir. Q. About what proportion of the crews are American citizens?-A. I think threefifths of our crews are American citizens. Q. You have about the same number to the vessel as the other witnesses have stated? A. Yes, sir. Q. From 12 to 15 and 20, and so on?-A. Yes, sir. TREATY OF 1870-71. Q. Taking the whole fishery question together, then, do you regard the rights that you have had while the treaty of 1870-71 was in force of any substantial value?—A. No, sir; for this reason: We have sent for thirteen years past on an average three vessels per season into the Gulf of St. Lawrence for mackerel; those vessels in that time, with all the advantages of free fishing, have not paid their way; they have run behind and haven't paid their bills. MACKEREL CAUGHT IN AMERICAN WATERS AND IN CANADIAN. Q. From 1870 down to this time what proportion of the whole catch of mackerel that comes to this port have been caught in these northern waters, as against the proportion caught in what we would call American waters, or along our own front?-A. I should judge the American catch in the provincial waters would not show more than one-fifth of the whole catch in the fifteen years. Q. Then in a long series of years by far the largest part of the mackerel caught are taken off our own coast?-A. That has been my own experience. Q. During all that period what proportion do you think of those that were caught in what are called Dominion waters were taken within 3 miles of the shore?-A. I think not more than one-eighth of the catch. TESTIMONY OF GEORGE STEELE. GEORGE STEELE sworn and examined. GLOUCESTER, MASS, October 6, 1886. By Senator EDMUNDS: Q. What is your age?-A. Nearly 58. Q. What is your occupation?-A. The fishing business and insurance business. Q. And you are a vessel owner and outfitter as well? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you been in the business?-A. Directly and indirectly since 1848. Q. How many vessels have you?—A. Twelve. AMERICAN FISHERY UNION. Q. Have you any official connection with the fishery matters?-A. Yes, sir. Q. What does that union comprise; what is it?—A. It is an organization which held a meeting at Gloucester two years ago next December, representing the whole of the New England fisheries. At that convention some seven or eight were chosen as directors, and I was president of that board. NEW ENGLAND FISHERIES. Q. When you say that it embraced the whole of the New England fisheries, do you mean that it includes shore fishing with boats and vessels?—A. Boats and vessels; it includes the whole; everything on the New England coast. Q. About what proportion of the American fishing interest is comprised in what you call the New England fisheries? The WITNESS. To include the boat business? Senator EDMUNDS. To include the boat business. A. I should think it would be nearly 80 or 90 per cent. Q. Are there any cod-fishing and mackerel or halibut-fishing vessels fitted out in other Atlantic ports outside of New England?-A. Not that I know of unless it is in the Gulf States and on the Pacific. Q. I am speaking of the Atlantic.-A. No, sir; none that I know of, to any amount. Senator EDMUNDS. I am under the impression that there is possibly one in New York and possibly one in Philadelphia. The WITNESS. There might be one in New London. Senator EDMUNDS. That is in the New England district. Then, substantially, for the fishery question we are inquiring into-and you might include the whale fishery as well, but no matter for that I understand that the fishery that brings us in contact with the British provinces is carried on in New England within the province of your bureau? The WITNESS. Yes, sir; and I suppose you know, of course, that the lake fisheries are interested as we are. Senator EDMUNDS. Yes; I understand that; but the lake fishery is mostly done in boats, is it not? The WITNESS. Yes, sir. Q. And that is not within your New England American Fishery Union, is it?— A. No, sir; they are not in our organization, but so far as their fish are concerned I was surprised to learn at Sandusky and Toledo that their fresh-fish business causes them to be interested in the fish business on the New England coast. Q. And then when you add to that the interests of Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and of the Wisconsin people it increases the scope a great deal more?-A. Yes, sir. COD FISHING. Q. Taking the first, or some line of inquiry you have heard us carrying on here, you may tell us, beginning with cod-fishing vessels, where they go to fish. The WITNESS. You would like my experience with my vessels in 1886? Senator EDMUNDS. Take those vessels for the last ten years; where have they gone to fish? A. Hand-line fishing on Georges bank and other banks nearer; the Western and Grand Banks. Q. Where is the trawl fishing carried on for cod?—A. Mostly on the Western and Grand Banks. TRAWLS AND HAND LINES. Q. Which is the more successful kind of fishing, trawl or hand-line fishing?-A. I should think, for the owner, the hand-line fishing was the most favorable. Q. How for the fishermen themselves? If they all go on the lay, why do you make that distinction?