Q. Do you agree with him in his account of the impossibility of obtaining divers down there?-A. Yes, sir. Q. And also that a diver will be sent from here?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you had any instructions of any kind from Canada that you can not be permitted to use a diver there?-A. No, sir. The insurance agent there is doing the whole thing. My vessel had 140 barrels under deck, and they got a permit to land them. They thought they were going to ship them home, but when they came to ship them the authorities would not allow it, nor would they allow the seines or boats to be shipped at first, though they afterwards did give a permit to ship them through by rail. Q. They seized them in the first place and put a keeper aboard? A. Yes, sir. Q. What have they done with the seines?-A. They are coming home by another vessel. They wouldn't allow the mackerel to come by vessel; they will come by rail; and it will cost us 85 cents a barrel to get them by rail. Q. Why would they not allow them to come by vessel?-A. I don't know. I suppose it to be something about allowing a vessel to go in there and buy and reship materials. Q. Do their fishermen have any difficulty of that kind here in our ports?-A. No, sir. BAIT. Q. Have they been buying as much bait here as they pleased this season?-A. Yes, sir. I have sold them in former years hundreds of dollars' worth; I haven't for the last three or four years. Q. Did they buy a good deal this season?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you any idea how much?—A. I should think some 6,000 or 7,000 barrels altogether. FREE FISH. Q. Do you want a treaty with Canada by which you shall be permitted to buy bait there, and hire men, and transship, as a price for giving her a free market with us?— A. No, sir. Q. Do you know anything that Canada can give to America which you would regard as an equivalent for a free market for Canada in this country?—A. I don't know of anything. Q. What, in your opinion, would be the result of a provision in a treaty that should give a free market to Canada for fish in the United States for fifteen or twenty years?-A. It would ruin us; we should have to go out of the business, all of us. NATIONALITY OF FISHERMEN. Q. What proportion of the sailors employed in the fish business here in the State of Maine, so far as you know, are American citizens?-A. Probably in the mackerel fishing more than three-fourths; but in the cod fishing probably there would not be quite so many; perhaps half. Q. Do the Canadians who come here, the young men, make good citizens?—A. They make smart men. Q. They are generally the more enterprising Canadians who come here, are they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the general result when they come over and commence fishing here? Do they become American citizens?-A. They have to become American citizens when they come to take charge of vessels. Q. And I suppose most of them have an ambition to take command of vessels?A. Yes, sir. Q. And as a result do they not become naturalized?—A. They do; yes, sir. DUTY. Q. You are a man of long experience in this business of fishing. Who do you think pays the duty on fish; the Canadian or the consumer?-A. I think the Canadian has to pay it. Q. Do you think there should be a duty on frozen fish?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Why?-A. Because they mix up duty with everything we send there. We can't ship any fresh fish there unless we pay duty on them. Q. We do ship some there and pay duty, do we not?-A. Yes, sir. Our smoked fish go there, and they put such a duty on us that it costs all the market. Q. When you ship fish to Canada who pays the duty?-A. We have to pay the duty-that is, it comes out of us. They pay it, but it comes out of us-it comes out of the fish. We used to ship fish to Canada years ago when they were free of duty and could make something on them; but when this treaty expired they put such a duty on our fresh fish that we can't afford to do it now. Q. That is, the duty which you pay and the price which you get for the fish will not allow you to do it?-A. No, sir. Q. Do you know of any country to which we export fish where there is not a duty against us?-A. No, sir. Q. You say that to allow Canada to have our markets free for fifteen or twenty years would ruin us. Why?-A. Because we can't compete with her. Q. Why not?-A. They can furnish fish cheaper than we can. CANADIAN COMPETITION. Q. Why?-A. It does not cost them so much to catch the fish. Q. Why?-A. Their vessels don't cost so much, and catching fish don't cost so much. Q. Do they not pay as much wages as we do?-A. I don't think they do. Their fishermen are all glad to come here and fish, because they say they can get more. When they come here they get their cash; we have to pay cash. Q. Don't they?-A. I understand they do not; the fishermen that belong there tell me that they do not. Q. Do they have to take store pay?-A. Yes, sir; and the salt fish are cured and the mackerel are cured by the women and boys. Q. Do you know what those women and boys get?—A. I don't know; but they don't get so much as our men here. Q. What do you pay your men here?-A. All the way from $2 to $3 a day for experienced men. Q. You do not employ any women, do you?-A. No, sir. RELATIVE VALUE OF COD AND MACKEREL FISHERIES. By Senator SAULSBURY: Q. What is the relative value of the cod and mackerel fisheries? Which is the more valuable?-A. Mackerel. Q. Is the aggregate amount of mackerel taken worth more than cod?-A. Some years. This year the cod is worth more. But generally it is the other way, and there is the most money in mackerel. FURTHER TESTIMONY OF ORIN B. WHITTEN. PORTLAND, ME., October 6, 1886. ORIN B. WHITTEN recalled and further examined. By Senator FRYE: Q. Have you information in regard to the seizure of another Portland vessel?-A. I have. THE CASE OF THE GEORGE W. CUSHING. Q. What is her name?-A. The schooner George W. Cushing. Q. You may state the circumstances.-A. I saw the owner of the vessel to-night, and, by the way, he is confined to his house by a severe cold, so that he can not appear before the committee. He stated that the vessel went down on the Nova Scotia shore and put into a place called Sand Point, some 10 miles below Shelburne. Shelburne, I believe, is a port of entry, She got there sometime during the evening, and two of the crew left the vessel and went on shore. It happened that the Terror, Captain Quigley, was there, and he boarded the schooner in the night and ordered her up to Shelburne. At Shelburne he placed her alongside the wharf, chained her to the wharf, and there he kept her some ten days, and they paid a fine of $400, and she was released. The vessel came home, the trip was broken up, and the crew got dissatisfied and disheartened. That is all that trip amounted to. Q. What did she go in there for?-A. I think he told me it was their intention to go in there for bait. They had the impression from what they had heard from time to time that they had the right to enter; but still she didn't go in. Q. She had not done anything and had not obtained anything?-A. Hadn't done or obtained anything; only two of the crew had gone ashore. CASE OF THE C. B. HARRINGTON. Q. Was there another Portland vessel seized?-A. One called the C. B. Harrington was seized about the same time, and I know that she paid a fine of $400. Q. Do you know what she did?-A. I think she bought some bait. Q. Do you know of any other Portland vessel?-A. Those are the only ones J know. Q. Other than those that have been mentioned?-A. That is all. Q. The owner of the George W. Cushing, with whom you had the interview, was not able to come here on account of sickness?-A. He was not able to come on account of suffering from a severe sore throat and cold. [Senate Report No. 1683, part 2.] APPENDIX. CONTENTS OF APPENDIX. 1. Letter from the collector of the port of Boston, with answers to questions submitted in writing by the subcommittee. 2. Letter from the collector of the port of Portland, Me., with answers to questions in writing submitted by the subcommittee. 3. Statistical and other information submitted to the subcommittee by James Gifford, esq., deputy collector at Provincetown, Mass., in connection with his testimony. 4. Approximate statement of vessels fisheries of Gloucester (Mass.) district in 1886. 5. Statement submitted by W. A. Wilcox, esq., manager American Fish Bureau, Gloucester, Mass., in connection with his testimony. 6. Sixth Annual Report of the Boston Fish Bureau (1881). 11. Eleventh Annual Report of the Boston Fish Bureau (1886). 12. Map No. 1, of East Coast of North America, from United States Coast Survey and most recent authorities. 13. Map No. 2, of Northeast Coast of North America, showing fishing grounds in colors, with statistical information. 14. Map No. 3, of the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the banks adjacent; from the English admiralty and French marine surveys. LETTER FROM THE COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF BOSTON, WITH ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED IN WRITING BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE. CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS., Collector's Office, October 5, 1886. SIR: With further reference to your letter of the 28th ultimo, I have the honor to transmit with this, in response to your request, the following-described statements: A.