Lapas attēli

Mulgrave. Upon going on shore I was informed that my vessel was seized for landing men and filling water, and a fine of $100 imposed, which I deposited with the collector of customs. I protested against the payment of said fine, believing that I violated neither treaty nor law, preferring, as my action shows, to put my crew on short water rations rather than do anything illegal.

JOSEPH E. GRAHAM, Master of Schooner A. R. Crittenden.

We, Robert Sawyer, Robert Jameson, Alonzo Callahan, of the crew of schooner A. R. Crittenden, having knowledge of the facts contained in within aflidavit, do swear that within affidavit is true in every particular.



Personally appeared Joseph E. Graham, Robert Sawyer, Robert Jameson, and Alonzo Callahan, and made oath to the truth of the above statement.

Before me. [SEAL.]

AARON Parsons, N. P.

Affidarit of Solomon Jacobs as to the case of the Mollie Adams. I, Solomon Jacobs, master of schooner Mollie Adams, of Gloucester, being duly sworn, do depose and say: That I arrived at Port Mulgrave, Straits of Canso, N. S., on August 31, on my way home from a fishing voyage, in want of water, our water tank having been burst by the laboring of the vessel caused by the heavy weather during the passage from the fishing grounds; I duly entered at the custom-house and asked permission of the collector to purchase two or three barrels to put some water in for the passage home. lle answered that he could not allow us to buy anything, not even the barrels, and if we did, our vessel would be seized. We were therefore obliged to start for home with but 75 gallons of water (which we had in barrels on board) for a crew of eighteen men, for a passage of 500 miles. I protest against such treatment as severe, and if not in violation of the treaty of 1818, certainly in violation of the common charity of mankind. In trying to make some other harbor on our way up the Cape shore in hopes to replenish our scant supply of water, a gale of wind was encountered, which not only prevented our making any port, but caused damage to the vessel and loss of about ($700) seven hundred dollars' worth of mackerel from the deck and the smashing of two seine boats worth ($500) five hundred dollars. Had we been supplied with water, we should have been offshore with our vessel, and would have been in condition and situation to avoid the damage sustained. By struggling to keep off the rocks we sustained all this damage.



Personally appeared Solomon Jacobs and made oath to the truth of the above statement. Before me.

AARON Parsons, N. P. SEIZURE OF TIIE W. D. DAISLEY. The WITNESS. I will state that just before coming in here I received a dispatch from Consul-General Phelan, dated at Halifax, October 6, 1886, in regard to the W. D. Daisley, one of our fishing schooners, which reals as follows:

"W. 1). Daisley seized at Souris. Charge, one of crew landed flour at Canso last August. Telegraphed Ottawa to release on deposit to be made here.

Will wire you reply.

“M. H. PIELAN, Consul-General.

[ocr errors]


By Senator FRYE: Q. Have you any further information to submit to the subcommittee?--A. I have here a statement of the number of vessels, with their tonnage, engaged in the different kinds of fishing; also tonnage returns up to June 30, 1886, and other statements. I will submit these, to be made a part of my testimony.

The statements referred to by the witness are as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Fiscal year ending June 30, 1886:

18 registers; 80 enrollments; 77 coasting licenses; 391 fishing licenses; 66 fishing licenses (under 20 tons). Tonnage return, June 30.

Tons. 6 permanent registers

373. 30 1 temporary register ....

87.52 417 permanent enrollments.

20, 669.88 2 permanent enrollments, steam

55.52 i temporary enrollment, steam


30, 663. 80 8 licenses under 20, sail, coasting

$$1.56 54 licenses under 20, sail, fisheries.

609. 25 6 licenses under 20, stcum, coasting..



31, 436.79

3,804.84 26,448. 71

165. 94

40 coasting licenses (enrolled). 384 fishing licenses (enrolled). 2 yachts (enrolled)

From February 1, 1886, lo September 20, 1886. 231 vessels. 1,919 men. American, 1,896; British, 502; other foreign, 521.

Fresh mackerel
Fresh cod
Fresh halibut
Fresh miscellaneous

Pounds. 8,002, 650 5,302, 435 6,877, 473 8, 226, 277

[blocks in formation]

Salt mackerel caught outside of 3-mile limit
Salt mackerel caught inside of 3-mile limit..
Value of fish caught outside of 3-mile limit.
Value of fish caught inside of 3-mile limit.....

Total value of fish caught in foreign waters
Pald for bait, supplies, repairs, etc., to foreign merchants..

$35, 721.46


38,505. 46

25, 731. 97


GLOUCESTER, Mass., October 5, 1886. Fitz J. BABSON sworn and examined.

By Senator EDMUNDS:
Q. What is your age?--A. Fifty-eight years.
Q. Where do you reside?-A. At Gloucester.

Q. What is your occupation?-A. At present I am handling real estate and doing some little literary work. I was formerly collector of the port of Gloucester for seventeen years.