-A. The expense of fitting a vessel for trawling is greater to the owner; but I think, as a general thing, the men will make more for their share by setting thousands of hooks than they will by just attending to two. Q. How long are these trawls?—A. If I understand rightly about it, when one of these large vessels has all her trawls out they will extend over some 5 miles. Q. How long would each trawl be?-A. I could not say exactly about that; I am not so well posted. Q. As we Yankees say, you can give a guess.-A. I could not tell you exactly; I do not know about that. Senator EDMUNDS. Is there not a fisherman present who can tell about the ordinary length of a trawl line? The WITNESS. It would be merely guesswork on my part. I am just informed by Captain Smith, now present, that they have about 25 or 26 lines upon a trawl, which average about 30 fathoms to a line. Senator FRYE. Six feet being a fathom? The WITNESS. Yes, sir. BAIT. Q. (By Senator EDMUNDS.) Have your codfish vessels had any necessary occasion to visit the British Provinces? The WITNESS. Do you wish the experience of 1886? Senator EDMUNDS. No; I am speaking now of the ten years past. We will come down to 1886 by itself. A. They have always more or less taken bait from the Provinces later in the season; the first of the season we get bait more on the American coast. Q. How often have your people got bait in the British Provinces?-A. I should think their bait bills would amount to not less than $3,000, and from that to $5,000, for my fleet of vessels. By Senator SAULSBURY: Q. Is that the annual cost?-A. Yes, sir; that is the annual cost. I have the exact figures at hand. By Senator EDMUNDS: Q. That is near enough for our purposes. That privilege being denied you, how do you get bait; what do you do?-A. I shall have to tell you what we have done this year when denied that privilege. I have had five vessels down there at Grand Banks fishing in the year 1886, and with one exception they have not taken any bait on the Nova Scotia shore. All their bait was taken here in March and April. They made their trip to the Western Banks and then came home and went to Fortune Bay and St. Pierre, Newfoundland, and took their bait there once or twice, and went to the Grand Banks. They have all of them made from one to three trips each, and with the one exception I have mentioned have not taken bait upon the Nova Scotia shore. Q. How did the catch of the vessels that carried their bait from here compare with the one that got bait on the coast?-A. They got as many fiish, if not more. Q. But I suppose it is a saving of time in going to the shore if they can buy bait?— A. Yes, sir. Q. Taking the cod fishery then, what in your opinion is the value to the American fishing interest of the right to get bait on British shores?-A. Nothing whatever. Q. You would not care anything about it?-A. No, sir; I do not think there is anything, any privilege whatever, that they could give us or deny us for which we would be willing to admit their fish free into our markets. MACKEREL FISHERY. Q. Now we come to the mackerel fishery; have your vessels been up into what we call British waters for mackerel during the last ten years? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where have those mackerel been caught?—A. They have been caught mostly on this shore. By Senator FRYE: Q. The American shore?-A. The American shore. By Senator EDMUNDS: Q. I am speaking of those that have gone into what we call British waters. Where have the fish been caught down there?-A. Mostly upon this shore, except this present season; the largest part of the catch has been on this shore. THREE-MILE LIMIT. Senator FRYE. You did not understand the question exactly. The chairman asked you what proportion of the mackerel you captured in British waters were captured outside of the 3-mile shore line, and what proportion inside of the 3-mile shore line. The WITNESS. None whatever have been caught within the 3 miles, to my knowledge. Q. (By Senator EDMUNDS.) During any of the time?-A. No, sir. Q. The best place to get them is more than 3 miles offshore.-A. Yes, sir. MACKEREL CATCH. I can state here in round figures, if they will be useful to you, that only 4 per cent of the total catch of mackerel in the last five years has been taken in British waters, when we had the privilege to fish anywhere we pleased. The catch in British waters amounted to 75,000 barrels, and the total catch amounted to 1,800,000 barrels. THREE-MILE LIMIT. Q. Taking the 75,000 barrels, how many of those barrels, according to your information, were caught within 3 miles of the British shore?-A. I should not think over 8 per cent. Q. How far is it necessary for your vessels that go to the bay to fish for mackerel to enter British waters within the 3-mile shore line?-A. I should not think there was any necessity of them going within 5 miles, and from that to 10 and 15 miles. Q. I mean for any purpose?-A. Not for any purpose, really, according to my experience, only for shelter and water. |