-Replying to inquiries, (1) The whole number of vessels licensed at this port since January 1, 1885, for the fishing trade; (2) The aggregate tonnage of the same; (3) Whether any of them are propelled by steam. A note is added to this statement in reply to your third inquiry, that the licenses issued were exclusively to sailing vessels. Also, reply, in part, to your sixth inquiry, that it is estimated that not exceeding 6 of the vessels licensed for the fisheries had permits to "touch and trade," and that there were not any other trading papers issued to such licensed vessels. B and C.-Replying to inquiries, (4) The whole number of vessels cleared from this port for ports in the British North American Provinces from January 1, 1885, to September 30, 1886; (5) American and foreign vessels, separately, class, number, and tonnage of each class, and whether in ballast or with cargoes; (6) None of the merchant vessels named in statements B and C had fishing licenses. D.-Replying to inquiries, (7) The total number of pounds of fresh fish imported into this port from the British North American Provinces, January 1, 1885, to September 30, 1886. There were no duties assessed upon fresh fish, excepting upon fresh sturgeon, as such fish are not for immediate consumption in the condition in which they are imported. (8) The total number of barrels or pounds, respectively, of pickled or salted fish imported from the same ports during the same time, with the amount of duty to which the several classes were subject. Very respectfully, Hon. GEO. F. EDMUNDS, L. SALTONSTALL, Collector. Chairman United States Senate Committee, &c., Tremont House, Boston. A. CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS., Collector's Office, September 30, 1886. Vessels licensed at the port of Boston for the "fisheries," from January 1, 1885, to date, including licenses renewed in 1886. It is estimated that not exceeding 6 of the above vessels had permits to "touch and trade." There were not any other trading papers issued to the above vessels. B and C. CUSTOM-HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS., Collector's Office, September 30, 1886. Vessels cleared from the port of Boston for the British North American Provinces, from January 1, 1885, to date. D. Value. Importations of fish from the British North American provinces into the customs district of Boston and Charlestown, January 1, 1885, to September 30, 1886. Kinds. [All of the fish subject to duty were imported since July 1, 1885.] Free of duty. Quantity. LETTER FROM THE COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF PORTLAND, ME., WITH ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN WRITING SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE. CUSTOM-HOUSE, PORTLAND, ME., SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 6th instant requesting information on matters having reference to the "Fisheries question, &c." Herewith I respectfully submit answers to your inquiries in the order and number in which you propound them, viz: First. "The whole number of vessels licensed at this port since January 1, 185, to this date for the fishing trade." Answer. One hundred forty-nine. Second. "The aggregate tonnage of the same." Answer. Seven thousand five hundred and sixty-nine and ninety-seven onehundredths gross, 6,989.62 net. Third. "Whether any of them are propelled by steam." Answer. Three propelled by steam; 478.21 gross tons, 290.81 net tons. Fourth. "The whole number of vessels cleared from this port for any of the ports of the British North American provinces since the same date." Answer. Forty-eight American and 293 British vessels. Fifth. "The character of said vessels, respectively, whether steam or sail; as to the sailing vessels, the kind of craft and the total tonnage." Answer. The American vessels cleared were engaged in the foreign carrying trade, and were sailing vessels; total tonnage, 12,341. The British vessels, part of them engaged in bringing fish to this market, fresh and salt, and returning with ballast only, and part of them bringing lumber, plaster, and coal, and returning in ballast. These were all sailing vessels, schooner rigged; tonnage, 36,059. Sixth. "Whether any such fishing vessels had also trading papers of any kind, either regular clearances or other, and whether any of such merchant vessels had fishing licenses." Answer. Seven vessels licensed for the fisheries took a permit to "touch and trade," but no clearance or other papers, except usual enrollment and license of vessel. The date and names of the vessels taking "permits to touch and trade" within the period named are as follows, viz: January 1, 1885, schooner Rozella; August 7, 1885, schooner J. W. Bickford; January 11, 1886, schooner Forest Maid; May 15, schooners George W. Pierce and Gertie May; May 27, schooner Annie Sargent; June 7, 1886, schooner Lilla B. Fernald. Seventh. "The total number of pounds of fresh fish imported into this port during the same time, with the total amount of duties paid thereon." |