Q. Have you had any acquaintance with the fishing business as carried on at this port?-A. I have.

GENERAL HISTORY OF THE FISHING BUSINESS. Q. Explain to the committee in your own way the nature of these fishing fleets, how they are fitted out, where they fish, and give whatever facts or information you possess concerning the value to our fishermen of the right to fish within the inshore lines of the British possessions of North America.—A. have been present at the hearing of the testimony before this committee yesterday and to-day, and I will say that the testimony I have heard in regard to the fitting of the vessels by those who are practically engaged in that business is substantially true. I would like to make some statements in regard to the history of the fishing business from the time of the first treaty down to the present, and give to the committee as many of my own views as I have in my mind and as many facts as I have become possessed of by observation.

Q. You can go on in your own way.-A. In the first place the treaty of 1783 between the United States and England defined the rights of the United States upon the land as well as upon the ocean. By that treaty we find that the American fishermen were given the entire right to fish along the shores of the present Dominion and Newfoundland without any hindrance whatever. They were to occupy the same grounds and to have the same rights that they had as colonists.

After the war of 1812 England repudiated the treaty of 1783, and I would like to call attention to the treaty of 1783 in order to show the position of the English Government at that time in regard to what they considered to be their rights on the ocean. They gave us, together with our rights along the shores, the right to fish on the Grand Banks and the banks in the ocean, over which they had no jurisdiction whatever, though by the language of the treaty jurisdiction is assumed, and they appear there as giving us privileges of that kind, when in fact they had no right to do so. As early as 1815 Great Britain claimed that the war of 1812 terminated our right to the inshore fisheries, and commenced to harass and capture our fishing vessels.

The treaty of 1818 was made after the fall of Napoleon. In that treaty Mr. Rush and Mr. Gallatin conceded the right to fish on the shores of the Dominion, but the language of the treaty was such as to deprive our people of all rights to go into their ports except for wood, water, shelter, and for the repair of damages.

Q. By “our people” you mean purely fishing people?-A. Fishing vessels entirely.


There is one point which, I think, is of great importance in connection with the policy of the English Government. In all treaties made subsequent to 1818 they have used the language of that treaty as the basis of their negotiations, and in those treaties have always referred to “the rights and privileges granted to the fishermen of the United States by the treaty of 1818,” and have then proceeded to the other privileges and provisions of those subsequent treaties. We have had within the last six or seven years an example of what the language of that treaty conveys. We have rights in common with British fishermen on the coast of Canada and Newfoundland, and those rights in common have been construed by the English Government, through Lord Salisbury, at the head of that Government, at the time of the Fortune Bay trouble, as being restricted and abridged by the colonial laws. The colonial laws of Newfoundland, for instance, in the matter of the herring fishery, provide that there shall be no herring taken by or in a seine from the 20th of October until the 25th of the following April. That would entirely debar our people, even if we had the treaty of Washington in operation to-day, from taking any herring on those coasts, as our people use seines for this purpose, and under the gill-net process, which the local law allows, we could not pursue the business. (See Ex. Doc. No. 81, May 17, 1880; alleged outrages at Fortune Bay; message of President Hayes.)


There is no doubt whatever that the fisheries of the Dominion were stimulated after the treaty of 1854 went into operation, and for this reason: Their fisheries had been conducted in boats almost entirely previous to that time, had been carried on in small boats from the shore, and the mackerel fisheries had not amounted to much. But having the United States as a free market, and the United States being the principal market for mackerel, their fisheries were stimulated to such an extent that toward the end of that treaty, in 1866, they had a very large fleet of vessels engaged in the mackerel fishery. After the termination of that treaty those vessels gradually went into other business, until at last it amounted to very little. But when the treaty of 1873 came into effect then it was that, having our free markets and a knowledge of the value of the mackerel fishery, their fleets increased. I have here some statisties that were gathered by the committee that visited Washington during the last session of Congress, in which I find, from Canadian sources, that in 1873 they bad about 402 vessels and about 9,000 boats; that in 1885 they had somewhere in the vicinity of 1,117 vessels and 28,472 boats, an increase of almost 300 per cent. I also find from the same statistics that in 1873 the fishing tonnage of the United States was about 109,519, and in 1884 it was 76,137 tons, a loss amounting to 33,382 tons, or a fraction over 30 per cent.


It has been assumed by the English Government that we pursued the cod fisheries inshore along their coasts, but I think that the committee by an examination of the map will see that the cod fishery is pursued almost entirely on the banks outside of all national jurisdiction. The only use we make of their shores in this fishery is to go in for bait.


That matter of going in for bait is one which has caused a great deal of trouble on that coast. In the Fortune Bay case, when our vessels attempted to take herring for bait, they were driven off by the mob, and they found that it was impossible to take herring or any other fish on that shore, because it deprived the inhabitants of about their only means of living. Newfoundland has no agriculture of any consequence, no commerce, and no manufactures; she has nothing but this fishing, and the people who live along the shores must either have this fishing or must starve. Our people have been in the habit of going there for bait, and it was well known that the inhabitants would rather our people would come there and buy bait than not. But I think it must be admitted that the whole action of the Canadian Government in this direction has largely a political basis. The interests of those poor fishermen are not to any extent represented in their public prints or their parliamentary debates.


The halibut fishery at one time was quite extensive on Georges Banks, but at present we do not catch many halibut there, but codfish and haddock and mackerel in their season. Nearly all of the halibut are brought in preserved in ice, and they are becoming a luxury in the market. A few vessels flitch their halibut and salt them in bulk in the vessel. These are smoked, and in this form are fully equal to smoked salmon in flavor and richness.


I wish to say one word at this point in regard to the matter of fresh fish. By the tariff act the language “fish, fresh, for consumption,” or “for daily consumption,” was intended to refer to fish brought into port to be eaten by the local inhabitants. In 1861, when this clause was inserted in the tariff, we were not packing our fish in ice to the extent we are now, and it was not known to the legislators to what extent this business would grow. This language of the tariff act of that year has been carried along in subsequent enactments from time to time, without, perhaps, an inquiry into the matter, so that to-day we have it upon the tariff list, “fish, fresh, for daily consumption, free."

By Senator SauLSBURY:
Q. Is the word "daily” used?-A. Yes, sir.

Senator Frye. It is not “daily;' it is "fish, fresh, for immediate consumption;" that is the present language.

[ocr errors]

Senator EDMUNDS. I suspect that Mr. Babson has taken the language from some book of regulations, and not the statute.

The Witness. I take the language from the Customs and Tariff Regulations of the Bureau of Statistics.

Senator FRYE. I am sure that in the statutes you will find it "fish, fresh, for immediate consumption.”

Senator EDMUNDS (to the witness). You can go on.

The WITNESS. The question of immediate consumption, of course, as applied to fish, was construed—and I have so decided in my official character as collector—to mean fish that could be consumed without any artificial process of preservation, that could be consumed immediately upon being landed. The schooner Neskaleta came into this port with a load of halibut. As collector, I imposed duties under the present tariff on that halibut as for preserved fish, on the ground that it was not fresh in the sense contemplated by the tariff law when providing that fresh fish should be admitted free. The question was of course referred to the Treasury Department, and the decision came that it was to be considered as "fish, fresh, for immediate consumption.". The regulation concerning importation of fish is this: That the fish shall be landed, but if it is smoked or salted it shall be dutiable. It would be utterly impossible for the custom-house officials to follow the fish to any other place to see how they were treated or in what manner they were disposed of. Therefore it seemed to be almost an anomaly in the decision that fresh fish after passing out of the hands of the customs officials should be considered free under that clause, in the manner in which the Treasury Department ruled. But still that was the ruling of the Department, and we had to submit to it. I have in my mind, however, a very strong impression that it never was intended by the tariff act to make that disposition of ice-preserved fish.

Senator EDMUNDS. I have referred to the Revised Statutes of 1873, and find that the language is "fish, fresh, for immediate consumption."

The WITNESS. It has been seen by the committee to-day that the fish when landed from the vessels are certainly three or four weeks old. They can not, therefore, be fresh fish, and they may be kept six or seven weeks. It has been said here in evidence that Mr. Snow and others have buildings in New York where they keep fish months and months.

Senator EDMUNDS. No doubt the construction of the language would refer to fish unsalted.

The WITNESS. Fish in their natural state and without artificial preservation I should consider fresh fish.

Senator SAULSBURY. “Fresh” is used in contradistinction to "salt," I think.

The WITNESS. Canada imposes a duty of 1 cent per pound on all fish, fresh or salted.


Years ago, when we fished for mackerel with hook and line only, our vessels went into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and they used to carry men haden for bait. The menhaden did not go farther north than the Maine shores, and consequently were not available to the British fishermen. The vessels used to carry from 50 to 100 barrels of bait to the bay. It was ground fine, and being of an oily nature would keep near the surface.

Senator EDMUNDS. That is what we call chump.

The Witness. Yes, sir. They would throw the bait overboard and that would attract the fish and keep them together. The vessels would not go any farther from shore than it was necessary to go for the fish. The vessels of the United States used to take a great many mackerel, perhaps, nearer inshore than they do now. But when the seine came into operation, then, of course, the whole system changed. - As a rule our vessels use no bait whatever now; they carry seines, and very few indeed have anything to do with the hook.


In seining operations, as explained, they are obliged to have deep water. I have had numerous statements from the captains of vessels as to injuries to their seines by attempting to seine anywhere near the shore, when we had a right to do so under the treaty of Washington. They have not been able to use their seines to any great extent near the shore, even when the fish have been there.


Speaking of mackerel and where they are taken, in 1881 and 1882 we took so many off our own coast that we had no vessels at all in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I think

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »