Digitized by tine Internet Archive in 2011 witii funding from Tine Library of Congress http://www.arcliive.org/details/liearingsatwasliinOOamer AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE HEARINGS AT WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY 21-25 BOSTON, MASS., JANUARY 31, FEBRUARY 1 GLOUCESTER, MASS., FEBRUARY 2 ST. JOHN, N. B., FEBRUARY 5-6 1918 PRINTED FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, SECOND CONGRESS. #. Cf I WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1918 (^H AIRMAN OF CONFEREXCE. Hon. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Secretary of Commerce. CANADIAN DELEGATION. Hon. JOHN DOUGLAS HAZBN, Chief Justice of New Brunswick. Mr. GEORGE J. DESBARATS, Deputy Minister of the Naval Service. Mr. WILLIAM A. FOUND, Superintendent of Fisheries. a:\iehic'an delegation. Hon. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD, Secretary of Commerce. Hon. EDWIN F. SWEET, Assistant Secretary of Commerce. Dr. H. M. SMITH, Commissioner of Fisheries. :Mr. ARNOLD ROBERTSON, First Secretary of the British Embassy, Secretary of Canadian Delegation. Mr. MAITLAND DWIGHT, of the Department of State, Secretary of the American Delegation. Mr. EDWARD T. QUIGLEY, Assistant Solicitor Department of Commerce. Assistant Secretary and Legal Adviser of the American Delegation. G0]\[]M1TTEE ON THE MERCHANT MAKINE AND FISHERIES. Hox\SE OF Represent ATiVEs. JOSHUA W. ALEXANDER, Missouri, Chairman. RUFUS HARDY. Texas. WILLIAM C. WRIGHT. Georgia. EDWARD W. SAUNDERS. Virginia. WILLIAM S. GREENE, Massachusetts. PETER J. DOOLING. New York. GEORGE W. EDMONDS. Pennsylvania. LADISLAS LAZARO. Louisiana. LINDLEY H. HADLEY, Washington. WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. FREDERICK W. ROWE. New York. JESSE D. PRICE. Maryland. GEORGE M. BOWERS, West Virginia. DAVID II. KINCHELOE. Kentucky. FRANK D. SCOTT, Michigan. WILLIAM B. BANKHEAD. Alabama. WALLACE H. WHITE, Jr.. Maine. EARL H. BESHLIN, Pennsylvania. SHERMAN E. BURROUGHS, New Hampshire. BENJAMIN G. HUMPHREYS. Mississippi. FREDERICK R. LEHLBACH, New Jersey. William B. Yancet^ Clerk. De Of D. APR 24 f CONTENTS. Letter of transmittal 5 Introduction 7 Hearings at Washington, D. C: Mr. E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation 11, 42, 46 Mr. George Uhler, Supervising Inspector General, Steamboat-Inspection Service 27 Mr. Henry M. Loomis, United States Food Administration 43 Hon. JohnD. Hazen, Chief Justice of New Brunswick, Canadian delegation . 51 Hon. J. W. Alexander, chairman Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives 53 Hearings at Boston, Mass.: Opening statement by Hon. William C. Redfield 60 Statement by Chief Justice Hazen 63, 103 Mr. William J. O'Brien, president Boston Fish Market Corporation 66 Mr. H. C. Wilbur, commissioner of fisheries of State of Maine 67, 92 Capt. M. H. Nickerson, Boston Lobster Co 70, 92, 104 Mr. A. L. Parker, president of Boston Fish Pier Co 70, 175 Mr. William H. Brown, secretary of Fishermen's ITnion 71, 124 Mr. John Burns, jr . , Bay State Fishing Co 76, 155 Mr. Henry Otte, manager of marine department of Bay State Fishing Co. 80, 181 Mr. Arthiu- L. Millett, fish commissioner of Massachusetts 85 Mr. Frederick L. Davis, president Gloucester Board of Trade 88, 112, 121 Capt.. Carl C. Young, of Gloucester 88,119 Mr. William F. Doyle, of East Boston 93 Mr. Frank S. Willard, of Portland 94 Mr. Joseph A. Rich, Bay State Fishing Co 96, 105 Mr. O. M. Arnold, New England Fish Co 107 Mr. R. L. Patrick of the Vermont Fish and Game League 113 Mr. Lius Leavens, Vermont Fish and Game Commissioner 114 Mr. D. A. Loomis, Lake Shore Transportation Co 114 Mr. J. W. Titcomb, fish culturist of State of New York 115 Mr. Sylvester M. Whalen, secretary Boston Fishing Masters' Association. 123, 125 Mr. Alfred L. Young, J. A. Young & Co 128 Mr. John G. Cox, Consolidated Lobster Co 141 Mr. C. F. Wonson, Gloucester Salt Fish Co 149 Mr. George C. Fitzpatrick, Boston 157 Mr. Avery L. Powell, Boston Lobster Co 158 Mr. F. J. O'Hare, fish merchant 158 Congi'essman Willfred W . Luf kin, of Essex 160 Mr. W. Munroe Hill, Shattuck & Jones Co 161 . Mr. Gardner Poole, president Commonwealth Ice & Cold Storage Co 164 Mr. Irving M. Atwood, Consolidated Weir Co 171 Mr. A. L. Parker, president Boston Fish Pier Co 175 Ml-. W. A. Reed, secretary Gloucester Board of Trade 175, 181 Mr. Henry Otte, manager Bay State Fish Co 181 Ml-. John M. Fulham, Boston Fish Market Corporation 177 Mr. George E. Willey, president Boston Fish Market Corporation 182, 187 Closing statement by Chief Justice Hazen 188 Closing statement by Hon. William C. Redfield 188 3 4 CONTENTS. Hearing at Ciloucester: Page. Opening statement by lion. William V. Redfield 192 Statement by Chief Justice Hazen 19 + Mr. Frederit'k L. Da^is, president Gloucester Board of Trade 19S, 216, 277 Congressman Willfred W. Lufkin, of Essex 198, 231 Mr. J. Manuel IMarshall, owner of vessels sailing from Gloucester 199, 210 Capt. Carl C. Young 203, 269 Mr. Thomas A. Carroll, general manager Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co 203 Capt. George H. Peeples 212 Canadian counties 215 Capt. Benjamin A. Smith, vessel manager Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. 218, 253, 277 Ckpt. Elroy Prior 225 Mr. Alexander J. Chisholm, fish producer ._ 228 Capt. Fred Thompson , 231 Capt. Lemuel E. Spinnev, captain and Aessel owner 238 j\Ir. Frank E. DaA-is. president Frank E. Da^is Fish Co 241 Capt. Peter Cirant 243 Capt. John Matheson 245 Mr. Orlando Merchant, William H . Jordan Co 255 Mr. Charles V. Wonson. Gloucester Salt Fish Co 256 Capt. Thomas M. Nickerson, of Bucksport, ^le 260 ^fr. George J. Tarr. George J. Tarr Co., dealers in oils 265 l\[r. HenrvE. Piukham,lienry E. Piukham Co.. salt fish 267 My. a. L." Parker, president Boston Fish Pier Co 268 Mr. Joseph McPhee 269 Facts about the " Seal " in Halifax harbor 273 Mr. E. Archer Bradley, vessel owner and distributor of fish 274, 277 Information about sale of Gloucester vessels 276 Mr. John A . Johuson, marine insurance 280 Signing of the Halifax agreement 280 Obtaining coal in Canadian ports 282 Closing statement by Hon. William (.', Redfield 282 Closing statement by Cliief Justice Hazen 284 Hearings at St. John, New Brunswick: Opening statement bv Chief .1 ustice John D . Hazen 288 Statement by Hon . William C . Redfield 292 M. M. Gardner, W. C. Smith A Co., Luuenberg, owners of fishing fleet 293 Benjamin A . Smith, of Gloucester. Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co 305 A. H. Brittain. managing director of the Maritime Fish Corporation (Ltd.), general ofiices. Montreal; branches at Canso and Digby. Xova Scotia 306 S. Y. \Mlson. manager Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.^i, Halifax 311 Havelock Wilson. Canadian inspector cured fish 321 Harry Belyea. St. John, fisherman 323 Robert E . Wilson . St. J ohn . fisherman 325 Walter Leonard, St. John, president of Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.~) 326 John F. Calder. Canipo Bello. inspector of fisheries 330 John Jackson. South Wharf, cured fish dealer, St. John 336 RE. Armstrong, secretary, St. John 33S H. B. Short, manager Maritime Fish Corporation at Digby, Xova Scotia. . . 340 Thomas Ferguson, steamship inspector, board of the Dominion of Canada. 355 Closing statement by Chief Justice Hazen 303 Closing statement bv Hon. William C. Redtield 304 Exliibits . r ". 365-382 Index 383-399 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. March 22, 1918. My Dear Coxgress^iax : I have the honor to transmit herewith, for the information of the Committee on Mercliant Marine and Fisheries, copies of the reported hearings of the xVmerican-Canadian Fisheries Conference held in Washington, Boston, Gloucester, and St. John. N. B. I am also inclosing an introductory statement briefly setting forth facts relative to the appointment of the commission by the United States and Canada, and the matters discussed at the preliminary meetings of the commission in the city of Washington, including various questions relative to the fisheries which the conference de- cided to consider. At the hearings in "Washington, Boston, Oloucester, and St. John, several subjects came with special prominence before the conference. Chief among these were the limitations now imposed upon American fishing A'essels in Canadian ports and the restrictions which American law placed upon Canadian vessels in our own ports. Of less general importance, but still having weight with the States of Vermont and [N'ew York, were certain existing conditions in Lake Champlain. The hearings developed the fact that a large increase in the pro- duction of fish for the food supply of this country was both necessary and practicable, and that wisdom would provide for removing, as far as might be possible, the difficulties that hampered the develop- ment of the largest possible production. Following the hearings mentioned above the Canadian authorities courteously took the ini- tiative in removing, by the following Order in Council of February 18, 1918, the embarrassing conditions on Lake Champlain : Sectiini 15 of the special tislier.v regulatiuiis for the Province of Quebec adopted l)y Order in Council of the 12th of September, 1907, shall be, and the same is herel),v. amended by adding thereto the following subsection: " 5. Fishing by means of nets of any kind is prohibited in Missisquoi Bay and in the Canadian waters of Lake Cliamplain," Shortly thereafter, with the President's approval, the Department of Commerce issued, on February 20. 1918, to the collectors of cus- toms the following order : To jiromote the vigorous prosecution of the war and to make the utmost use jointly of all the resou.i'ces of the nations now cooperating, you will permit, dur- ing the war. Canadian fishing vessels and those of other nations now acting Avitli tiie United States to enter from an(l clear for the high seas and the fish- eries, disposing of their catch and taking on supplies, stores, etc., under super- vision, as in the case of merchant vessels entering and clearing for foreign ])orts. except as to tonr.a.ve tax and other charges sjiecihcall.v imposed on entry from and clearance for foreign ports. (This order also miiilies to the (Ireat Tjakes and other hikes and waters on the Canadian boundary of the United States. See Exhibit AA. i>. 88P.. ) The etfect of this order was to permit Canadian fishing vessels and those of other nations acting with the United States in the war to proceed direct with their cargoes of fish from the fishing grounds to our ports and also direct on the outward trip from the ports to the fishing banks. This action was in due course made known to the Canadian authorities. On March 8 an order in council was issued by the Governor Gen- eral of Canada, consisting, in part, of the following report pre- b LETTER OF TEANSMITTAL. sented by the committee of the Privy Council and approved by the Governor General: The Miuistei- of the Xnval Service i-ecoimiiends. under the authority ot the war measures act. chapter 2, of the Statutes of 1914. that during the war United States tishini;- vessels, in addition to their treaty riiihts and privileges, shall he permitted to enter any port in Canada without the reipiirement of a license oi- tlie payment of fees not charged to Canadian tishiug vessels, for any of the following purposes: {a) The purchase of bait. ice. nets, lines, coal. oil. provisions, and all other supplies and oultiis used hy tisliing vessels, whether rhe same are of a like character to those named in tliis section or not: (h) re- pairing fishing implements: {<■) dressing and salting tlicir catches on hoard shi]): ((/) the shipping of crews: (c) the transsipment of their catches; (/) tlie sale thereof locally on payment of the duty. The minister further reconunends that the fees paid (m licenses already taken out for tlie present calendar year be remitted. These privileges are granted only for the period of the war by the above order in council, and apply to all Canadian coasts. A source of complaint on the part of the Canadian delegation had reference to the practice pursued by a number of American lobster- well smacks of catching lobsters off the coast of Nova Scotia just outside the three-mile limit during the closed season for lobster in the territorial Avaters of Canada. While the laws of Canada prevent Canadian fishermen from taking lobster during the closed season, American fishermen continued to catch them to the disadvantage and annoyance of the fishermen from the Maritime Provnices. The justice of the complaint was recognized by the American delegation, and also by witnesses engaged in the lobster industry vvho testified, at the hearings of the conference in Boston. As a result a bill ap- proved by the American delegation to the conference, having for its object the prohibition of this practice, was. at my request, intro- duced by you in Congress on February -lo, 1918. (See copy on p. 57.) The promptness Avith which action was taken in these matters is indicative of the earnest desire on the part of both countries to elimi- nate all sources of friction growing out of the fisheries. The conference, with both the American and the Canadian dele- gates in attendance, will hold a hearing in Seattle beginning April 24, proceeding from there to Vancouver. Prince Rupert, Ketchikan, Alaska, and on their return holding sessions at Ottawa. At these hearings in Seattle and other places in the XortliAvest, matters con- cerning the protection of the salmon in and around Puget Sound and the Fraser River, and also the protection of the halibut — the center of this industry being Seattle, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Ketchikan, on the Pacific — will be discussed. Furthermore, the mat- ter regarding the use of American and Canadian ports by the fishing vessels of both countries will also be taken up at these hearings, as will also questions relating to the whale industry and to the order in council of Canada, with reference to the purchase of bait and land- ing of fish by foreign vessels at ports of British Columbia— having a direct bearing on the subject of fishing vessels putting in at Prince Rupert, B. C. — together with other fishery matters that may come to the attention of the conference. Very truh^, yours. AVilt.iam C. Redfield, Sea^efary. Hon. J. W. Alexander, GhaiTman Committee on Merchant Marine and FisheHes^ Hou^e of Representatives^ Washington, D. G. INTRODUCTION. During the past five years several questions of an important charac- ter developed between the United States and Canada in connection with the fisheries on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts which it soon became apparent must be given serious consideration. After considerable correspondence the Governments of the United States and Canada arranged to hold a joint conference " to reach, if possi- ble, a mutually satisfactory understanding as to the pending ques- tions concerning the fisheries on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. and to report the result of their deliberations to their Governments as a basis for the subsequent negotiations of a formal agreement between them." The Canadian Government appointed the following commission- ers to the conference: Hon. John Douglas Hazen, Chief Justice of New Brunswick; Mr. George J. Desbarats, C. M. G., C. E., Deputy Minister of the Naval Service ; and j\Ir. William A. Found, Superin- tendent of Fisheries. The Government of the Ignited States in turn appointed as commissioners Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of Commerce; Mr. Edwin F. Sweet, xVssistant Secretary" of Commerce; and Dr. Hugh M. Smith, Commissioner of Fisheries. Mr. Arnolcl Robertson, First Secretary of the British Embassy, was appointed secretary of the Canadian delegation; Mr. Maitland Dwight, of the Department of State, was appointed secretary of the American dele- gation ; and Mr. Edward T. Quiglev, Assistant Solicitor for the De- partment of Commerce, was appointed assistant secretary and legal advisor. The first session of the conference was held on January 16, 1918, at the Department of Commerce, and at the suggestion of Chief Justice Hazen, Secretary Redfield was elected chairman. The con- ference held sessions on January 17, 18, and 19, at which the follow- ing matters were generally discussed : i. Lobster fisheries in the North Atlantic. — The Canadian com- missioners pointed out that American lobster >\ell-smacks had adopted the practice of fishing just outside the territorial waters of Canada during the closed season for lobster fishing in that country. This not only caused irritation among the Canadian fishermen, but nullified the purpose of the closed season. The American delegates acknowledged the justice of the Canadian position, and Secretary Redfield requested Mr. Quigley to prepare a bill to be introduced in Congress to prevent the continuation of this practice. 2. Conservation of salmon in and arownd Puget Sound and the Fraser River. — This matter was generally discussed and the com- missioners of both countries realized the necessity of taking steps to preserve the salmon supply. The following resolution was adopted : That a committee be formed to prepare a number of regnhitions for submis- sion to the conference for controlling fisheries in anrl atfecting the Fraser River and the waters contiguous thereto. 8 IXTRODrCTION. Dr. Smith and jSIr. Found were selected to form the committee, and ■were authorized to associate with tliem such others as they might deem desirabk\ 3. Fishing indusfrii in (/lul around Prince Rupert and Ketchi- han. — The American delegates pointed out that the present regula- tions at Prince Eupert. under an order in council, placed an unfair burden upon the American fishing industry. The Canadians stated that this impression \Yas based on a misconception of facts. The matter was deferred for furtliei- consideration at future sessions of tlie conference. 4. Equifalde rules gorerning the use of (Unu/dian and American ■ports hy fishing ressels of hoth countries. — The delegates discussed at length the question of the Canadian GoA'ernment granting licenses to fishing vessels of the T~^nited States to enter its ports for further privileges than those granted by the treaty of 1818 (see Exhibit BB. p. 383)" without charging a fee for the issuance of such licenses, and also the question of the issuance of a license to fishing vessels irre- spective of how they might be propelled, and that the issuance of such licenses be provided for on a permanent basis and not be con- ditional on annual orders in council of the (xovernment of Canada. The Canadian delegates called the attention of the conference to the fact that under the present law in the United States Canadian vessels were forbidden to clear directly from American ports to the fishing grounds or to go into American ports from the fishing grounds. These important questions were left for more careful consideration by the conference. 0. Protection of haJihat in the Pacific. — The delegates agreed that some steps should be taken to protect the halibut fishery on the Pacific Ocean and took up the consideration of a resolution to accom- plish this end. 6. Pil-e-perch fisheries in Lal-e Cham plain. — The delegates agreed that some steps should be taken to prevent Canadians from net fish- ing in the Canadian portion of the lake. 1. Sturgeon fisheries. — The delegates agreed that some action should be taken to preserve the sturgeon in both coastal and interior waters. 8. [nternation(d protection of whales. — It was suggested that the conference should also consider the protection of whales on the high seas. This matter Avas held over for further consideration. At the session of January 19 the subject of bounties ]->aid by the (iovernment of Canada to their fishermen was discussed, and the Canadian commissioners submitted a memorandum on the subject which showed that the amount paid was practically insignificant. A copy of the memorandum is attached. (See Exhibit A. p. 367.) Preliminary to the hearings which the conference decided to hold in Xew England and the Canadian IVIaritime Provinces, a notice was sent to the fishing industries interested that the following subjects were before the ccmference and would be made. auKuig others, the subject of consideration : 1. Thar the nnxlus vivmidi oo' ExhihiT ('('. n. :^S:>) be extended to all tishin;;- vessels, by whatever means they may be propelled ; that it be applied to the I\-u'lfir coast as well as to the Atlantic: and that the annual fee be reduced froni- .^l.riO per re.iiistered ton to the nominal snm of $1 per vessel: also, that the INTRODUCTION. » reue\v:il of the licenses from year to year he not conditional on an order in council hut form part of the arran.uement itself. 2. That United States tishiuK vessels on hoth coasts he allowed to sell th.-i.r fish iu Canadian ports for the ("anndian markets, suhject to customs duty, as well as to sell in hond. 3 That Canadian fishing vessels he allowed to purchase hait and all other supplies and outfits in United States ports or waters on equal terms with American fishing vessels. 4. That Canadian fishing vessels he allowed to take their catches to L mted States ports and sell them" there. suh.iect to customs duties, if any. 5. That fishing vessels of either country visiting ports in the other he given clearance for the fishing grounds, if so desired. 6. That the United States prevent American lohster well smacks from fishing oi¥ the Canadian coasts during the close seasons for lohstei- fishing on such coasts. At the suggestion of Secretary Redfiekl the conference invited Hon. Duncan U. Fletcher, ranking member of the Senate Commit- tee on Fisheries ; Hon. Joshua W. Alexander, chairman of the House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries ; Mr. Eugene T. / Chamberlain, Commissioner of the Bureau of Navigation; Mr. George Uhler, Supervising Inspector General of the Steamboat In- spection Service; and a representative of the United States Food Administration to be present at the subsequent sessions in Wash- ington to give the conference the benefit of their views on matters coming before it. The testimony of these gentlemen, together with the hearings at Boston, Gloucester, and St. Johns and tlie exhibits considered appears appended hereto. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. HEARINGS AT WASHINGTON, D. C. AVashington, D. C, Monday morning, January '21, 1918. Mr. Eugene Tyler Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation, De- partment of Connnerce, United States of America, appeared before the conference at the Department of Commerce. Secretary Kedfield, who was selected as chairman of the conference, presided. STATEMENT BY MR. E. T. CHAMBERLAIN, COMMISSIONER OF NAVIGATION. Secretary Eedfield. Mr. Chamberlain,' the Canadian connnission- ers have submitted, as you have heard, a suggestion Avhich involves a matter which I understand to come within the scope of the navi- gation laws, and which is in substance that " in consideration for certain other matters suggested by them Canadian vessels be per- mitted to leave our ports direct for the fishing banks, wherever they may be, and to enter direct from the fishing banks into our ports." Will you tell the conference in your own language what the law is on that subject, giving its history in brief compass; what changes, if necessary, would have to be made in the law to carry out the sug- gestion; how those changes would be effected, and, in short, your knowledge and opinion of the matter as proposed; and after you have made your statement, or possibly in the course of it, the Ca- nadian commissioners are invited to ask any questions on the sub- ject that may occur to them. State the facts in your own way. Mr. Chamberlaix. The law, Mr. Secretary and gentlemen, is a simple and ancient one. It is embodied in section 4311, of which I have several copies. [Hands a copy to each member.] The law is as follows : R. S. 4311. Yes^sels of twenty tons uud upward, enrolled in pursuance of this title (R. S. 4311-4890) and having a license in force, or vessels of less than twenty tons which, although not enrolled, have a license in force, as I'equired by this title, and no others, shall be deemed vessels of the United States en- titled to the privileges of vessels employed in the coasting trade or fisheries. That is section 4311 of the Eevised Statutes, which is part of the act of 1T93, and has been steadil}^ in operation. Enrolled vessels are vessels that are over 20 tons; any inider 20 tons are licensed and not enrolled. The enrolled vessels also carry a license which entitles them to engage either in the coasting trade or fisheries. The vessels under 20 tons have not an enrollment, but merely a license or annual document. So the section is comprehen- sive; it takes in everything. That is a restriction of the coasting trade and the fisheries to vessels of the United States, and that is the basic law; that is, 3^ou may say, the entire law on the subject. 11 12 AMERICAN-CANADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEENCE. It aims at rather more. This distinction between the coasting trade and the fisheries aims at ratlier more tlian the exclusion of for- eign vessels, because a vessel that is enrolled for the coasting trade — I should say licensed for the coasting trade — which engages in the fisheries is subject to forfeiture, or. vice versa, a vessel licensed for the fisheries Avhich engages in the coasting trade is subject to for- feiture. In other Avords, you have to live within your license. The statute is a part of the act of 1793, which really dates back to the first registry act of 1789. The policy of the time was, of course, in the first place, to develop the construction of ships in the United States, and. in the second place, to keep the trades absolutely dis- tinct. The reason for that, I take it, was that Jetferson and other men of those days were very keen on the de^'elopment of the fisheries. fJefferson, you may have noted, prepared quite a document on that subject Avhen he was Secretary of State. The fisheries Avere from — I can not recall the exact date, but from very early in the history of the country up to well within the Civil War. in receipt of bounties on the basis of the size of the ship. If any of the members of the conference are interested in that subject. I covered it in a report some years ago. but I did not bring it down with me. That was taken away in 1861. and as a substitute for the bounties, which had been paid up to that time, certain privileges — that of free, pure salt for curing the fish was the principal one — Avere granted. I am a little at a loss. Mr. Secretary, to know how to go on. be- cause, as I say, that is the basic laAv, and any other matter beyond that would be a matter of detail : but I do not knoAv in which direc- tion your minds are turning, and if you will give me the benefit of a question or two, I will answer them. Seci'etary Redfield. Proceed, Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain. The repeal or modification of that law is the only way to meet the proposition. The law, as you see, is an affirma- tion of a policy. Actual proceeding under this statute Avas brought to our attention of late years; I think it Avas in 1911 in the case of the Coquet^ the British steam trawler. I haA'e the papers here. It came into Xcav York and the captain announced that he Avished, for reasons that Avere given that Avere related at the time — I don't recall them noAv — to make several fishing voyages out of the port of XeAv York. This being a Canadian fishing vessel, he asked if he would be alloAved to do so. The collector said that unless he Avas instructed to the contrary he Avould not alloAv her to clear for the high seas, and Ave confirmed his position. That Avas in 1911. Seci-etary Redfield. ^Ir. Chamberlain, is there any penalty at- tached to this laAV? Mr. Chambeklaix. That matter came up at the time, and there is not. as a matter of fact, any penalty that is applicable. Secretary Redfield. Su])pose then that a Canadian vessel did sail from a port to fishing banks and returned Avith a cargo of fish. Avhat Avould happen I ]Mr. Chambeulaix. There are two aspects of that. In the first place, there is the departure of the vessel, practically in defiance of the order of the collector, that she should not depart on that par- ticular voyage. It is quite proper for the collector to enlist the co- operation 'of a reA-enue cutter, a coast-guard ship, as they now call tl^em — to send one of those armed boats out and bring the ship back. That used to be not infrequently done a great many years ago. but AMERICAISJ^-CANADIAN' FISHERIES CONEEEEXCE. 13 of course of late years there has been nothing of that kind at- tempted : probably there has been no occasion for it. But assuming that the vessel went in defiance of the collector's orders, there is no particular penalty. There is a fine for departing without clearance, but that is merely $500. It doesn't amount to very much, and in the case of the return of the vessel I don't know just what could be done. I don't know of anything. There is the prohibition of the law. The only way to meet the situation would be by invoking the forces of the Government, rather than any specific statute. There is an alien-tonnage tax that years ago somebody attempted to apply, not to a case of just this kind but to one in some respects like it; but Mr. Brewster, I think it was, the Attorney General at that time, held that it had no application to this section; so it is hardly worth my while referring to it. Secretary Redfield. Then, if I understand you correctly, the sub- stance of the law as it stands is a declaration of policy? Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. sir. Secretary Redfield. Is there any power in any department of the Government to instruct the collector to allow such vessels either to clear or to depart without clearance? Also to permit her to enter without formal entry? Mr. Chamberlain." The general power over entry and clearance is vested, as you know, in this department. Secretary Redfield. Does it extend to cases of that character? Mr. Chamberlain. It was exercised in that instance. Secretary REDFiELD.AVhich instance do you refer to? Mr. Chamberlain. The case of the Coquet; exercised, I might say, after some reflection as to whether it was there or whether it wasn't. But it was assumed that the policy clearly carries with it the duty of somebody to give utterance to that policy in a specific case which may arise. ancTthis specific case was right there, and it was certainly the duty of the head of this department, rather than of another department. Chief Justice Hazen. Was that in NeAv York? Mr. Chamberlain. Well, the port isn't important; it would come into an American port with a load of fish direct from the fishing grounds. Mr. Found. The Coquet was a British vessel. Chief Justice Hazen. I understand that : it came to an American port with a load of fish, and then it cleared right directly to the fishing ground? Mr. Chamberlain. She wished to clear. Chief Justice Hazen. She wished to clear, and did you allow her to? Mr. Chamberlain. She did not, but she cleared subsequently for a Canadian port, which was quite proper. Chief Justice Hazen. Then you wouldn't allow her to clear for a fishing ground? Mr. Chamberlain. No. sir. Chief Justice Hazen. In what way did the head of this department exercise control? Mr. Chamberlain. The collector said that he would refuse unless instructed to the contrary, and mv recollection is — there is no need 14 AMERIOAN^-CAIs^ADIAISr FISHERIES CONFEBENCE. of iwy trut^ting to my recollection on that. With your permission, ■Mr. Secretaryri Avill read this letter, ^vhich seems to be of September 1. 1911. (Communieation of Sept. 1, 1911. from Charles Earl. Acting Sec- retary, to collector of customs. Xew York City, read by Mr. Cham- berhiin. See Exhibit B. page iMu.) Mr. C'iia:hbki{l.\tn. That in spite of its absurdity. Secretary l\EmiEi.n. In the event of his having left without clear- ance a tine* of $50(1 would be automatically imposed. Mr. Cir.vTkrnEULAiN. If you ever got him again. Secretary Reofielu. Precisely. Mr. Cii.v:MBEin.AiN. Please bear in mind that it is permissible, you knoAV. to send an armed vessel after a vessel that leaves without clearance. T doubt whether it would have been done in this case. Secretary Ef.dfiei.o. It is also a fact, is it not. that the Secretary of Conuncrce was authorized to mitigate or to cancel lines of that character ^ Mr. CuA^inEin^viN. t)h, yes. Secretary REnviELn. It is under that phase of the law. is it not. that the vessels are acting in coastwise trade upon the Lakes, and that we have recently instructed certain vessels belonging to His ^Majesty the King of threat Britain to be permitted to leave and enter the pcu't i>f New York without clearing and without entry? Mr. CuAMUEUi.AiN. Yes. sir. So far as the coasting hnv is con- cerned, a special hiw was passed for alloAving penults in that. Mr. Foi ND. May 1 ask if you are familiar with the ruling which was given by the collector of customs possibly tAvo years after that? I am not sure as to the time, but quite subsequently to that. It was the ruling in which he refused \o allow a vessel to come in from the high seas with the tish. ^Ir. CiiAMUEiu.AiN. 1 think 1 have that here. Of course the two would go together, at any rate. ^Ir. FoiNO. The latter case went a bit further. You see. in his case there was a duty on the iish in the United States. He came in. and there Avas no objection to his selling the tish on paying the duties, but after the taritf had been removed, then the other question arose, and the collector of customs at Boston said that he Avouldn't be alloAved to go there Avith his tish at all. direct from the tishing ground. ^Ir. Saveet. Had he started from an American port '. Mr. Foi"ND. The (ot/tuf Avas a British steam traAvler that Avas tishing under contract for so much per pound for all the iish that Avere delivered to a certain Canadian tirm. She Avent out on a tish- ing trip during the Avinter and couldn't get back to Canso from Avhich port she Avas tishing on account of ice. She consequently Avent to XcAv York Avith her catch and couldn't get back. She got a good price and Avanted to come back again. That Avas rlie Avhole thing- Hut there was no question raised then as to her going there. The only question then was to make her lose the rime to go back to a Canadian port from there before proceeding to the tishing grounds : but. subse- t^uently. Avhen the taritf Avas revised and free tish came on, the col- lector of customs at Boston intimated that no Canadian tishing vessel t)r foreign vessel Avould be alloAved to go into Boston from the tish- iuiT iiTounds Avith her tish. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 15 Mr. Sweet. Without any regard to the port from which she had started? Mr. FouxD. Yes. Mr. Chamberlain. That was in 1914, I think. Secretary Eedfield. Will you put the matter in the record, please ? (Letters of the collector of customs, dated June 4, 1914, and of Commissioner Chamberlain, dated June 5, 1914, read. See Exhibits C and D, p. 368.) Mr. Chamberlain. I don't know whether that is the case you have in mind. Mr. Found. That covers it entirely. Chief Justice Hazen. It would be correct, sizing up the situation as the law stands at the present time, that a Canadian vessel that has sailed from a Canadian port and caught a cargo of fish can not take that fish directly into a port in the United States and sell it there, and that a Canadian vessel that is in a United States port having sold its cargo of fish can not get clearance for the high seas. Mr. Chamberlain. That is undoubtedly the policy, and while there might be some difficulties, as I have indicated in the physical application of force or in any method of stopping it, that would certainly be the aim of the law. And it is our policy to try and carry that out as best Ave may. Chief Justice Hazen. You say that is the policy, but isn't that the law to-day? Mr. Chamberlain. That is the law; but, as I say, the method of carrying it out is not as clear as it might be. Chief Justice Hazen. I am asking whether that is not the law ? jNIr. Chamberlain. Quite so, in my understanding. Chief Justice Hazen. So that it is unlawful, therefore, for a Ca- nadian fishing vessel to leave, say, the banks with a cargo of fish and to enter at an American port without going to a Canadian port^ Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen (continuing). In the meantime. And it is unlawful for a Canadian vessel to leave an American port and go directly to the fishing grounds. It must go to a Canadian port, enter there, and then clear from there? -Mr. Chamberlain. That's my understanding. Secretary Eedfield. Is there not even more than that involved ? Is it not a fact that she must not only physicall}^ go from our port to a Canadian port and thence to the fishing grounds and also from the fishing grounds to a Canadian port before she comes to our port, but must she not also go into the Canadian port in both cases in order to comply with our law- — change her character from that of a fishing vessel to that of a trading vessel? Mr. Chamberkmn. That is undoubtedly so. It ceases to be a catcher of fish and is an ice box. Secretary Eedfield. She changes her character from a fish-catching vessel to a fish-transporting vessel. Chief Justice Hazen. Would you allow me to ask j^ou this, Mr. Chamberlain? Perhaps it is an unfair question, but in what way would it be to the disadvantage of the commercial interests, or the fishing interests of the United States, if a Canadian fishing vessel was permitted to clear from an American port right to the fishing grounds ? 16 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Chamberlain. AVell. is that a question? Chief Justice Hazen. Perhaps not a fair question. Do you object to an answer, Mr. Secretary ? Secretary Eedeield. I have no objection to the question. If there is any disadvantage, Mr. Chamberlain, known to you. there is no objection to your stating it. Mr. Cha^mberlain. I might say that I am not familiar enough Avith the general commercial interests of the country to give a com- petent answer. Of course, on the face of things, as a commercial proposition, it doesn't help at all. It doesn't help at all a system of this kind, but you nnist get back of that to the original purpose of the act and that whole scheme of laws. Secretary Redfield. This law was passed on what date ^ Mr. Chamberlain. 1793. Secretary Redfield. At that time, is it not a fact that all vessels of war of the United States were wooden vessels? Mr. Cha:mberlain. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. And the Avooden shipbuilding was carried on wholly upon the Atlantic coast of the United States? Mr. Chamberlain. There was't any Pacific coast : it was there, but not in our occupation. Secretary Redfield. The answer is " Yes " ? Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. sir. Secretary Redfield. Xow. are you able to say upon what portion of the United States that shipbuilding was carried on at that time? Mr. Chamberlain. The North Atlantic coast. There were a few small vessels built as far down as the Chesapeake Bay, and farther down, perhaps. Secretary Redfield. When you say '^ the North Atlantic coast." are you able to give any closer limit than that? Mr. Chamberlain. New England and New York, and I don't think there is anything in New Jersey, and a little on the Delaware and Chesapeake, perhaps. Secretary Redfield. Is it a correct understanding of the fact to say that the shipbuilding of the period was carried on in New England and New York ? Mr. Cha:mberlain. You would have to take in the Delaware, I think. Secretary Redfield. From what source was the United States NavA' of that period recruited for its seamen? Mr. Chamberlain. It was altogether an American Navy, you knoAv. That is, the personnel of the merchantmen and the other vessels Avere all American. It wasn't until the Civil War that the law Avas repealed, requiring tAvo-thirds of the creAvs to be Americans. Secretary Redfield. That throAvs light upon the matter, but it isn't quite "an ansAver to my question. Mr. Chamberlain. Will yon state your question oyer again ? Secretary Redfield. Froi'n what source Avas the Navy and mer- chant marine of that period recruited? Mr. Chamberlain. From the maritime population which was in the seaboard States. Secretary Redfield. Well, did that include the fishing vessels such as there were at that time? AMEKICA]S"-CAXADIA]Sr FISHERIES CONFEKEITCE. 17 Mr. Chamberlain. Oh, yes. Secretary REDriELD. Other than the fishing fleet of the time, was there any source from which the merchant marine and the Navy of the country coulcl at that time be recruited? Mr. Chamberlain. The fishing fleet Avas not hirge in proportion to the merchant fleet, so I can't quite gather your question; can't quite gather the drift of it. Secretary Eedeield. What I am trying to get upon the records is the exact facts regarding tlie circumstances under wliicli that law was passed; whether it was in its purpose intended to be applicable to a condition that has since passed away or not. Mr. Chamberlain. It was intended to a very large extent as a military measure. Secretary Redfield. To supply a source from whence the Xa\y and the merchant marine could be recruited under conditions Avhich by law required that recruiting to be confined to American citizens: that is a fact, isn't it? Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. sir. Of course, there were not anj^ steamers at that time; now you have a lot of those. But if I may resume where I was Secretary Redfield. Go ahead. Mr. Chamberlain (continuing). The conditions have very mate- rially changed since the days of which we were speaking, because a ver}' large part of our fishing population, as von gentlemen are all aware, at the present time, is not American population at all, it is not American-born population, and a very considerable part of it is not naturalized. Now, the Commissioner of Fisheries can speak with much more exactitude on that subject than I can, but it is within the general observation of us all that on the New England coast there are a lot of Portuguese manning our fishing fleets. In some parts of Massachusetts thej nuike up almost the entire fishing popu- lation. Then, too, in some parts of the coast, the southern part of California, there are a large number of Japanese, out in Honolulu there are quite a number of Japanese, and singularly enough, we developed only a few dajs ago, you may recall, a statement that in one place — I don't recall whether it was San Pedro or not — there were about two or three hundred Slavonians, who were theoretically, at least, enemies of the United States, and the question was whether these men could fish or could not. The fisheries now, instead of be- ing nurseries of the American seamen, as they were designed to be, and as in point of fact they were before the Civil War, have ceased to have just that relationship to the national defense. Secretary Redfield. I would like to ask Mr. Found if he is able to say what the procedure is as to cost and time required to transfer a Canadian vessel from her fishing character to her trading character. Mr. Found. I am afraid I can't answer that question with full exactness. I don't know whether it would be competent for a fishing- vessel to come in with her fish on board and transfer herself into a merchant vessel with these fish still in her hold or not. I am in- clined to think that it would be. A fishing vessel operates under a license with us and a commercial vessel under a register, and she could come in and take out a register, which Avould be a matter of not more than a few clays. 519.^0—18 2 16 AMERICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. Mr. Chamberlain. Well, is that a question? Chief Justice Hazex. Perhaps not a fair question. Do you ol3Ject to an answer. Mr. Secretary? Secretary Redfield. I have no objection to the question. If there is an}" disadvantage. Mr. Chamberlain, known to you. there is no objection to your stating it. Mr. Chamberlain. I might say that I am not familiar enough with the general commercial interests of the country to give a com- petent answer. Of course, on the face of things, as a commercial ])roposition, it doesn'.t help at all. It doesn't help at all a system of this kind, but you nuist get back of that to the original purpose of the act and that whole schejne of laws. Secretary Redfield. This law was passed on Avhat date ( Mr. Chamberlain, 1793. Secretary Redfield. At that time, is it not a fact that all vessels of war of the United States were wooden vessels? Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. And the wooden shipbuilding was carried on wholly upon the Atlantic coast of the United States? Mr. Chamberlain. There was't any Pacific coast ; it was there, but not in our occupation. Secretary Redfield. The answer is " Yes "? Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Now, are you able to say upon what portion of the United States that shipbuilding was carried on at that time? Mr. Cha]mberlain. The North Atlantic coast. There were a few small vessels built as far down as the Chesapeake Bay. and farther down, perhaps. Secretary Redfield. When you say '" the North Atlantic coast," are you able to give any closer limit than that? Mr. Chamberlain. New England and New York, and I don't think there is anything in New Jersey, and a little on the Delaware, and Chesapeake, perhaps. Secretary Redfield. Is it a correct understanding of the fact to say that the shipbuilding of the period was carried on in New England and New York? Mr. Cha^iiberlain. You would have to take in the Delaware, I think. Secretary Redfield. From what source was the United States Navy of that period recruited for its seamen? Mr. Chamberlain. It was altogether an American Navy, you know. That is, the personnel of the merchantmen and the other vessels were all American. It wasn't until the Civil War that the law was repealed, requiring two-thirds of the crews to be Americans. Secretary Redfield. That throws light upon the matter, but it isn't quite an answer to my question. Mr. Chamberlain. Will you state your question over again? Secretary Redfield. From what source was the Navy and mer- chant marine of that period recruited? Mr. Chamberlain. From the maritime population which was in the seaboard States. Secretary Redfield. Well, did that include the fishing vessels such as there were at that time? AMEKICAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 17 Mr. Chambeelain. Oh, yes. Secretaiy Redfield. Other than the fishing fleet of the time, aa'us there any source from which the merchant marine and the Navy of the countr}^ could at that time be recruited? Mr, CpiambePvLaix. The fishing fleet was not hirge in proportion to the merchant fleet, so I can't quite gather your question ; can't quite gather the drift of it. Secretary Redfield. What I am trying to get upon the records is the exact facts regarding the circumstances under which that law was passed; whether it was in its purpose intended to be applicable to a condition that has since passed aAvay or not. Mr. Chamberlain. It was intended to a xerj large extent as a military measure. Secretary Redfield. To supply a source from whence the Xa\y and the merchant marine could be recruited under conditions which by law required that recruitiug to be confined to American citizens; that is a fact, isn't it? Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir. Of course, there were not any steamers at that time; now you have a lot of those. But if I may resume where I was Secretary Redfield. Go ahead. Mr. Chamberlain (continuing). The conditions have very mate- rially changed since the days of which we were speaking, because a ver}^ large part of our fishing population, as you gentlemen are all aware, at the present time, is not American population at all. it is not American-born population, and a very considerable part of it is not naturalized. Now\ the Commissioner of Fisheries can speak with much uiore exactitude on that subject than I can, but it is within the general observation of us all that on the New England coast there are a lot of Portuguese manning our fishing fleets. In some parts of Massachusetts ihej make up almost the entire fishing popu- lation. Then, too, in some parts of the coast, the southern part of California, there are a large number of Japanese, out in Honolulu there are quite a number of Japanese, ancl singularly enough, we developed only a few days ago, you may recall, a statement that in one place — I don't recall whether it was San Pedro or not — there were about two or three hundred Slavonians, who were theoretically, at least, enemies of the United States, and the question was whether these men could fish or could not. The fisheries now, instead of be- ing nurseries of the American seamen, as they were designed to be, and as in point of fact they were before the Civil War, have ceased to have just that relationship to the national defense. Secretary Redfield. I would like to ask Mr. Found if he is able to say what the procedure is as to cost ancl time required to transfer a Canadian vessel from her fishing chai'acter to her trading character. Mr. Found. I am afraid I can't answer that question with full exactness. I don't know whether it would be competent for a fishing vessel to come in with her fish on board and transfer herself into a merchant vessel with these fish still in her hold or not. I am in- clined to think that it would be. A fishing vessel operates under a license with us and a commercial vessel under a register, and she could come in and take out a register, which would be a matter of not more than a few days. 51950—18 2 20 AMERIGAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEElSrCE. Mr. Saveet. If the hiAv has any etftx't. if it reaches any artnal cases, the tendency of it wonlcl be, wonld it not. to diminish the qnantity of fresh fish brought into American markets I Mr. Chamberlain. I shonkl think so: yes. Oi course, it might be said, upon the other hand, you knoAv, that if you did this, there Avould not be any American fishermen and that the Canadian fishing- popuhition -wouki increase; that is going into a theoretical discussion that I don't think I can throw any particuhir light on: it would be merely the opinion of one man. Secretary Kedfield. Mr. Chief Justice, do you wish to ask ]\Ir. Chamberlain ;iny questions t Chief Justice Hazen. Xo. sir. Mr. Desbakats. I was wondering. Mr. Chamberlain, in reading over that clause of the law. whether it was the actual law or the in- terpretation of it which prevented the clearing of the fishing vessel from an American port for the high seas. Under the law coasting is prohibited to any American ships. I am not quite* so clear as to why a foreign vessel should not be cleared for the high seas. Is there any specific clause in your law. or is it a matter of interpre- tation i Mr. Chamberlain. It is a matter of interpretation orowing out of that. Mr. Desbakats. It is the interpretation that has grown out of that. Mr. Chamberlain. And it dates back a great many years. It goes so far back as in the time of Justice Story. Cases came up where not a foreign vessel was involved, but Ave are making even a stronger case — the case of A'essels clearing Avith a license for the coasting trade Avhen they Avere going into the fisheries, or A-ice versa. I have a case. Avhich I can give you later on. if you Avant it. Avliere the vessels Avere held in the closest distinction, to the literal observation of the difference betAveen tAvo papers, the paper for the coasting trade — the license for the coasting trade, and the license for the fish- eries, and it Avas held that the use of one in the other trade carried Avith it forfeiture. So I think that there is no doubt but that the policy has been tniiform in its atlirmation and in its enforcement. " The evidence is, as yon know, that Canadian vessels have not. as a rule, gone into our port^? in the fishing business. Secretary Redeield. It has been stated by the Chief Justice and one of our other friends that the practice on the Pacific coast is for the fishing vessels to go in on the Pacific coast from the fishing grounds and sell their catch in Seattle, you may say. and then go wherever they choose. Avhether to the fishing grounds or to a Canadian port. Mr. ForNo. If you.Avill pardon me. in place of coming in to sell their catch, they come in frequently Avhen they are scarce of bait to obtain bait. and. after prcxniring bait, they are then cleared directly for the fishing ground. I don't know of instances Avhere they have gone in to sell their fish. Dr. Smith. That was the impression I got. ]Mr. Found. I am sorry I created that. Following that further, they are permitted to do that, and each trip that they enter Alaskan waters, they are required to ent^r. I suppose that is a special statute? Mr. Chamberlain. Xo : there isn't any special statute. AMEEICAISr-CAlSrADIAjSr EISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 21 Mr. Found. Every Canadian fishing vessel that goes north is re- quired to enter at Ketchikan and is cleared immediately for the high sea. Mr. CiiAMHEiJLAiN. You surprisc me when you say that. Dr. Smith. Why is the vessel required to go to Ketchikan if it is fishing in extraterritorial waters? Mr. Fouxn. She must enter, and it is rather painful, because it usually costs her from eight to thirteen dollars. Dr. Smith. Wh}^ is she required to enter? Mr. Found. Because all vessels are. Secretary Ri':DrTELD. I am mighty glad you suggested that. Let's get the facts out and turn them to the light of day. Mr. Found. I am not suggesting that there is a discrimination against Canadian vessels, as American vessels are required to enter and pay similar fees. I think you will find that the fees run ac- cording to the size of the vessel, usually avei'aging from eight to thirteen dollars each time. Mr. Chamberlain. There is something here that I will find in a minute or two that was due to the unsettled condition of Alaska that required vessels to make an entry at the nearest place and then go out, because there were no customhouses and nobody there. Dr. S^riTH. Why should a Canadian vessel be recjuired to go to an Alaskan port when it is fishing in extraterritorial waters? Mr. Found. She enters Alaskan waters when she sails up through these narrow channels, going north. Chief Justice Hazen. She has to pass through territorial waters of the Ignited States on her Avay to the fishing grounds. Mr. Chamberlain. That law is one that had not occurred to me at the time, but I see its bearing. That is really the law in regard to the pretention of smuggling and all that sort of thing. As I say. there wei'e very few customhouses up there and that law dates back to the time when the ship that once came within the territorial Avaters of Alaska was reported to the nearest customhouse, who looked it over and said, " Go ahead."" That is how that would be accounted for. Chief Justice ITazen. And she came back and reported on the Avay back. Mr. Found. She must have a bill of health : that is the only point where it costs a Canadian vessel more than an American vessel. A foreign fishing vessel must have a bill of health from the consul at ihe (\inadian port she leaves. That costs $5. Tonnage is 2 cents per net ton and the custom broker's fee is $2. On the usual-sized vessels it is about $1)^), on the smaller vessels less. As T say. it is not dis- criminatory. Secretary Eedfield. So that I understand tlie law requires an American customs collector to do that in Alaska ? Mr. Found. Yes. Secretary Eedfield. Which the law forbids him to do in Boston; and if that customs collector Mr. Cha:mberlain. I wouldn't put it that way. Secretary Eedfield. I am speaking my understanding of it. and I want to know if it is rio-ht : and if we can assume that collector 22 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEBIES CONFERENCE. to be trrinsf erred from Alaska to New Eiig-land. lie would find him- self oblig-ed to reverse his procedure in tlie case of a vessel which we might assume, in the meantime. Avonld come around through the Panama Canal Mr. Found. Yes. sir. Secretary Redfikld. To carry on the same business on the Atlantic coast which it had been carrying on in the Pacific? I want to get that straightened out, because if that is the case we have hold of something that requires thought. Let us assume for the moment — I want to knoAv if I am correct : 1 am asking a question — that a Cana- dian halibut schooner is the vessel in question. _ If the matter is correctly stated to me, or if I \inderstand it correctly, that vessel, going to fish upon the high seas in the Pacific, is obliged for physi- cal reasons of stress of weather and other sufficient cause to enter the port at Ketchikan and take a clearance thence which is given to her under the laAV for the high seas. She is sold, it is assumed, to owners in Nova Scotia who wish to operate her in the same business on the Atlantic, and for the purpose it is transferred. It makes a voyage through the Panama Canal to the North Atlantic coast, and then it is supposed in the illustration that the same collector who issues her clearance in Ketchikan has been transferred to the American poi't on the North Atlantic coast where the vessel seeks clearance, and there the same officer is obliged to refuse to the same vessel, doing the same business, the very clearance which he was required by law to give her in Alaska. Now, that is as I understand the facts; is that your understanding of the facts. Mr. Found if Mr. FoFND. Yes, sir; that has been my understanding. Mr. CiiAMBEKLAiN. jNIy understanding is that the Constitution provides for a uniform regulation of commerce, and if any such con- dition exists, of course, there is a mistake on the part of the man in Alaska. The deputy collector, whoever he is, in his zeal to see that no smuggling is attempted by these fishing vessels that go through his jurisdiction, is holding them close to the smuggling law and has overlooked the fact that he should not allow these vessels to clear for the high seas. Of course, there is an easy thing to do; all we have to do is to tell him that when those vessels come there not to let them go. AYe can hardly do that in these days, though. Secretary Redfield. But, Mr. Cliamberlain. assume that to be true, the question is not as to the conduct of the collector in either case: the question is, what is the law ? I think we ought to ask Mr. Quig- ley and yourself to take that matter up. ]Mr. QuiGLEY. May I read this provision of law ? Secretary Redfield. Have you the law there? Mr. QuiGLEY. Yes, sir. I will read R. S. 105-1:, on page :274 of the Bureau of Navigation publication, viz. The navigation laws. The laws of the United States relating to customs, conmien-e. and navi.iia- tion are extended to and over all the mainland, islands, and waters of the territory ceded to the United States by the Emperor of Russia by treaty con- c-luded "at Washinjiton on the thirtieth day of March, anno Domini eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, so far as the same may be applicable thereto. Now. that extends the navigation laws, as well as the customs laws over the Territorv of Alaska. AMERICAJST-CAISrADIAlSr FISHERIES COlSTFEREIsrCE. 23 Secretaiy Kedfield. But is there a special statute provided for Alaska : and, if so, are those laws applicable thereto 'i Mr. QuiGLET. There may be special statutes under the customs laws. Secretary Redfield. Perhaps it would take too long uoay to get the detail of it, but it appears to be the case, on the face of things, that there is a diyersit}^ of practice here which may, or may not, have a legal basis; and I think we can't do better than to trace it down. If there is a contradiction in our laAvs, that ought to be found; that's what we are here to turn up. Mr. Chamberlain. It isn't reall3\ Mr. Secretary, as I say, an essen- tial conflict, because the situation that jou described does credit to your very fertile mind; but you know as Avell as I do that it isn't likely to arise on the New England coast, where there are custom- houses all along the Avay; and, furthermore, ships don't stop at Gloucester on their Avay to farther ports. What the Alaska man is tiying to do is this: Years ago, and I don't know, maybe it is so now, there used to be considerable laxity in the matter of smuggling, and particularly in the matter of snuiggiing strong liquor, which we are all against now, but there used to be a lot of that, and it used to be done by fishing vessels as well as hj other vessels, and collectors did make those vessels come in there, and very likely they said. "We will let you go out so long as you report to us; we will let you go out and fish." Well, the collector had no right to do it. There is no doubt about that : if it has been done, it should be discontinued. This law is quite clear, and it applies to the Territory of Alaska just as much as it does to the rest of us. Secretary Redfield. Unless superseded by special statute. Mr. Chamberlaix. Well, a special statute wouldn't hold because it would be a violation of the constitutional requirements. It couldn't be done. Secretary Redfield. Then, Mr. Chamberlain, it seems to me it is our duty to inquire whether it has this bearing, whether this practice, which you suggest is an unlawful practice, possibly surviving from the ancient claj^s of smuggling. If it has that bearing, we should inquire as to whether the American fishing trade in the Pacific coast has been injured, or has even claimecl to be injured, by the privilege thus granted ; and that has a distinct bearing upon the question, whether the request for the privilege upon the Atlantic coast, which has been thus far declined, carries with it a threat to the Atlantic interests. It has a very direct bearing on the matter, and I think it is very, very important. I wish yon would ascertain for the conference whether this is the fact in Alaskan waters, whether, to your knowledge and to the knowledge of the bureau officials, there have ever been complaints as to the matter, and under what law the custom does exist; and, in short, throw the fullest pos- sible light upon the entire transaction. Don't you think that would be a good plan, Mr. Sweet ? Mr. Sweet. Yes ; but I should like to call attention to the fact that there is one difference between the two things — the Atlantic and the Pacific. The case of the Coquet and the other cases referred to involved the discharging of cargoes at American ports. The Ketchi- kan case, of course, did not. One matter that ought to be considered 24 A:\IKR1CAX-CAXAI)1AX i'lSJiKRIES conferexce. in coniUH'tion with this is. what Avould be the rule on the Athuitie side in ease of a Canadian vessel pnttino- into an American port on aeeoinit of stress of weather and not discharo-ing- anv cariio? J^ecretary KEOFiKLn. Ts it not the fact that the only qnestion Avhich is concerned here is the -qnestion of the riolu of clearance for the hii>-h seas^ Now. I take it. nnder onr law there is no objection to a Canadian vessel discharoino- her cargo in Ketchikan, coming from a Canadian port to Ketchikan, and the statement is made that the cus- tom has been and still is to grant Avliat is in all effect a clearance from Ketchikan, an American port, to the high seas. That is the only question, it seems to me. concerning the matter, a single narrow question. I think Ave ought to know Avhether that is the question. 1 think we ought to know Avhether that is the practice, under Avhat law it is done, to Avhat extent it prevails, whether it has caused com- plaint on the part of anybody, whether it is advantageous or dis- advantageous, we nuist get at it. Mr. Chamheklaix. You say that at Seattle they allow Canadian vessels to come in and clear for the high seas? Dr. 8:mith. For the high seas. Mr. FouxD. I wouldn't say absolutely Seattle, but certainly in A^'ashington State ports. Mr. CiiA:Mr>F.iu„vix. AA'ell. that's all in one district. Mr. FouxD. 1 know there have been cases of Canadian vessels go- ing over and getting bait and going directly to the fishing grounds, or else I have been absolutely misinformed by the owner of the vessel who told me of the case. Dr. S:mith. This may not be an important question. b\U it occm-s to me jF.^t for the information it may elicit. Suppose an American ves- sel, })ropelled by steam, on her way to the Grand Banks, sails through the territorial waters of XoAa Scotia. Is sho obliged to enter at a port in Xma Scotia t ^Iv. Foi xn. Xo. sir. Chief Justice Hazex. Freedom of navigation. ^Ir. Found. As long as she doesn't dock. She may come in and re- main in port for 48 hours, if she doesn't dock: there isn't anything to prevent her froju doing that. All we can do is to send policemen afttn- her to see that she does not smuirgle anything on board. Secretary Hkdfiffd. If we have got that matier clear on the record wo have done something. ^Ir. Fouxn. One of the things that has come before us. and very urgently, is that in view of that treatment of Canadian vessels in Alaskan waters it has been suggested, and strongly suggested, many times in Canada that as all the Seattle vessels go up through our pas- sages in going up to the fishing grounds similar treatment should be rei|uireil of them there. That has been suggested and pressed on many cu'casions. but we felt that there was no discrimination in Alaska, as you were requiring your own vessels to enter, too. Secretary Reofiflu. Subject to fnrther inquiry and information, the note is made for the consideration of the American conunissioners. whether, in view of the freedom of passage of American vessels in C'anadian territorial waters, consideration should not be given to a reconunendaticm relaxing the requirements upon Canadian vessels l^a'^sing through American territmial Avaters in Alaska. AMEEICAX-CAISrADIAiSr FISHEEIES COXFEEENCE. 25 Mr. Sweet. Alaska or anywhere else, for that matter. Secretary Eedeield. That is the onl}^ place it applies. Dr. Smith. I would like to develop as definitely as possible the necessity for the Canadian vessels bound out of Prince Eupert or other ports of British Columbia to pass through Alaskan ports. Mr. Fou>'D. If you just glance at the map. you will see it. Going outside, they encounter the rough seas, just like the American vessels going outside Vancouver Island and the other isles; it is to get smooth water and make a quick voyage that they go inside. Secretarv Redfield. Make speed, in short. Mr. Sweet. Also safety. Secretary- Redfield. Is there anything further. ^Ir. Chief Justice. ^'■ou would like to ask Mr. Chamberlain? Chief Justice Hazex. No, sir. Secretarv Redfield. Anything you would like to ask. Mr. Des- barats? yh\ Desbakats. I was asking Mr. Chamberlain if he knows to what extent tlie same applies to fishing vessels. He said he would look it up. Secretary Redfield. Have you any questions to ask Mr. Chamber- lain. Mr. Found? Mr. Found. Xo. sir. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Chamberlain, we are very much obliged to you. Of course, it is understood that any of you will ask ]Mr. Chamberlain any questions you have in mind. Mr. Desbakats. jNIt. Chamberlain said something about some special privileges that fishing vessels enjoyed in the way of salt; do those still exist? Mr. Chambeelaix. They had free rebate on their salt. That was given them as a sort of substitute for the bounty that they used to get. but my impression is that salt is on the free list for everybody, and has been for some years. Secretary Redfield. What did that free salt mean? Mr. Chamberlain. There used to be a heavy duty on salt and it Avas rebated. The salt was used in curing the products of American fisheries. It was a sort of a sop, you see. How much it amounted to. I don't know. Secretarv Redfield. Mr. Chamberlain, so far as your knowledge and the scope of your service go, have the American fishing fleet or the American fishermen any special legal privileges or advantages of any kind, oi- natural in some way? Mr. CiiA^Nrr^EKLAix. Xot that I know of, imder existing conditions. Secretai-y Rkdfield. Is there any form of boimty or rebate in their favor. ^Iv. CiiA^iir.ERLAix. There is no bounty, and I don't know of any rebate. I don't know of anything that they have. As I say, they used to have this salt rebate, but that disa]:)peared when salt was on the free list. and. of course, incidentally, the effect of the tariff was sn]-)i)nsed to be in their favor: that is. the tariff on foreigii-caught fish. The fish of the American fishermen were, of course — well, that doesn't exist any more, but I haven't the exact dates when those were changed. I think some of it was on the ordinary tariff. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Quigley. are you aware of any laws grant- ing special privileges to American? 26 AMEBIC AN-CANADIAN PISHEEIES CONFERENCE. Mr. QiTiGLEY. I will read this one, on page 171, "Navigation Laws" (E. 8. 1:220): No vessel belonging to any citizen of the United States trading from one port within the United States to another port within the United States, or employed in the hank, whale, or other fisheries, shall be subject to tonnage tax or duty, if such vessel be licensed, registered, or enrolled. Secretary Redfield. Then. I nnclerstand from that that all such American vessels are free from tonnage taxes? Mr. QxiGLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. Cha:mbeklain. That applies to coastwise vessels too. Tonnage taxes are reall}" insignificant in this country. Secretary KEDFtEnn. Let me ask you this question: Are Canadian fishing vessels entering our ports subject to a tonnage tax? Mr. CriAMBEKLAiis'. They don't enter our ports, but when they do, as in Alaska, those ships have to pay 2 cents a net ton, and they have to pay that not more than five time a year; that is. if the same ship came in six times, it Avonldn't have to pay anything for the sixth time. Secretary Redfield. Are there any other fees or licenses that a Canadian vessel has to pay entering our ports that an American ves- sel Avonldn't have to pay? Mr. CiiAALBEKLAix. The entry and clearance fees are the same. The bill of health was spoken of. There is rather a delicate question on that that has come up not in connection with British vessels, but in the case of Japanese vessels, and the collection of 20 cents fee for certificate to bill of health, and T believe it is collected on other for- eign boats, but not on American ships. Secretary Redfield. AVhat I want to get at is whether there is or is not, and if there is, in what form it is. something to oti'set the claim that may be made as to the advantage of your bounty. We have already had facts placed before us to indicate that the bounty is not large. Now. if they pay a tonnage tax and we don't. I want to know what it amounts to. If they pay for a health service. I want to know about it. Now. what else is there? We want to get every- thing. Mr. Quigiey. if you find any cases where there are obligations of any nature or restrictions of any kind imposed upon the Canadian vessels, not imposed upon our own, will you please bring them to our notice, that we may Inue them made a matter of record and con- sideration ? Mr. QriGLEY. Yes. sir. Mr. ForxD. There was one other point that I'd like to ask that came up in the discussion the other day. There were quite a number of United States fishing vessele that were transferred to the Canadian registry, and I was wondering if ]Mr. Chamberlain has the number available. Mr. Chamberlain. I have the list of transfers: I don't know whether there were few or many. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Chaiiiberlain, will you furnish us the list of transfers? Mr. Chamberlain. How far back would you like to have ns go? Chief Justice Hazen. Three vears. AMEEICAlSr-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERElSrCE. 27 Secretary Redfield. Mr. Chamberlain, suppose you take it for three years prior to the hiw which forbade such transfers under war conditions, so as to get a full three-year period of activities? Chief Justice Hazen. A number of fishing vessels just previous to that time were sold to the Canadian Government for patrol vessels. Mr. Found. Can you tell for Avhat purpose they were transferred? Mr. Chamberlain. When they go out from our flag, that's the end of them on our records. Mr. Found. If we can get the names of the vessels, we can get the rest of it. Mr. Chamberlain. There were six that were transferred, because the oAvners said that under the rule that carried the crew space re- quirements of the seaman's laAv retroactively into ships that were already built, they could not operate their ships under our flag. So far as the future ships are concerned we can do that, but we can't rebuild these ships again. You may recall the cases. They were over in Connecticut — I have forgotten just wdiere they were — ■ and we had quite a full statement of them. They Avere sold in Can- ada; I don't remember the names. Secretary Redfield. You give us back for three years prior to the prohibition. Dr. Smith. That would be 1914. 1915, and 1916. Mr. QuiGLEY. Mr. Secretary, I have drafted a bill in connection with that lobster matter. (Copies of bill distributed.) Secretary Redfield. We shall noAv adjourn till 2.30 this afternoon. Avhen Ave Avill call Gen. Uhler. (Adjournment.) afternoon session. Mr. George Uhler, Supervising Inspector General of the Steam- boat-Inspection Service, appeared before the conference. STATEMENT BY GEORGE UHLER, SUPERVISING INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE STEAMBOAT-INSPECTION SERVICE. Secretary Redfield. General, it lias been suggested that there is a difference in the requirements of j'our service and of the correspond- ing Canadian serA^ice, Avliich may, as things noAv are. make their requirements not only as severe but possibly more severe than your own. I. pointed out in that connection that by reason of the desire to expedite shipping during the war in eA-^ery practicable AA'ay, there had been more or less modifications of our former extreme require- ments and that at the present they were not Avhat they Avere during the period of peace. The matter has reference to Aessels propelled by steam — I think your serA^ce doesn't take under its scope vessels propelled by motors? Gen, Uhler. Yes; over 15 tons, that are engaged in carrying- freight or passengers. There is an exemption for motor fishing A'^essels, those that are engaged in fishing as a regular business. The Revised Statutes section 4426, referred to that, sir, quite particularly. If you care to hear it read, I Avill be glad to do so. Secretary Redfield. I think it would be Avell to read it if it isn't too long;. 28 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONEEEENCE. (xeii. Uhler. It might be well to explain that the first ])art of tliis, Mr. Secretary, incorporates in the requirements for inspection those vessels that were previously exempted. Instead of makinu' a new bill they just picked up the ones previously exempted and put them in as a requirement. (Statute 4426 read by Gen. Uhler. See Exhibit E, p. 309.) Secretary Redfield. Noav, what are the facts regarding such hsh- ing vessels as go Avith power and what are the facts regarding steam trawlers that go to the fishing banks? Gen. Uhler. The trawlers are not exempted : they come imder the regulation of our service and are made to meet the requirements of ocean service for their particular class. Secretary Redfield. What about the motor-driven vessels? Gen. I^iiLER. I have no jurisdiction over that. Secretary Redfield. You have no jurisdiction o\er what we know as a schooner with a motor in it, even those vessels of the larger type of the fishing fleet ? Gen. Uhler. It nuikes no difi'erence what their size, sir, they are exempted if they are engaged in fishing as a regular business. Secretary Redfield. Do you take any cognizance of their hulls? Gen. Uhler. None. Secretary Redfield. What supervision over their construction and condition is had by any public authority? Gen. Uhler. None that I know of, sir, except the documenting of those vessels by the customs authorities. Secretary Redfield. What inspection do they get from the classi- fication society? Gen. I^HLER. I don't know whether they are built under the rules of any classification society, but if they are so built and are looking- for class, they must meet, of course, the requirements of the special classification society that registers them and be built in accordance Avith their specifications, wdiatever they may be. Secretary Redfield. W^here are those vessels usually built? Gen. Uhler. For the fishermen? Secretary Redfield. Yes. Gen. Uhler. Many of them are built at Essex, some on the Penob- scot, and some in Boston. Secretary Redfield. Do you know how they are insured? Gen. Uhler. I do not, sir. Secretary Redfield. As regards the steam trawlers, they come under i-egular ocean inspection? Gen. Uhler. Absolutely, just the same as a cargo ship. Secretary Redfield. How far have their inspection standards been modified during the war? Gen. Uhler. None whatever regarding vessels now in service. There have been some modifications made regarding the testing and the inspection of steel entering into their boilers. Secretary Redfield. New boilers? Gen. I^iiLER. New boilers, and, of course, there has been some con- siderable change in the requirements — the experience required for officers' licenses, etc. Secretary Redfield. Do you have anything to do with the licensing of the officers of fishinp- vessels? AMEBIC AX-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 29 Gen. Uhler. They have no licenses except those under our juris- diction. Secretary Redfield. Except as they may have one from some other emplojanent? I mean the masters or other officers. Gen. Uhler. The officers of motor fishing vessels are not required to have an}^ certificate and likely would have none, except perhaps some of them might hold the certificate that we require from masters of sailing vessels of over 700 tons. It might be that some masters of fishing vessels hold licenses of that character and class. Secretary Redfield. Then, if I understand you correctly, the fact is that the vessels of the fishing fleet are exempt from the inspection of your service? Gen. Uhler. Yes ; excepting the steam trawlers. Secretary Redfield. And the officers of the fishing fleet are not obliged to take the examination which your service requires of the sailing vessels; that's correct? Gen. Uhler. Quite right. Secretary Rediield. Mr. Chief Justice, would jon like to ask any questions ? Chief Justice Hazen. I don't think so. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Desbarats, would you like to ask Gen. Uhler any questions? Mr. Desbarats. Where does the line of inspection begin? The fishing vessels are exempted from inspection, but the steam trawlers are subject to the inspection. Now, where is the line of division be- tween the vessels that are subject to the inspection and those that are not? Gen. Uhler. The line is draAvn by their class. Mr. Desbarats. The size? Gen. Uhler. No ; not size. It would make no difference what the size was of a vessel propelled by motor, if she was engaged regularly in the fishing business, under the provision of the law, she is exempt from inspection; she is exempt from any jurisdiction whatever of our service. Secretary Redfield. Is it the fact, then, that it is because they are not steam vessels? Gen. Uhler. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. That is the point that he wants. Gen. Uhler. If I may explain, Mr. Secretary? Secretary Redfield. Go ahead. Gen. Uhler. Before the advent of the motor vessel, under the laws of the Ignited States, every steam vessel was required to be inspected. She was obliged to carry an engineer and a pilot, no matter whether she was 10 feet long, for pleasure purposes, or commercial purposes, and engaged in carrying passengers, every steam vessel, every steam vessel at least — to use the exact phraseology of the law — propelled, in whole or in part, by steam shall be subject to the provisions of this title, which is Title LII (52) . In the advent of the motor boat, of the gasoline boat, this provision of the law, this section 4426, was amended by the addition of this provision requiring their inspection except when engaged in fishing as a regular business, which, as I re- member, w^as the veiy positive stand taken by Senator Frye. repre- senting a large constituency of fishermen, and Senator Hoar — I think 30 AMERICAK-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEEKCE. n( that time he represented the State of Massachusetts in the Senate — and it was upon their representations, I believe, as I remember the legislation, that the tishino- vessels were exempted. I might say it was mentioned that it might become necessary after a while to install mott)rs in some of the larger boats and even in some of the smaller boats iishing inshore. That is the history of the legislation. Steam was left jnst the same as before until a few j-ears ago. Cliief Justice Hazex. What I don't understand, General, is this: Why a trawler, which is a vessel engaged in fishing, should be subject to inspection anil another vessel of equal size as it engaged in fishing should not be. Is it because it is a steam vessel? Gen. I'liLKi;. Because it is a steam vessel and because of the sup- position that the machinery is more intricate. Chief Justice Haze>'. But. General, as I understand, all fishing- vessels are exempted whether they are propelled by steam or not. Gen. UiiLER. Oh, no. All vessels of above 15 gross tons, carrying freight or passengei's for hire, but not engaged in fishing as a regu- lar business, propelled by gas. fluid, naphtha, or electric motor, that is. the general type of the motor boat, is subject to inspection. Cliief Justice Hazkn. But if a trawler was propelled by naphtha or fluid it would come under that, too? Gen. Uhler. Absolutely. Secretary Eedfield. I thinlv we have been endeavoring for some time to get the hnv modified to bring the motor boat more generalh' under inspection, though not perhaps in this particular detail. Gen. UiiLER. Or not for this particular size or class, as we have known the motor boat, but now that they are coming in. fifteen hun- dred or two thousand tons, we have endeavored to have more legis- lation covering the insjiection and the requirements than they have to nuH^t now. Mr. Desbarats. I was going to ask if in the case of fishing vessels propelled by steam they have to carry licensed engineers? Gen. Uhler. Yes. sir. ]Mr. Desbarats. And licensed captains and mates? Gen. Uheer. If she is more than 100 tons she has to carry a regular licensed master in addition to her certified mat^s. Secretary Eedfield. Hoav many mates? (tcu. Uhler. Oh. depending largely on the size. I think the trawlers carry — that's governed entirely by the seaman's law — two mates if they go moi-e than a hundred miles. That comes under 4463. If they go more than that — let me quote that. This is sec- tion '2 of section 4463 of the Eevised Statutes, which is an amend- ment that was made about three years ago: (Sec. '2 of sec. 44(i3 of the Eevised Statutes read by (ren. Uhler. Stv Exhibit F. p. 3Gi>.) Dr. S>irrn. Those provisions apply to fishing vessels, steam trawlers? Gen. I^riLER. Xo: they are exempt. That section 4463 applies only to those vessels that are inspected by the service and that are under the jurisdiction of the service. Secretary Eedfield. That would apply to steam traAvlers. then, wouldn't it i (nM\. I'liLEi;. Yes. sir. AMEEICAiSr-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 31 Secretary Redfield. Hold on for a minute; when you answered Dr. Smith " ^o," that was a mistake, you didn't understand what he meant ? Gen. Uhlek. 1 didn't mean tliat the steam trawlers are exempt ; that applies to them just as well. If I may make it plain in this way, Mr. Secretary, there is no exemption for any vessel except she be a fishing vessel equipped with a motor other tlian steam. The motor fishing' vessel only is exempt; these vessels coming above 15 gross tons and carrying freight or passengers, come within the scope of the requirements for licensed officers. Mr. Desbai!Ats. A fishing trawler, or a fishing vessel; now, let us take a western fishing vessel ; she is not currying freight for hire — does she come under this inspection here ? Gen. Ui-iLEij. A fishing vessel? Mr. Desbarats. A steam fishing vessel. Gen. Uhlek. Certainly so, sir. Mr. Desbaeats. The term said '' for carrying freight."' Well, she is not carrying freight. Gen. Uhler. That refers to the motor vessel. '' All motor vessels of above 15 gross tons, carrying freight or passengers for hire, but not engaged in fishing as a. regular business, shall be inspected and shall carry licensed engineers and mates.'' Mr. Desbarats. All steam vessels com(> under the insj^ection, then? Geu; Uhler. Yes. Secretary Redfield. Steam vessels of any kind? Gen. Uhler. Unless they come in motor class of below 40 feet. She is then under the designation of a motor boat, and the act de- fines what is a motor boat. It must be less than G5 feet in length. She may be more than that, but if she is more than 15 tons she must be inspected. Secretary Redfield. ]Mr. Desbarats, what is the rule as regards the Canadian fishing vessels with reference to inspection ? Mr. Desbarats. Very similar to your own, Mr. Secretary. Any steam fishing vessel is subject to inspection of her machinery and in- spection of her equipment. The vessels that are propelled by sails or by motor are subject to inspection of equipment, but they are not subject to the inspection of machinery. Secretary Redfield. General, are fishing vessels subject to inspec- tion of equipment by you ? Gen. Uhler. The steam vessels, yes: but the motor fishing vessel is without our jurisdiction wholly. Secretary Redfield. Then I gather, Mr. Desbarats. in that respect your requirement, which involves that the Canadian vessel have her equipment inspected, is more severe than ours in that respect. Mr. Desbarats. Slightly. The inspection of the fishing vessel is not as severe as that of the trading vessel, but there is an inspection for equipment and the}^ have to carry certain life-saving appliances. Secretary Redfield. So that the question you asked this morning about the dories, Mr. Found- Mr. Found. That's a vexatious one with us. Our fishermen who haA'e dories are also required to carry lifeboats on the steam fishing vessels, and they themselves consider their dories very effective life- boats. I was wondering if, on your fishing vessels, you likewise require them to carry .sufficient lifeboats in addition to their dories. 32 AMEKICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Gen. Uhlek. Yes; we liave had that same question before us be- fore. We won't recognize the dories as lifeboats. Secretary Redfield. Do you require lifeboats on your fishing ves- sels as well as dories? Mr. Found. I haven't come in contact with that side of it ; I don't know any of our motor fishing vessels that are carrying (glories, ex- cepting the .smaller ones on the Pacific coast. It is the bigger ones on which the question has arisen. Secretary Eedfield. Now, what I have got in my mind is to get the true balance of operation cost. For example, if it were shown, Mr. Chief Justice, that as against the bounty Avhich has been spoken of, you were, through your equipment laws, requiring a fishing schooner or fishing vessel equipped with a motor to carry a lifeboat, which we did not, then your bounty is more than otfset by the cost of the boat, and you have got the balance made clear. I think we ought to get before us, if we can, this afternoon, just what exact differences there are in the requirements, if any. What do you ask a boat, Mr. Desbarats, to carry, that is a motor fishing vessel of the same class as the Gloucester schooner? Mr. Desbarats. I am not as familiar with that act as I might be, as that doesn't come in my department. My impression is that on sailing vessels and motor fishing boats the inspection requirements {Q-e very light. It is for the protection of fishermen. Mr. Found. Our fishers' act. so far as the equipment on fishing- vessels is concerned, is for the fishermen's protection. I don't know whether there is an inspection act beyond this or not that applies to schooners. I might read this, section 63 of the fishers' act, section 8 of the Statute of 1914. (Sec. 63 of the fishers' act, sec. 8 of the Statute of 1914, read by Mr. Found.) Mr. Found. So far as the steam fishing vessels are concerned the question has come before me from a fisherman's standpoint, and I am not aware that it goes beyond that they are required to carry lifeboats in addition to their fishing dories; that is, those that are not steam trawlers, like our fishing vessels on both sides of the Pacific coast. Secretaiy Redfield. Those that are not steam trawlers? Mr. Found. On the Pacific coast all the larger vessels and steam fishing vessels cany dories. Secretary Redfield. Ours are the same on the Pacific coast; the fishing vessels have to carr}^ doi'ies? Gen. Uhler. Oh, yes. Mr. Desbarats. Ours is just the same as with you. Secretary Redfield. It is my inference, from what we have heard, Mr. Chief Justice, that there is no substantial diiference. Chief Justice Hazen. I would draw the same inference — that there is no substantial diiference betAveen the two countries in that respect. Gen. Uhler. The inspection laws of this country, if I may suggest it, Mr. Secretary, are very similar to those of Canada. Secretary Redfield. Noav, General, how far does the seaman's law operate as regards fishing A^essels? Gen. Uhler. If I may quote it, Mr. Secretary, section 4516, under " Watches," the Revised Statutes of the United States are hereby amended to read as follows : AMEKICAN-CANADIA^^ FISHEEIES COXFEEENCE. 33 (Gen. Uliler read sec. 451G, under the heading of " Watches." He also stated that fishing vessels are exempt from the provisions of sec. 2 of the seaman's act, respecting hours of labor, etc. Sec. 2 was read by Gen. Uhler. See Exhibit G. p. 370.) Chief Justice Hazen. Perhaps the general could tell us briefly, Mr. Secretary, what provisions of the seaman's act apply to fishing vessels. Secretary Redfield. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. Are there any provisions in the seaman's act that apply to fishing vessels? Gen. Uhler. Unless they are especially exempted, all the pro- visions of the seaman's act apply. Chief Justice Hazen. Would you tell us what there is in the sea- ' man's act that would apply to fishing vessels? Secretary Redfield. Mr. Quigiey, have you reached that ? Mr. Quigley. I will prepare a memorandum in that matter. (See Exhibit H, p. 371.) Mr. Desbarats. I was going to ask Gen. Uhler, as these fishing- vessels are not subject to inspection, how are these requirements of the seaman's act enforced? Gen. Uhler. It doesn't require that the Inspection Service enforce them; they are enforced by the customs ofHcers and collectors. Mr. Desbarats. For example, if there is insufficient crew space on the vessel? Gen. Uhler. In our inspection of a vessel, v.-e determine the space and everything that comes under what might be termed the general inspection of the vessel, but there are several requirements of the seaman's act that can only be determined by the collector, and. in fact, the seaman's act explains in some detail Avhat you must do and what you ma}' do under certain circumstances. Secretarv Eedfield. But that doesn't apply to fishing vessels. Gen. Uhler. Unless they are specifically exempted, it does. Of course we wouldn't inspect vessels at that time. The provisions of th seaman's bill would have to be pa^^sed upon by th'^ collector of customs. Mr. Desbarats. On a technical matter like thai:, I Avas wondering how it could be determined whether they lived up to it. Gen. Uhler. It is not very technical. They say that they must have so much space for so many men, and not more than two bertlis in height, one berth over the other, and f;o much cupola space, etc. Mr. Desbarats. In ordinary ships, I presume that your inspection is very much like the British inspection. They would mark on a compartment "so many cubic feet authorized for so many men.'" Gen. Uhler. That is done by the Bureau of Navigation, the mark- ing of compartments. Secretary Eedfield. That's Mr. Chamberlain's service; they have the measuring of the ships. Mr. Desbarats. In connection with the inspection of steam ma- chinery, it comes to us occasionally when American vessels apply for register that there is a difference; that while they could obtain register and have the machinery passed by American laws, they would have to change their machinery, under our requirements, and 51950—18 3 34 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. add certain tliino-s. Xow. T don't know wliother von are familiar with any dilt'erence of that kind, or what the reason niiaht he for those dilferences. Gen. Uhlek. I think that there is some dirt'erenee in the laws of the tAvo conntries in that respect. We proA*ide in onr hiAA- that the boilers and machinery of any foreign-built vessel admitted to Ameri- can registry may be accepted even thonirh they do not conform to the rules and regulations of our construction and of our instaihition. Section 14 of the act approved iSIarch 3, 1897, provides foi' that ex- emption. I don't believe that the Canadian law gives to a vessel entering its registry that same privilege. This 3 am quite sure of. that any foreign vessel seeking Canadian registry, "or securing Cana- dian registry will have the pressure of her boilers cut from 10 to t^O per cent, and they may cut the pi'essure as high as 25 per cent, if the boilers were not built under the Canadian rules and under Canadian survey. So that no matter how good the boilers are. whether they are new or old. it is within the judgment anil the discretion of the C^madian surveyor — the Canadian inspector, in this instance — to say to the man arbitrarily: " Your pressiu^e is cut 10, 15, or 20 per cent.'' or they are allowed to go up to 25 per cent, simply because the boil- ers are not built under the (\inadian rules and undei- Canadian survey. That, I am quite sure, is a fact, lliat comes to me not from any intimate knowledge of the law, but from our practice Avith Canadian inspectors on board. Avith which Ave are more or less familiar. Mr. Drskak ATS. It doesn't mean that the boiler is not as good as a boiler under Canadian inspection? (ren. Uhler. No, sir; not at all. Mr. Desharats. But it Avould mean that a \essel seeking Canadian registry would have to meet that. Chief Justice Hazen. Isn't it this, that vessels or boilers, when they are being built, are subject to the inspection and survey of the (xovernment inspectors? You knoAv then hoAv they haA'e been con- sti'ucted as the Avoi'k proceeds. The A'essels coming in from the I'nited States do not aft'ord them the opportunity of inspecting them in course of construction in Canada, Avhere boilers are being manu- factured. Therefore, they reduce the amount of pressure that is alloAved. (len. Uhler. Probably so. 1 don't know the motive, nor do I know the reason, but I knoAv that the American laAv fully provides for that proposition on any vessel seeking American registration. We htive proxided for that by an act of Congress, by Avhich Ave ad- mit the boilers and give them Avhat they are Avorth. Our rules and regidations have provided under this act of Congress that if there Avere lu) authentic recoi'd of the boiler and the material entering into the boiler, they Avould be given the value, if of steel, of 50,000; if of iron, of 45,000. We have so amended that noAv that if they furnish us Avith an authentic record of the material Avhich entered into the boiler Ave give them the steam pressure that the tensile streng-th justifies, dej^endent. of course, upon the condition of the boiler. Secretary Eedfield. In other Avords. they could get the same rat- ing that those same conditions Avould give an American boiler. Is (hat Avliat you mean? Gen. ITm.ER. Positivelv. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 35 Secretary Redfield. I don't conceive, Mr. Chief Justice, that it is the natural wa\' to safeguard unknown construction or life history by a reduction of pressure, and yet, I should think it was feasible to obtain a record of that life history by cooperation with Gen. I^hler's service, which has that history. Chief Justice Hazen. It would appear that it is more difficult than to transfer an American vessel to a Canadian registry than to transfer a Canadian vessel to an American registry. Secretary Redfield. Yes; that would seem to be so. That's, your understanding, isn't it? Gen. Uhler. Quite sure, sir. At the time that that law was en- acted, if I may continue, we admitted to Ameivican registry only those vessels which were wrccived upon the coast of the United' States tmd which were salvaged by an American company, and upon which there had been expended in American shipyards 75 per cent of her ultimate value. But that has been changed, and, in order to natural- ize, so to speak, the boilers and machinery of that vessel, it was nec- essary that this law be enacted to authorize the setting aside or the exemption from the law and the rules governing the re(iuirements for material and for construction purposes. Secretary Redfield. So far as this conference is concerned this applies to steam trawlers upon the Atlantic and to the steam fishing vessels of the Pacific. Let me ask, Mr. Found, if it is a fact tha't these vessels that were talked about a;; transferred in connection with Prhicc Rupeii- matters were steam vessels? Mr. Found. I know of none, unless they are small ones, like gasoline. Secretary Redfield. But it is a fact, is it — I don't know — that the nsual seagoing fishing vessel of the Pacific is a steamer? Mr. Found. All the bigger ones are; then there are some gasoline schooners and a number of boats that have gasoline power carrying three dories. Secretary Redfield. Small boats? Mr. Found. Yes, sir; they don't go far. Gen. Uhlei!. Their sailing vessels are e(]uipped with gasoline dories ? Mr. Found. Yes, sir; and some power boats that carrv three dories that don't go to the northern banks. Gen. Uhler. I might say, Mr. Secretary, I suppose thev have the same condition in the Canadian service, the installation of a motor in a schooner at once changes the character of her from a schooner to a motor vessel, under this law. She loses her identity as a schooner and becomes a motor boat. Xo matter if she uses her motor once a week or once a month, once the motor is installed her character is changed in the presence of that installation. Mr. Desbarats. That holds with us also. Our legislation, in a general way, provides for all power-driven vessels, fishing vessels being exempt in the auxiliary vessels but not in the steam — very similar to your legislation. Gen. Uhler. It seems to me that there is but little difference there. Secretary Redfield. It has no particular bearing on our subject: but it is the fact, is it not, General, so far as you know, that the quality of the boats is kept up in good shape ? 36 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. GeJi. Ui-iLER. Very magnificently. Secretary Redfield. That, I understand, is true about the Canadian vessels ? Mr. For^;D. Yes; a ves'^:el is considered old if it is 4 years old. There seems to be a competition to have the nicest looking vessels. Secretary Eedfield. We have vessels in the Lighthouse Service that are in perfect condition, 66 and 68 years old, just as good as when they were made, but they don't build ships out of that material now. Any questions you would like to ask, Mr. Sweet ? Mr. Saveet. I understood the statement to have been made here two or three days ago that Canadian inspection laws for steam vescels were more rigid than ours. I would like to ask Gen. Uhler whetlier that is true — the inspection of steam vessels, machinerv, and hulls? Gen. Uhler. I think not, sir. There ma}' bs sorae dilference in the rules. Our rules may be a little more drastic in details of boiler bracing, size of the braces, and the like of that ; they may be a little more lenient in others, but as a general proposition I think that the steamboat-inspection rules and the laws of the Ignited States are a bit more rigid and drastic than the hnvs or regulations of any other maritime nation. I say that because in the American service there is but littk^ discretion given a surveyor for exemption, the laws are rather carefully enacted, the details are definite, and our rides and regulations are for the purpose of carrying into effect those laws, and in that wa}- we have been rather drastic in some in- stances — not drastic, but going fuller into details. There are some instances where we are more drastic than Canada, and other places where they are a bit more drastic than we are, but as a general proposition — I am taking into account the whole scheme of steam- boat inspection — I think the laws and the regulations are a bit more drastic than the inspection laws of any other maritime nation. Mr. Sweet. The difference is not great ? Gen. Uhlek. I think not, sir. If I may speak of the Canadian rules, you will notice in all of their rules that it is rather a com- bination of the best : that is, based upon the board of trade rules and the experience of the particular localities in their waters and Canadian service. The Canadian law has some of its regulations based upon Lloyd's deductions, others again upon the rules of the British board of trade, but generally we meet, so far as may be possible by our rules, the purpose of the section of law to which they refer. Mr. Sweet. That answers the question. Secretary Redfield. Dr. Smith, have you any questions? Dr. Smith. No, sir. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Desbarats. have you anything to ask Gen. Uhler? Mr. Desbarats. I have no questions. The inspection of the hulls comes under your department, does it? Gen. Uhler. Yes, sir. Mr. Desbarats. And the steam fishing vessels are inspected the siime as other vessels? Gen. Uhler. Yes. sir. AMEEICAN'-CAIS^ADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEElSrCE. 37 Mr. Desbarats. Your inspection laws for hulls are very similar to those in Canada ? Gen. Uhler. I think there is but little difference. Our inspection is to determine -whether or Fiot the ship is being maintained in the condition that fits her for her work and makes her seaworthy, all that sort of thing, having in mind the original construction of the ship, so as to note deterioration, to note conditions of rust, loose rivets, etc. We examine the hull of every ship very thoroughly and also the double-bottoms. We go in the double-bottoms and examine her frame, her floors, her intercostals, etc.. and then come out and examine the vertical members, particular attention being giA'en to tank tops and such parts of the hull as are subject to extraordinary stress, noting particularly the condition of deterioration from origi- nal form. Secretary Eedeield. What is your rule for reinspection. General? Gen. Uhler. The law requires that every vessel shall be inspected annually. In addition to that it is a department regulation that every vessel carrying passengers shall be reinspected at least three times during the jDeriod of her service, so that if the passenger vessel is in service for three months only she is reinspected three times to determine Avhether or not the equipment as required and Avhich was on board at the time of the annual inspection of the vessel is being maintained in good shape. Chief Justice Hazen. That would not apply to fishing vessels? Gen. Uhler. That onl}^ applies to passenger vessels. Freight ves- sels are subject only to additional inspection at the discretion of the inspector. He is authorized to go aboard at any time and note conditions. Secretary Redfield. I think, while we are on that subject, our recent development of traveling inspectors might be interesting to you, Mr. Desbarats and Mr. Found, the provision of traveling offi- cers, who are not in any way local inspectors, but who are to see how ships behave while they are in use. You have two now. have you not. General ? Gen. Uhler. We have two now ; yes, sir; one on the Atlantic and one on the Pacific, who go aboard a number of vessels at any time or at any place and note conditions and report discrepancies or any unusual condition to the bureau. Mr. Found. Sta}^ on it for a voj^age? Gen. Uhler. No ; not as yet. We haven't found it necessary. Secretary Redfield. Yon mean for a transocean voyage ; they stay on for a trip ? Gen. Uhler. Oh, yes. Chief Justice Hazex. From Baltimore to New York? Gen. Uhler. Oh, yes; we have done that quite often. Now, he reports his findings to the bureau. We immediately send to the local inspectors who have inspected that vessel the report of the traveling inspector and call attention to these discrepancies or omissions as he thinks important and ask them why. They report back in nine cases out of ten — nineteen cases out of twenty— that it was in good condi- tion when they were there ; there were no omissions in the equipment ; and if it was not there now, it was because it had been misplaced from the time of their last inspection. 38 AMEEICAK -CANADIAN FISHKHIES CONFKKEXCE. Secretary Kedfjkld. (xeiieral, are you familiar with the (Question of accident insurance, as relates to the tishernien. at all!' Gen. UriLEK. I am not ; I have no kno\vledge of it ar all. Secretary Eedeieij). That is a very important thing. Gen. I'^hleh. That's a matter, I think, of the Governments in con- nection Avith the operation of the fisheries. I don't know whether this same condition applies to the Canadian laws or not, but in our law reference to '" the fislieries," and, in fact, in section -1:131, where it refers to American vessels engaged in fishing. '* the fisheries " as contemplated by the law refer only to the three fisheries — the whale, the cod, and the mackerel. Those are '' the fisheries " that are recog- nized by the law in the determination of questions coming under such conditions as refer to the fisheries. Ghief Justice Hazex. So tliat when you speak in that act of fish- ing vessels, you only mean \essels that catch whale or cod or uuickerel { Gen. Uhlek. \o: but in the recent law it refers to fishing vessels which is governed by the enrollment of a vessel. For instance, Avhen a vessel is enrolled to engage in "the fisheries." she engages in the whale, mackerel or cod : I think that is correct. Dr. SirrrH. It is a rather unfortunate limitation, too. because in some statistics which Avere published a feAv years ago we had uuick- erel and cod vessels fishing out of Alabama. (tcu. UiiLER. That's a fact. I only mention that as incidental to the Avhole scheme of fishing, but here we refer not to the vessels of the fisheries. Mr. Ghief Justice, but to fishing vessels. Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Chaii'man, it Avould appear from the very interesting evidence that Gen. Uhler has given us that there is comparatively little dilterence in the stringency of the inspection in Canada and the Vnited States, but if it was thought necessary to pursue the matter further, we could bring before us the chairman of the Canadian board and he could give more accurate information than we can furnish here to-day. Secretary Eedfteld. It has only this advantage to my mind that it corroborates and makes absolutely beyond all question the fact, and I think it might perhaps on that ground be Avell to do so. The thing could never be cjuestioned any more if the chief of service in each country had made it perfectly plain. Chief Justice Hazen. Having in mind the point that has been sug- gested here in regard to the American fishing vessels registering in Canada, it would appear, from the statements, that it is far more difficult for the American vessels to get registered in Canada than it is for Canadian vessels to register here. Secretary Kedfield. She doesn't get as high a rating apparently. Chief Justice Hazen. Xo. Secretary Reuftelo. I think Ave can discuss that Avhen Ave get to Boston and see Avhether that is deemed necessary. ^Nly OAvn feeling about matters of that kind is that one can hardly know too much, and that in some unexpected Avay occasionally you get light Avhere you didn't at all expect it. Noav. for instance, I think this morn- ing a Aery clear example of that came \ip in the dcAelopment of that old smuggling law out of Ketchikan. It came up in an miex- pected Avay. but it is a very fertile sidelight on the situation. So that so far as feasible. Avithout great inconvenience, if it is possible to AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 39 have your technicji] service aid in the inquiry, I think it is de- sirable. (Adjournment till 10.30 a. in. following day.) Tuesday. Janiary 22, 1918. The meeting was called to order at 10.30 by Secretary Redfield. Secretary Redfield. I think perhaps at this point it is pertinent to read the telegrams, which I didn't know had been sent, but which Mr. Chamberlain handed to me this morning. (Telegrams read. See Exhibit I, p. 371.) I think perhaps at this point it is pertinent to read the telegrams, which I didn't know had been sent. l)ut which Mr. Chamberlain handed to me this morning. (Telegrams read. See Exhibit I.) Mr. Found. I'd like to confirm the information on which I am acting. I have the record with me at the hotel, giving me the state- ment from the president or manager of the Canadian fishing com- ])any of his vessel's going to Washington State ports getting bait and going direct to the fishing grounds. I feel quite confident that that is done. Secretary Redfield. I think, Mr. Found, that it would be very de- sirable if that letter could be made a portion of our record, if you have no objection to it, right at this point. Mr. Found. I haven't got it with me, but I shall look it up before the next meeting. Secretary Redfield. I wish you would, becanse I think we might just as well gather that subject into one place and clear it up — straighten it out. Mr, Foi^ND. I think so. And if the information is not as clear and precise as I think it is, then I shall get it clear and place it before the conference before Ave are through with it. Chief Justice Hazen. It is perfectly clear they go to the fishing- grounds direct fi'om Ketchikan. Mr. Sweet. Then they come into the Canadian port after they catch their fish. Dr. Smith. Mr. Found and I have worked over a resolution which is intejided to express our view as to the protection of the sturgeon. (Resolution prepared by Mr. Found and Dr. Smith read by Mr. Robertson. It follows:) Whereas the sturgeons are iiulivithially by far the most valuable tishes inhabit- ing North America. Whereas the supply of stiu-geons in all waters in which the fishery has been active has been so materially reduced as to presage commercial extinction, which, in tact, has already occurred in certain waters. Whereas it is evident that the measures heretofore adopted are entirely inade- quate to arrest the rapid decline of the fisheries or even maintain the present greatly diminished supply : Therefore be it Resolved. That this conference regards it as necessary that all sturgeon fishing in all the contiguous waters of the United States and Canada be sus- pended for a period of at least tive years, and that each country should under- take to carry this purpose into effect by appropriate legislation or other othcial action. Resolved further. That this conference sti'ongly reeonnnends the adoption by the appropi-iate legislative bodies <)f a similar prohibitory measure for non- contiguous waters. 40 AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAlS! FISHERIES CONFERENCE. (There was an informal discussion relative to the resolution at tliis point.) Secretary Redfield. Are you ready for action upon the resolu- tion ? As many as favor the adoption of the resolution will signifj'^ by saying " aye '° : those opposed, " no.'' The resolution is unani- mously adopted. Was there any fiirther action on the part of the committee? Dr. Smith. We are not ready to report on the other matter that was referred to us. I Avould like to inquire whether Mr. Quigley is ready to report his draft of bill covering the lobster traffic on the Canadian coast. (There was an informal discussion at this time relative to the provisions to be incorporated in draft to be submitted by Mr. Quigley pertaining to the lobster traffic on the Canadian coast.) Secretary Redfield. Then the conference so understands the mat- ter is referred to Mr. Quigley for drafting in that way. If there is no further business, I suggest an adjournmei:it. (Adjournment till 10.30 a. m. day following.) Wedisesday, January 23, 1^18. Mr. E. T. Chamberlain. Conmiissioner of Navigation, and Mr. Henry M. Loom is, of the United States Food Administration, ap- peared before the conference at the Department of Commerce, Wash- ington, D. C. The meetino' was called to order at 10.30 a. m. bv Secretarv Red- field. It would appear from the minutes that there is an item of un- finished business in respect to the letter to Judge Alexander and Senator Fletcher. Will you read what you have received? Mr. DwiGHT. Mr. Secretary, I have to report that I wrote Judge x4.1exander and Senator Fletcher, and I have received a letter from Judge Alexander as follows. [Letter from Judge Alexander read.] No letter has come in as yet from Senator Fletcher. Secretary Redfield. There is another item of unfinished business arising from the minutes. Mr. Quigley. have you the bill that was spoken of therein? Mr. Quigley. Yes, sir. (Copies of draft of bill distributed.) Secretary Redfield. I would suggest, Mr. Quigley, that you read the bill yourself, so that we may follow it through with care. Mr. Quigley. I might say. Mr. Secretary, before reading it. that I have made a change in the first provision, also a change in the fourth section. The change in the first provision concerned the violation of the act by persons who offer for sale, or have in their possession any lobsters unlawfully imported or landed in the United States. There may be persons, innocently coming into possession of such lobsters, who ought not to be subject to the iDcnalty prescribed, and so I have inserted the words "knowing the same to have been imported or brought into or landed in the United States in viola- tion of the act," which follows the language of other penal statutes of a like character forbidding the importation of certain articles. In the fourth section, I have included a provision giving the right to make searches which I did not have in the original draft. AMERICAN-CAITADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 41 Secretary Eedfield. That's a good idea. (Draft of bill pertaining to lobster fishing read by Mr. Quigley.) Secretary Redfield. Any comments? Discussion relative to the features of the proposed bill. Mr. Quigley. I would suggest, Mr. Secretary, in order to save a little time, that Dr. Smith, Mr. Found, the fish experts of the con- ference, and myself get together and adopt language that will cover the points discussed. Chief Justice Hazen. I thinlv that is a good suggestion. Secretarv Redfield. The suggestion is made that the bill be re- ferred for' further consideration to a committee consisting of Mr. Found, Dr. Smith, and Mr. Quigley; if there is no objection, this will be considered the act of the conference. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. jMr. Desbarats. Mr. Chairman, in considering the draft ot the bill, this committee might take into consideration the diflficulty of obtaining evidence to prove that these lobsters were caught within whatever area is defined. If a ship comes in to an American port and the lobsters are seized, would it then be necessary to prove that those lobsters were caught within the prohibited area ? Secretary Redfield. I think the obligation Avould be on us to pro- vide them "with the evidence. I think our fishing patrol vessels will have to have instiaictions to look out for this. Mr. Found. I have no fear at all, if we get this law, they will not try it. There are very few companies that are doing this, and if we could follow them into Boston Harbor and then provide the evi- dence, they wouldn't do it. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Secretary, May I ask whether the bill m every other particular meets with approval ? Secretary Redfield. Before this action is taken, which is not yet taken, in appointing this committee, your idea is to know if there are any further matters which should be brought to its attention? Mr. Quigley. Or anything further in connection with the bill. Secretary Redfield. Have you any other suggestion, Mr. Chief Justice ? « Chief Justice Hazen. No. Secretary Redfield. I think you might consider the suggestion made by Mr. Sweet as to whether it needs revision in regard to the penaltv. With the understanding that the two matters brought up will be considered by the committee and any others that may occur to them, is there objection to the proposal?' The Chair hears no objec- tion. It is unanimously agreed that the matter shall be referred to the aforesaid committee to report at their earliest convenience. (At this point Secretary Redfield read telegrams exchanged be- tween Mr. E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation, and the collector of customs at Seattle and Ketchikan respecting the grant- ing of clearances to foreign vessels for the high seas. See Ex- hibit I, p. 371.) Mr. Found. In the light of the subsequent telegrams, I may have placed a wrong interpretation on this telegram, though I think when I read it, you will agree with me that my interpretation, in the light of the information I had, was right. In August, 1916, when Sir Joseph Pope and myself were here in connection with the 42 AMEElCAlSr-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. Chamberlain bill that was then up, a somewhat similar question came up and I sent this telegram to our chief inspector of Fish- eries for British Columbia, F. H. Cunningham. This was dated August 28, 1916. (Telegram to Mr. Cunningham and reply thereto by telegram read. See Exhibit J. p. 872.) Mr. Found. From that latter portion, I assumed, knowing what was being done in Ketchikan, that clearly what they did Avas that as it was more convenient and more economical for a Canadian vessel to go to an American port than to import bait, that it went to the American port and got bait and then went to the high seas- Now, in the light of that telegram, I can quite see that that need not be the case; that she might go to one of these places and clear back to Vancouver or to any of these places that would be on her way to the fishing grounds. STATEMENT BY MR. E. T. CHAMBERLAIN, COMMISSIONER OF NAVIGATION. Chief Justice Hazen. Is there any law, Mr. Chamberlain, which requires a vessel that clears from an American port or Canadian port to proceed directly to the port it is to go to? For instance, to put an extreme case, a vessel would clear, we will say, from Boston for Halifax; is there anvthing to prevent that vessel from running- over to the coast of Ireland, then coming back to Halifax? Mr. Chamberlain. No; there is not; that would be an evasive clearance. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, if it could run over to the coast of Ireland, would there be anything to prevent it from catching a cargo of fish and coming back? Mr. Chamberlain. As you see. that's a question ; that's wh}' I was a little careful ; I started to say that was a "" fraudulent clearance," and I said it was an " evasive clearance,'' and I am not entirely sure just how a court would rule on a matter of that kind. We might impose a penalty, but then it would be contested, and we might be wrong; such things have happened. Chief Justice Hazen. What would there be to prevent that vessel halfway across to Halifax from anchoring and catching fish and then going on to Halifax, presuming that you could catch fish there? Secretary Redfield. What right has any country, the vessel hav- ing cleared under the law" with intent to make the port of destination, to say what that vessel shall do upon the high seas enroute ? Mr. Chamberlain. There are considerable questions there, of course. Secretary Eedfield. You get at the root of the thing right there. it seems. Mr. Desbarats. When a vessel comes into port, does she not have to produce a manifest showing that that is really where she is coming from with that cargo ? Mr. Chamberlain. You are quite right about that, but in a case such as we have under consideration, would there be any cargo? Wouldn't it be a ship going in ballast, I would say? If she was a fishing vessel, she probably would be clearing just with her supplies, you know. Her manifest would be a blank, would be a purely formal matter, just clearing with her stores: and if she did happen to take AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 43 cargo for Halifax or foi- the Canadian port. I presume she woukl deliver that. Secretary Eedfield. It will be a very interesting question when we get to Boston to ask our friend, the collector of customs. Mr. Chamberlain. That's the law, I take it, under which the Ketchikan collector has been acting, section 3109, Eevised Statutes. (Section 3109 read by Mr. Chamberlain. See Exhibit K, p. 3T2.) Mr. Chambeklain. Noav, that was modified by the act creating this department of February, 1903. And it is under that, act, although its applicability to fishing vessels is far from being clear, as it ap- pears from the other language of the act. that the Ketchikan col- lector has been acting in these cases, and I only recollect, which I could doubtless verify from the files, that at the time that act of 1898 was passed, there was no end of whisky smuggling on the Alaskan coast, both for the Indians and the white men, who, I think, had their share, too, and the instructions were very rigid to prevent that sort of thing going on, and the practice doubtless arose at that time of applying this to everything that came in. There" was a repeal by article 1 of the treaty of 1909 with Great Britain. Secretary Redfield. The whole act? Mr. Chamberlain. The whole act. Secretary Redfield. What was repealed? Mr. Chamberlain. I will have to look that up in the treaty, Mr. Secretary ; I haven't it right in my mind. Secretary Redfield. It seems to me that on the face of it the col- lector at Ketchikan was acting under an act which had been re- pealed by a treaty. Mr. CHAMBERLAiiSr. I think so. too, but I want to verify that. Secretary Redfield. Can you do that? Mr. Chamberlain. Yes ; when I go upstairs. Secretary Redfield. We shall defer consideration of this matter then until Mr. Chamberlain returns. STATEMENT BY ME. H. M. LOOMIS, OF THE FOOD ADMINIS- TRATION. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Loomis, of the Food Administration, is present, and, in order not to detain him, I ask that he will kindly step forward and take this chair. I have asked you, Mr. Loomis, to be present, representing the Food Administration, because in considering the very important subject of the mutual relations of the Dominion of Canada and the United States on this important fishery question, one of the phases upon which opinion in both countries is alert and interested is the question of food supply. The questions we shall have to discuss take a new angle of vision from the facts which are alleged to exist concerning the food supply not only of this country and the Dominion of Canada, but of the countries which are more or less dependent upon us for their food supplies, and I'd be very glad to have you make to the conference any suggestions as to what the situation is that we may have before us in an official way, those facts in order that we may put proper weight upon them. Will you tell us, therefore, wdiat the general food situation is, and especially whether you are making any effort to develop the fish supply or anything of that kind? 44 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE.' Mr. LooMis. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to say in opening that I have not come here at the advice of or after consulting Mr. Hoover; I have come solely on my own initiative, and I therefore do not want anything I may say to be taken as given by an official representing the Food Administration. I have already told you Mr. Fowler is handling the fresh-fish division over at the Food Administration, and he has been there ever since, I think, the Food Administration started, and I am rather a novice at it, having just got there about the latter part of Decem- ber. I think Mr. Fowler Avill be here before 12 o'clock, and I think it will be very nice if he can say something. I think these gentle- men are probably familiar with the very great shortage in the meat supply and the great demand for something to take its place in the menu and at the tables of the consuming public. You are all more or less familiar with the shortage in the meat supply. There is a great reduction in the number of cattle in this country. There is the diminishing of cattle on the ranges, the cutting off of the supply of meat to a large extent from Argentina hj the war, and therefore it appears very necessary for us to look around for some source of protein, which is the essential food constituent of meat, to take the place. It is very important that a great deal of our meat should be sent over to the' nations who are allied with us in the war. That largely restricts us to products like poultry, eggs, and fish ; that is, leaving out of consideration the leguminous foods, like beans and peas. I think the ordinary consumer desires and requires something related to meat, flesh, and there is nothing that can be more extensively de- veloped, I think, to take the place of meat, than the fish industry. Therefore, I feel that it is a very important thing that anything that can be done to develop that industry should be done, particularly at this time. Speaking for the canned-fish industry, the catch or output for this last season on the Maine sardines amounted to about 2,250,000 cases. In the case of salmon I believe the pack was about 8,500,000 cases; that would amount to about 425,000,000 pounds of salmon. I be- lieve that that pack has already been taken up and there is not near enough supply to meet the demand. I don't know that there is anything further I can say, Mr. Sec- retary. Secretary Redfield. I think that puts the facts in very brief com- pass. Mr.' Chief Justice, are there any questions you would like to ask of Mr. Loomis? Chief Justice Hazen. This market, I suppose, for fresh fish and canned fish can be increased to a very great extent, if you could get the fish to sell? Mr. LooMis. Yes, sir; I think so. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Desbarats, have you any questions? Mr. Desbarats. How does the matter stand now as to the relatioi between the supply of fish available and the demand which exists? Mr. LooMis. As I say, my familiarity is only with the canned fish industry, and I know that the supply of salmon available — canned salmon — is very short of the demand, although there has been a very large pack this year, one of the largest; with one exception. I think it is the largest pack of salmon ever had. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 45 Secretary Redfield. Do I get correctly from you, Mr. Loomis, the impression that you regard the supply of camied fish, and in so far as you are aware of fresh fish as unequal to the existing demand? Mr. LooMis. As far as canned fish is concerned, it is unequal to the demand. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know what the dut}'- is on canned fish coming into the United States? Take sardines, for instance; they are put up on the Canadian side. Do you know what duty they would have to pay in order to send their product into the United States '? Mr. LooMis. I wouldn't be certain of that ; I should have it at my fingers' ends, but I think it is something like a quarter of a cent a can and ad valorem. I wouldn't want to say that that is correct, though. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know that that is correct ? Mr. LooMis. No, sir. I do know there is an ad valorem duty, but I don't know just how much it amounts to. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, the sardines that are put up on the coast of Maine are caught in Canadian waters chiefly, are they not ? Mr. Loomis. I should say TO per cent of the fish are caught in Canadian waters. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, the fish are admitted free into the United States? Mr. LooMis. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. But when it comes to the question of fisli that are canned in Canada, there is a dutj^? Mr. LooMis. I believe so. Chief Justice Hazen. On the cans and on the value of the prod- ucts? jVli'. LooMis. Yes, sir. Dr. Smith. I would like to say, Mr. Secretary, that Mr. Loomis has been particularly identified with the canned-fish business, and especially on the coast of Maine in connection with the sardine indus- try, where he has instituted a system of inspection which has resulted in great good to the industry. Up to the time Mr. Loomis went in there avps no inspection, no coorclination or standardization of the pack of Maine sardines; since then the industry has taken on a new life, and Mr, Loomis is largely responsible for it. Secretary Redfield. I think, Mr. Loomis, we didn't get your name in full. Mr. LooMis. Henry M. Loomis. Secretary Redfield. And .do you hold any official position in con- nection with the Maine fisheries? Mr. Loomis. I am now connected outside of the Food Administra- tion with the National Canners' Association as director of sardine inspection, and during this winter I have volunteered for work in the Food Administration, while the season is closed up there in Maine. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Found, any questions? Mr. Found. No, sir. Secretary Redfield. Mr, Sweet? Mr. Sweet. I have no questions. Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Loomis. Will Mr. Fowler be here? Mr. LooMis. He said he would be here later on. 46 AMEEICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. STATEMENT BY MR. E. T. CHAMBERLAIN— Continued. Secretary Eedfield. Resume, Mr. Chamberhiin. Mr. Cha3iberlain. The section that I just read, section 3109, j^ou will recall, began, " The uuister of any foreign vessel, etc." It is applicable to foreign ships; it is not applicable to American ships. Now, the first article of that treaty of 1909 to which I referred, the treaty between the United States and Great Britain relating to boundary waters between the United States and Canada, signed at Washington, January 11, 1909, reads: (First article of treaty read by Mr. Chamberlain. See Exhibit L, p. 372.) ■ ■ . . \ Mr. Chamberl.\in. Now, so far as British ships covered by the treaty are concerned, thei'e is an evident conflict between the two. It is possible that in that footnote to the navigation laws — and that book, of course, is rather a popular book for the convenience of ship captains more than anything else — -that treaty might be regarded as not a self-executing treaty. We have two kinds of treaties, as you laiow, self-executing and those that require legislation to give them effect, and I don't know how the State Department would regard that; that is a matter for them to determine, but there is a palpable conflict there. Secretary Eedfield. It appears to be the fact that the collector at Ketchikan is requiring Canadian vessels to do under this law that which a subsequent treaty pro>ides they shall not be obliged to do. Mr. Cha:mbeklain. T^nleas it is done to our ships. Secretary Redfield. Now. the question arises. What form does the requirement take ^ Do you know, Mr. Found ? Mr. Found. I am afraid that treaty doesn't apply. You see. the preliminary article tiefines what boundary waters are. (Preliminary article read bv Mr. Found. See Exhibit M, p. 373.) ]Mr. Found. 1 noticed that footnote, but I knew this treaty, and that we had not ground for claiming that that treaty abrogated this provision so far as Alaskan waters are concerned. Secretary Redfieed. These particular watei-s are not covered by the treaty. Mr. Found. I am afraid not, sir. These are the Lake waters and all the waters contiguous to the Lakes. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you mean to say it doesn't cover waters along the coast i Mv. Found. For the purposes of this treaty, boundary waters are defined as : (Article read by Mr. For.nd. See Exhibit M.) Secretary Redfield. Expressly excludes the ocean. Mr. Found. In set terms it doesn't apply to the ocean. Secretary Redfield, So the old law stands. Mr. Chamberlain. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. So, then, you have got a condition? Mr. Chamberlain. Except in so far as the footnote applies to the Great Lakes, as well as to Alaska. It is not applicable to this situ- ation. Secretary Redfield. Yes. So, inasmuch as the treaty does not apply, that old law stands? AMEBICAN-CAISrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 47 (Mr. Quig'ley read from the United States Compiled Statutes. 1916, vol. VI, p. 6884, referring to Revised Statute, sec. 3109, as amended Pebruarv, 1898, entitled " Report by Masters of Foreign Vessels." See Exhibit N, p. 373.) Mr. QuiGLET. From the statement contained in this volume, it would appear that section 3109 as amended by the act of 1898 is still in force? Mr. Cpiamberlaix. Yes. Mr. Found. That's the section you are reading? Mr. Chamberlain. Yes. Secretary Redfield. There seems to be no doubt this law is still in force. Mr. Chamberlain. So far as this question is concerned, yes. Secretary Redfield. That merely gets upon the record that the latest official publication shows that law is still in force. Chief Justice Hazen. And it applies to the northern, northeast- ern, and northwestern frontiers: it wouldn't apply to the Atlantic? Secretary Redfield. It, therefore, seems to be the case that the law requires the collector at Ketchikan to do that Avhich the col- lector at Boston is not permitted to do. I am sure we will have a very interesting session with the collector of customs at Boston. Mr. Billings. Dr. Smith, have you ever heard, or has it been brought to your knowledge or to your observation in any way, any complaint on the part of American fishing vessels that this procedure took place in Alaska, or any complaint on the part of Canadian fishing ves- sels that they were obligated in this way? Dr. Smith. I have never heard any complaint on either of those points. Secretary Redfield. Has any suggestion been made to your knowl- edge that the procedure here involved either worked injury to the American fishing vessels or was either an advantage or the reverse to the Canadians? Dr. S^riTii. I have heard no comment on it. Secretary Redfield. In other words, so far as you know, this thing- has proceeded at Ketchikan without arousing antagonism, so far as you know ? Dr. Smith. Or any special comment. Secretary Redfield. What is your vieAvpoint. Mr. Found? Mr. Found. My experience is in accord with that of Dr. Smith; I may only add that, while I have thought of it a great many times and have discussed it in the department, we have always felt that, as the law required American vessels to do that which the Canadian vessels were obliged to do, we had no ground for raising any question. Secretary Redfield. All questions are treated alike there, but in substance it is the fact, it is the existing practice to give a formal clearance, whatever it be, which does permit and has for a long time permitted a Canadian vessel to take the clearance from an American port imder which she does, in substance, go without complaint and question direct to the fishing grounds ; that "s so, isn't it ? Mr. Found. Yes. Secretary Redfield. And that custom has gone on. although known, for a great many years, hasn't it? Mr. Found. Yes. 48 AMERICAN-CANADIAN PISHEEIES CONFERENCE, Dr. Sr.iiTii. And an additional inteiesting fact about this sub- ject, Mr. Secretary, is that these clearances have been given in many cases immediately after the Canadian vessels have taken on bait. Secretary Redfip^ld. Oh, yes. Dr. Smith. The obvious purpose of the clearance is shown. Chief Justice Hazen. The collector knew that they were fishing. Secretary Redfielo. Now, then, let's get another fact, for I think we are unfolding things here that are of great value. What is the relative importai ce in weight of catch of the Pacific fisheries cov- ered by this matter and of the Atlantic fisheries? Mr. P'ouND. Halibut fisheries of the Pacific coast are now down pretty low; they amount to about -t'2,000,00() pounds, speaking from recollection — that is what they amounted to last year. In money value that Avould be a good deal higher than the same thing on the Atlantic coast. Even at the prices that prevailed last year, 3^ cents — that's what the fisherman got ; they would cost a good deal more than that — that's hardly a fair basis. Secretary Redfield. The thought is really to get the relative idea — if it is twice, three, four, (u- five times — whatever it is. Dr. Smith. It is fifteen to twenty times the halibut catch on the Atlantic. Secretary Redfield. Let us say that we agree, for a general state- ment, that the halibut catch of the Pacific is many times that of the Atlantic ? Mr. Found. Oh, yes. Secretary Redfield. Xow. are there any other fisheries there other than the halibut which are involved in this question ; and if so, what relation would those bear? Chief Justice Hazen. I think, jNIr. P^ound, if you would take our fisheries statistics and show what the value of the fisheries in British Columbia and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is that that would give the information pretty well. Secretary Redfield. Yes. Mr. Found. In British Columbia, salmon fishing is the biggest. Secretary Redfield. That isn't concerned. You see here very plainly the thing I am striving at. If it shall appear, for example, that the thing has gone on harmoniously and effectively, then the plea that this must not be done has snsall weight. That is so obvi- ous that we ought to get this established in such a way — let us as- sume that a Gloucester or a Boston man objects strenuously to this thing; if we can then show that this fellow on a very much larger scale is not only not suffering but may be actually prospering under this thing, why. where does Mr. (xloucester num '' get off," to use a familiar phrase? Mr. Found. Plalibut landed in British Columbia last year would come to considerably over $2,000,000 in value. Those landed by American fishing vessels that were shipped in bond and those landed by Canadian fishing vessels which were sold would be about — well, I'd have to consider that. Secretary Redfield. Wouldn't it be well to put upon the record the request to you and Dr. Smith to submit to the conference a compara- tive statement at your convenience which would show the relative value of the fisheries affected by this procedure, the actual pro- cedure upon the Pacific coast and the proposed procedure upon the AMERICAN-CANADIAF FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 49 Atlantic coast, both as to number of vessels and persons involved, pounds of catch, and value of catch ? Then we'd know what we are talking about. Is that acceptable to you. Mr. Chief Justice? Chief Justice Hazex. I think fhat would be very valuable. Secretary Redfield. With that understandino-. >ve will let that matter rest. Mr. Chamberlain has placed in my hands a list, Mr. Chief Justice, of fishing vessels sohl to aliens during the calendar years 1914, 1915, and 1916, which gives details as to the rate, name of vessel, gross ton- nage, port froui which last documented, foreign flag, to Avhich place transferred, and date of sale within a fixed quarter. (See Exhibit O, page 873.) I suggest that, if you approve, this be made a por- tion of the official record in the case, subject to such discussion and corrections as we may see fit. I would suggest that Mr. Desbarats, from your own record, procure a kindred statement, in order that we may compare the two carefully. Chief Justice Hazen. These are not all necessarily fishing vessels, are they. Mr. Secretary? Mr. CiiAMBEKLAix. tender fishing licenses at the time they were sold. Secretary Eedfield. I assume that it would be quite possible to give definite explanation of a number of these. Mr. Found. We are anxious to get these so that we can folloAv them. The feeling is that very few of these have gone into fishing in Canada. Mr. Chambei^laix. We have no record of that, of course. Chief Justice Hazex. We may be able to supply records showing what business these vessels have gone into. Secretary Eedfield. I think it is quite important that that be done, because, in the absence of the other half of this, it is apt to be used mistakenly. Then we understand that this statement (see Exhibit O) is made a portion of the record for further discussion and information. Mr. Found. When we get to Boston we can take up the matter of what they have gone into. Secretary Eedfield. Xow, Mr. Chamberlain. I think v\e may ex- cuse you. Mr. Chamberlain. Before that, however, I'd like to make just one statement supplementary to what I said, namely, that I couldn't recall whether that treaty was self-executing or not. The Attorney General has ruled that it is self-executing. Another thing: Chief Justice Hazen inquired as to the northern, northeastern, and northwestern frontiers. In our statutes that always applies to the Great Lakes. It is applicable to the Great Lakes; but you will notice that this statute that we are talking of was specifically — in 1898 — made appli- cable to Alaska. It Avouldn't have applied to Alaska under the de- scription of northern, northeastern, and northwestern frontiers. Secretary Eedfield. Does it apply to an,ything in the Atlantic? Mr. Chamberlain. Nothing in the Atlantic. It Avas made appli- cable by a particular act to Alaska ; but in all statutes where that designation is used it applies to the Great Lakes. Chief Justice Hazen. Then, a vessel passing through your terri- torial water along the coast of Maine and Massachusetts wouldn't .51950—18 4 50 AMERICAX-CANADIAX FISUEUIF.S CONFERENCE. have to ivporl in tlu' sanu' way thai these vessels in Ahiska have to report to Ketchikan^ ^Ir. CllAMBKin.AlX. Xo. Chief Justice Hazkn. It doesn't in any way inehule the Athmtic ])orts ^ ^Ir. C'liA.Mi'.KHLAix. It does not. ^fr. KoREiJTSON. May I ask a question? I understand .vou to have hronoht out from "Slv. Chanibedain that this article of the treaty revised the statute, although it says that any freight arriving, whether by sea or otherwise, in the waters of the United States from any waters of the United States adjacent to the northeastern or northwestern frontiers of the United States — that that does not ap- ply to the Atlantic coast. Chief Justice Hazen. That's what Mr. Chamberlain tells us. ]Mr. RoBF.irrsoN. I understand you to have brought that out quite clearly. {Mr. Chamberlain is to look further into this matter and report on the particular feature of the statute brought out by Chief Justice Hazen and ^Ir. Ixobertson. as to whether it applies only to the (ireat Lakes.) Secretary Rfdfiki.d. Is there anything, J\lr. Chief Justice, that you Avisli particularly to bring before us to-day? Chief Justice Hazex. Xot that T have iiersonally: have you any- thing Ml'. Found ^ Mr. Foi^M). This won't take more than a moment, Mr. Secretary: it is that resolution that Dr. Smith and I were directed to draft. Shall I read it, sir ? Secretary Redfielu. Yes. (Eesolution prepared by Dr. Smith and Mr. Found relative to halibut fishing read by Mr! Found. See Exhibit P, page 374.) ]Mr. Foi'NU. Tt is so recommended. Dr. SiMFrii. That is very comprehensive. Mr. Ftu xn. We thought it was best to giA e the argunu^nt. Secretary Eeofield. Very thorough labor. The resolution, with its recommendation, is before the conference for discussion, if that is desired. INIr. Chief Justice, have you any suggestions? Chief Justice Hazen. T think the resolution sets forth the argu- u)ent in its favor very clearly. Mv. Desbahats. I think the resolution is (juite clear. I don't know if there is any object of oin- saying Avhat we have been doing already in the way of developing this market: that Ave are at the present time payinii" the freight or express charges on these particular fish from the r'acitic port up to any point west of the eastern boundary of Vancouver — that is to say. all the western Provinces, everything Avest of Ontario — so as to encourage the sale of these fish: practically Avipe out the freight charge, so that the fish can be taken doAvn to the various inland points at a very Ioav rate. Secretary l\EnFiEi.i). As far" as the Avest border of Manitoba? Mr. Desbakats. The eastern boundary. Secretary Redfield. T have taken a very keen personal interest in this Avork that Dr. Smith and his service have carried on. because it lias Wen in its way a very practical example of doing a great Avork AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 51 with small means, and a happy union of the scientific and the practical. Chief Justice Hazen. Before we separate to-day, Mr. Secretary, I was going to suggest that I think it would be very desirable from many standpoints, and we'd appreciate it very much in Cansida, and I think it Avould tend to the promotion of good relations, if, before we are through with this conference, we could haA^e a meeting at the city of Ottawa, the capital of Canada. Such a meeting miglit take place after we returned from the Pacific coast. We could go there early in March. The Parliament of Canada will be in session at that time, and I know the pople of Ottawa tnid the members of the Gov- ernment would be onlv too delighted to have the pleasure of meeting the American members of this conference; and the fact that we held a meeting in Ottawa, I think, would have a very good influence. I therefore throw out the idea for your consideration, Mr. Secretary, and we hope it will be possible for you to consider it favorably. _ Secretary Redfield. We should certainly be very much gratified to accept it : if the opportunity is afforded, it would be a great delight. (Adjournment till 10.30 a. m. of the following day.) Till RSDAv MoRNiNo, Jdiiuary 2^, 1918. Hon. J. AV. Alexander, chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marino and Fisheries, of the House of Eepresentatives, appeared before the conference at the Department of Commerce, Washmg- fhe meeting was called to order at 10.30 o'clock. Chief Justice Hazen, of Canada, presiding in the absence of Secretary Redfield. STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. Chief Justice Hazen. We have the pleasure of seeing Judge Alexander here this morning. Perhaps it would be well for me to just briefly state to Judge Alexander what the conference has been doing and the purpose of it. . i • i The judge, of course, is aware that under the treaty of 1818. which is the only treaty in effect to-day with regard to fisheries, that Ameri- can fishing vessels are permitted to come into Canadian ports for four purposes— for shelter, repairs, wood, and water. Negotiations took place for a treaty in 1888; the terms of the treaty were agreed to between the commissioners. However, that treaty was not ratified bv Congress. That treaty provided that in exchange for the free admission of Canadian fish into the ITnited States, that American fishing vessels should be given very much extended privi- leges in the ports and waters of Canada. Pending the consideration of that treaty bv Congress, a modus vivendi was entered into under an act passed by Canada, under Avhich the (xoyernment of Canada issued licenses to American fishing vessels which enabled them to come into our ports for many other purposes — to buy bait, tranship their fish, to ship crews, and practically gave them the same privi- leges in our ports that the Canadian fislierman retained. That was entered into pending the decision of Congress with re- gard to the treaty which would give us the free admisison of our fish 02 AMEKICAX-GANADIAN FISHERIES COXFEREXL'E. into the United States in exchaniie for these privileges that we were oivinii; American tishernien in onr ports. Tliat treaty was not, how- ever, ratified bv the (Jovernnient of the T"rnited States, but we have continned year by year for a period now of 30 years, in Canada, to ])ass an order in conncil extending the privileges granted to the American fishermen under that modns vivendi license. For that license the American fishermen pays a fee of $1.50 per registered ton of the vessel in Avhich he engages in fishing. Some time ago it was suggested to the (lovernment of Canada by the Government of the United States that, as fish are now adnutted free into the markets of the Ignited States under the present tariff, the (rovernment of Canada ought to extend the privileges given under the modus vivendi. Under that modus vivendi the privileges are only given to vessels that are propelled by sails. At the time it was originally entered into that was the method by which fishing vessels Avere propelled. The United States suggested that, as to-day conditions are entirely changed and the fishing vessels are now largely propelled by steam or gasoline the modus \ ivendi should be extended to vessels of that character. In reply to that the (government of Canada pointed out that, while under the treaty at ^Washington these privileges Avere to be given, although there is now free admission of fish, it is not a permanent arrangement but is simply a matter of tariff policy subject to change of policy by the administration that is in power for the time being in the United States. It Avas also pointed out that, Avhile fish Avere admitted free yet our fisherman are not given the advantage of that to the full extent, because they are not alloAved to take their (.•atches of fish directly into the United States markets from the fish- ing grounds, but have first to proceed to a Canadian port and their either transfer their fish into a trading vessel or have their fishing- vessel taken over and registered as a trading vessel before proceeding to a port in the United States : and on the other hand. Avhen its cargo has been disposed of in the Ignited States port, this vessel is not alloAved clearance for the fishing grounds, but has to clear for a Canadian port and thence proceed to the fishing grounds, thus caus- ing a very considerable degree of delay. There are also questions in connection Avitli the rights of Ignited States vessels in Canadian ports on the Pacific coast of a somewhat similar character. The question of the protection of the Eraser Kiver also arose, and finally the outcome of the commnnieations that passed betAveen the tAvo Governments Avas that the Government of the United States suggested that a connnission be appointed in Canada to meet Avith a connnisison of the United States for the pur- pose of considering these nuitters and other outstanding fishery (]ues- tions betAveen the tAvo countries. One of the questions that Ave called attention to and thought should be settled at the same time that these other questions were being- settled — if they could be settled, as Ave most earnestly hope and believe they can be — Avas Avith regard to protection of the lobster on the Atlantic coast : all along the Atlantic coast from NeAv Brunswick and Xova Scotia, Ave have certain closed seasons, during Avhich lob- sters can not be caught Avithin our territorial Avaters. We find. hoAvever. that our efforts to protect the lobster in this respect are to some extent interfered Avith. oAvinir to the fact that A?.IERTCAX-CAXADIAX FISHEEIES COXFEEEXCE. 53 dnring the closed season on our coast, vessels described as lobster- well smacks, registered in the United States, and belonging to citi- zens of the United States, come across and catch lobsters just out- side of our territorial waters and put these lobsters into the wells that they have in these smacks and carry them back to the American market, and if the weather is rough, at night, they go into our ports under the provision of the treaty of 1818. which allows them to come in there for the purpose of shelter. The result of that, of course, is obvious. Our fishermen are not permitted to fish in the terri- torial waters, and. in fact, we have prohibited fishing altogether during the closed season. You can readily understand the irritation it causes them, when they look out of their doors and windows and o or -i: miles away see the vessels of the United States catching those lobsters, which they are prevented from catching in order to protect that industry for the future. Those in brief are the questions before the conference. There are other questions that have arisen. There is the question about the protection of fish in Lake Champlain. It seems to be almost the con- verse of the lobster question on our coast, because in Lake Champlain the fish seem to resort for spawning purposes to the part of the lake which is in Canada, and it seems that we should enforce more drastic laws than at present in order to protect the fish in the spawn- ing beds, so that they may continue to exist in the lake and be caught y>y those citizens of the Ignited States who engage in the business of fi-hing. There are certain other questions regarding the protection of the sturgeon tJiat have come before us for consideration, and. in view of all these different matters. I u.iay say that the very first clay we met. when we stated the position of affairs about the lobsters. Secre- tary Redfield gave instructions to the assistant solicitor of the Department of Conmierce. who is here. Mr. Quigley. to have a bill ]irepared at once for submission to Congress, so as to prevent that >tate cf affairs existing any longer: and Secretary Redfield suggested th;it it would be a good idea — and we all approved of the sugges- tion — if you could come here and give us the benefit of your advice regarding these matters, which, we were sure, woidd be very helpful. AVe thank you very much, loiowing how busy a man you are. for having come here this morning. STATEMENT BY HON. J. W. ALEXANDER. CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND PISHERIES. Judge Alexander. I am chairman of the Committee on Merchant ^larine and Fisheries, the committee which has jurisdiction of fish- eries questions, but only in so far as they relate to our domestic waters. The questions like those you are dealing with now. when they come before Congi-ess for consideration, would probably be referred to the Committee on Foreigii Affairs in the House. I think that has been the course of legislation in the ]3ast. I am not at all familiar with the conditions on the Atlantic coast, as regards our fisheries, and I am only conversant with them to a .limited extent in the northwest Pacific. In the last Congress the Committee on the Merchant ^larine and Fisheries framed a bill to regulate the fisheries of Alaska, but that 54 AMERICAISr-CAIvrADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEEISrCE. bill has no international aspects. It is intended, of course, to con- serve our fisheries from the standpoint of food supplj^ off the Alaskan coast, to prevent the waste now prevalent, and to increase the fish; and the Bureau of Fisheries, of which Dr. Smith is the commissioner, and the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Eedfield, have taken a very keen interest in conditions there, and we have had the benefit of their expert advice in framing legislation. We will have that question to deal with again in this Congress, unless it should go over on account of war conditions. But I would think that with our relations so intimate and our interests for the most part in common, that if each nation would approach the other in a spirit of fairness and square dealing that it would be no trouble to get together and frame a con- vention that will be fair to both nations and conserve this great food suppl}'', because every ^^ear it becomes of greater importance from the national viewpoint. I am very glad to be here for a few minutes this morning. I assure you of my interest in the matters with w^hich you are dealing, and I appreciate their imjjortance to both nations. I hope, as a result of this joint conference, you may work out a convention that will be mutually satisfactory and that will meet the approval of the Senate of the United States — it is the censor of all such matters finally — and of the Canadian Government. I thank you for the privilege of being here. Chief Justice Hazen. It appears to be the opinion of the members of this conference that there are really two questions, and they ought to be kept separate and apart, as far as possible, so as not to confuse the issue. One is with regard to the right of American vessels in Canadian ports and the right of Canadian vessels in American ports ; and our opinion seems to be tending in the direction that that is a matter that can be dealt with without a treaty — by legislation. Judge Alexander. That question would come to my committee for consideration, and I Avill say that all those questions that come to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries will, I think, leceive ver}^ careful consideration. Chief Justice Hazen. The other question is the one about the pro- tection of the Fraser River, which is the breeding ground for a great many of the salmon on the Pacific coast, the salmon that is known as the socke^^es, especially. Fish in the Fraser River have been decreasing from year to year. This in consequence of the excessive amount of fishing that takes place. The fish in making their way to the Fraser River for the purpose of spawning go up through American territorial waters for a very considerable distance and in those waters traps are placed with great leaders and jiggers, 1 think they call them, Mr. Found Mr. Found. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen (continuing). Running out from them. I don't know whether you have ever seen them. Judge Alexander, or not. Dr. SMrrH. He knows Avliat a jigger is from his consideration of the pending Alaskan legislation. Chief Justice Hazen. From what I sa^^• in 1913 it was a mystery to me how the salmon got up the river in any numbers. Then, too, the unfortunate salmon that does get as far as the river itself is faced with a fleet of 2,500 or 3,000 boats, each boat with a net, and AMERICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 55 these nets drifting criss cross across the river from the estuary right lip the river to almost the bridge at New Westminister, and practi- cally the only chance that the salmon has of getting to the spawning grounds is during the weekly closed season. I thhik it is 12 hours. And that is the only opportunity it has of getting up to the spawning- beds. Well, the result of that is being seen now. The catch in 1917, Avhich is the big year (every fourth year is a big year), was very much less than the catch in 1913. and there is very great danger of a very valuable fishery, which is of great importance to the people of both countries, being destroyed, unless some drastic steps are taken for its protection. In order to do that the opinion of the conference is that it may be necessary to have a treaty instead of doing it by legislation, as the fisheries in the State of Washington are under the control of the State and in Canada the fisheries are controlled by the federal power. It avouIcI be very difficult, but not impossible, I think, for the Government of Canada to make an arrangement with the State of Washington ; it would have to be done as a national matter on national grounds. The idea is that it would have to be the subject matter of a treaty. Judge Alexander. I think that is true, and as regards Alaska, well, Ave Avill have the same problem otf the coast of Alaska. Hereto- fore the trap nets haA'e all been so placed that the fish couldn't get up to the spaAvning grounds, and one purpose of this legislation is to locate them aAvay from the mouth of the streams, so that the fish may haA'e free access to the spaAvning grounds. That is one of the problems we are trying to solve by legislation. Chief Justice Hazex. The object of an agreement Avould be that in the Vnited States adequate measures should be taken for the protection of those fish on the Avay up to the river ; in Canada adequate measures should be taken for the fish to be protected on their Ava}" up the river to the spaAvning beds ; and in connection Avith that it might be most desirable that in order to replenish the river steps should be taken for the establishment of an efficient system of fish hatcheries. We are maintaining some fish hatcheries on the Fraser River uoav. That Avork might be very much extended, and Ave believe it Avould be most desirable, but Avould not be effective unless regulations are adopted and enforced to protect the fish on their Avay to the spawning beds. The opinion of the conference seems to be that the agreement should include protectiA'e measures on both the American and Canadian sides. In view of our mutual interest it should be a matter of agreement betAveen us, and Avhat we agree to should be embodied in a treaty, and the treaty should not simply say that we Avill take adequate steps to establish proper fishing methods and you to protect the fish on the Avay up the coast, but Ave should agree as to what those adequate steps are, so that there can be no question about it. Judge Alexander. I think that is correct. Xoav. of course, these States control the fisheries. Take the shad fish. I think Dr. Smith will agree Avith me that off the coasts of Virginia and Maryland theA'' extend their nets and other fishing tackle in such a Avay that the shad can't get up to the breeding grounds in the streams, and it is result- ing in great hurt to the propagation of the shad, and if the GoA'ern- 56 AMEEICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. menl could control the matter I think we ought to take steps to have that clone rather than leave it for these States. Chief Justice Hazen. I presume you mean that the States are too close to the fishermen to control the matter. Judge Alexander. Political influence seems to control. Dr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, if I may speak at this time, the most l)ressing matter for legislati^'e consideration seems to be this lobster fishing off the Canadian coast, and I would suggest, if agreeable to all of yon, that this bill which has been prepared and has been before us several times be submitted to Judge Alexander, with the view to ascertaining whether or not, in his opinion, that measure would come before his connnittee. Chief flustice Hazen. Yes. Dr. Sjmith. It would seem to be a matter that could be regulated through your committee. Judge Alexander, inasmuch as it does not involve any international action. Judge Alexander. That goes Avithout saying. If you are correct in your statement, it would come to the Committee on ]Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Dr. Smith. It regulates our own fishermen and has nothing to do Avith the operation of Canadian fishermen in the same Avaters. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you suggest that Ave should submit that bill noAv ? Judge Alexander. If his statement is accurate. I have no doubt about Avhere the bill Avould go. Chief Justice Hazen. Pediaps Mr. Quigley will read the bill. It might be subject to a fcAv minor changes. (Mr. Quigley read the bill in its form up to this time.) Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. SAveet. have you anything that you Avould like to ask the judge? Mr. Saveet. I think not. I avouIcI simply like to say to the judge this, that from the explanation that has been giAen by the chief jus- tice, presiding over this meeting, and what he knows of the pei-- sonnel of the United States section of the commission, I rather imagine that he Avill feel that it is not at all strange that we are finding our conference very harmonious and that we are all seeking most conscientiously to reach a conclusion that Avill be satisfactory and advantageous to the people of both countries and Avill remoA'e all the petty causes of irritation that have existed in the past, so that Avc> haA'e every reason to believe that our conference Avill result in something Avorth Avhile. Judge Alexander. Well, I observe such, and with Secretary Red- field and yourself to represent our Government, I think the atti- tude of the United States toAvard this question Avill be one of open- niindedness and fairness and disposition to do the square thing. ^Ir. Sweet. Well, the Canadian representatives are in every Avay as fair and just, so far as the proceedings have gone thus far, as the United States representatives. Judge Alexander. I have no reason to think otherwise, and I hope the results Avill verify Avhat you both say. Chief Justice Hazen. Anything either Mr. Desbarats or Mr. Found Avould like to ask? ]SIr. Foi^ND. I'd just like, if the chairman will permit me, to add that our reason for having brought this lobster matter so promi- AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 57 iieiitly out is that it is being mainl_y carried on — I think tliat adverb is the right one — by Canadian fishermen. These American smaclvs come down with no one but the captain and the engineer and hire the Canadian fishermen to carry on the fishing for them, so that you Avill see the embarrassing situation down among the local fishermen. Chief Justice Hazen. We thank you A'ery much, indeed. Judge Alexander, for coming here this morning: we appreciate it xovy much. Mr. QuiGLEY. Mr. Chief Justice, if there isn't any further busi- ness before the meeting I would like to fill in the interval with a little discussion of the language that I referred to a little while ago in connection with this bill. Chief Justice Hazen. Yes: I think this is the opportune time for that. (An extended informal discussion followed. The bill as finally drafted reads as follows:) A BILL To prohibit the importation, bringing into, or landing in the United States, and so forth, of lobsters taken in waters outside territorial waters of Canada and opposite thereto during closed seasons in such waters. Be it enacted hii tlie Senate and House of Representatires of the United States of America in. Co-nyress assembled. That on and after the approval of this act it shall he unlawful for any vessel, boat, person, or corporation to import or bring into or land in the United States any lobsters taken or caught in waters outside territorial waters of Canada and opposite thereto during such period as there is, under the laws or regulations of the Dominion of Canada, a closed season for lobster fishing in such waters, or for any person or corporation to offer for sale or have in possession any such lobsters, know- ing the same to have been imported or brought into oi- landed in the United States in violation of this act. Sec. 2. Any person or corporation violating any provision of this act shall, for the first olTense, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than .$3,000. and any lobsters found in his possession in violation of this act shall be forfeited to the United States ; and upon the conviction of any such ]iei-son or corporation of a second or any subsequent oifense. in addition to the fine and the forfeiture hereinbefore provided for. any boat or vessel used or employed in any violation of this act, together with its tackle, apparel, furni- ture, and cargo, shall be forfeited to the United States. Sec. 3. Any violation of this act shall be prosecuted in the district court of the United States in the district in which such violation shall occur or in which the offender is found. Sec. 4, It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Commerce to enforce the provisions of this act. and he is authorized to empower such officers and em- ployees of the I>ei(artment of Connuerce as he may designate, or such officers and employees of other deiiartments as may l»e detailed for the purpose, to seai-ch any vessel in ))orts or places in the United States suspected of having violated the jirovisions of this act. and to make arrests a.nd to seize vessels used or emjiloyed in the violation of this act a,nd any lobsters unlawfully ini]K)rted brought Into or landed in the T'^nited States. (It was unanimously voted by the conference that the bill should read as just quoted.) Chief Justice Hazen. Here is a letter from Mr. Chamberlain, a memorandum for Secretary Redfield : I was wrong in stating so emphatically that the act of 1898 amending sec- tion 3101» does not apply to the Atlantic ports of the United States. It woul',1 apply if eases ;irise in such ports, which is seldt)m. if ever, so far as I am awa.re. the case. The act of 1S!)8 was designed to meet Alaska conditions. To cover both the seaboard of Alaska and the Yukon and Stikine Rivers, the words "by sea or otherwise" were incorporated in the amendatory act. Those words extend the act to Atlantic ports. 58 AMERlCAN-CANADIAlSr PISHEEIES CONFERENCE. I hasten to correct my misstatement, into which I was led by reflection solely upon the purpose of the act of 1808 and by the fact that I have no record of a case under the act ever havin.c come to my notice. I inclose full memoranda on the act of 1898. (See Exlul)its Q to U. pases 375-378.) Respectfully, E. T. (Jha.mbehi.atx. CoiinHissioiwr. January 24, 14)18. So he is now evidently of the opinion that that act does apply to tlie Atlantic coast. Mr. Sweet. Here is a eop}^ of a letter that was received from the Secretary of the Treasury, and he has red-lined a part of the letter. Chief Justice Hazen. This is a letter dated February 9. 1898, ad- dressed to the Hon. William P. Frye. chairman of the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, and signed by L. J. Gage, Secretary of the Treasury. This is the part that is marked by Mr. Chamberlain : Section 4. section 8109 of the Revised Statutes, is part of an act passed in 1866. The treaty for the purchase of Alaska was made in 1807. There is some doubt, therefore, whether section 3100 is aiiplicable to Alaska. This bill makes it specitically applicable. The insertion of the words " transfer her cju-go or ])assengers to another vessel " Is necessary, as sea-going vessels at St. IMichael do not " proceed farther inland." There is not enough water ; accordingly, they transfer. The section is a necessary supplement to section 3 of the bill, as it fixes the penalty on the vessel for violation of the regulations. Well, anyway, that applies to the Atlantic coast, in the opinion of Mr. Chamberlain, but he saj^s the cases never arise. (Discussion relative to Boston meeting and adjournment. ) Friday, January 25^ 1918. The meeting was called to order at 10.30 o'clock. Chief Justice Hazen, of Canada, presiding. As there was no further business before the conference, adjourn- ment was taken to meet in Boston on January 31, 1918. HEARINGS AT BOSTON. Boston, January 31, 1918. The Boston hearing of the American-Canadian Fisheries Confer- ence, to consider the questions in dispute between the United States and Canada, were begun in the Boston Chamber of Commerce at 10 o'clock a. m. The representatives of the two countries present were : Canadian: Hon. John Douglas Hazen. Chief Justice of New Brunswick; Mr. William A. Found. Superintendent of Fisheries of the Dominion of Canada; secretary — Mr. Arnold Robertson, First Secretary of the British Embassy at Washington. The Iton. Creorge J. Desbarats was absent because of illness. American: Hon. William C. Redfield. Secretary of Commerce; Hon. Edwin F. Sweet, Assistant Secretary of Commerce ; Dr. Hugh M. Smith, Connnissioner of Fisheries; secretary — Edward T. Quigiey, Esq., Assistant Solicitor of the Department of Commerce. Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of Commerce, presided. Among those interested in the work of the commission who were present at the hearing in Boston Avere the following: Hon. W. AV. Lufkin, Member of Congress; Hon. Charles D. Brown, State senator, of Gloucester; W. G. Adams, chairman of the Massa- chusetts Fish and (jame Commission ; Arthur L. Millett, of Massa- chusetts Fish and Game Commission; Horatio D. Crie, Edward W. Gould, and H. C. Wilbur, Maine Commission of Sea and Shore Fish- eries; E. O. Ladd. operating herring weirs. Pickering Island, East Penobscot Bay, Me.; A. L. Parker, Boston, president Boston Fish Pier Co.; Capt. Carl C. Young, Gloucester; Sylvester Whalen, sec- retary Fishing Masters Associ'ation, Boston; W. J. O'Brien, presi- dent Boston Fish Markets' Corporation; H. B. Ritchie, Boston fish commission merchant; Wilmot A. Reed, secretary Gloucester Board of Trade ; John W. Fullom, member Boston Fish Pier Co. ; C. K. Sul- livan, fish dealer, representing NeAv York fishing interests; William H. Brown, Boston, secretary^Fishermen's I'nion; M. A. Nickerson and A. L. PoAvell, of the Boston Lobster Co. ; Fred L. Davis, presi- dent Gloucester Board of Trade ; George E. Willey, president Boston Fish Bureau; C. F. Wonson, Gloucester Board of Trade; D. F. Ward and T. J. O'Hara. of the Boston Fish Pier Co. ; Xewman Shea, agent Fishermen's Union at Gloucester; ex-State Representative William F. Doyle; John Burns, jr.. Bay State Fish Co.; Henry Yotte, manager marine department Bay State Fish Co. ; Frank S. Willard, of Port- land, Me., lobster business; O. M. Arnold, president New England Fish Co. ; Gardner Poole, Boston Fish Bureau ; J. G. Cox, of the Consolidated Lobster Co.; W. Monroe Hill, of Shattuck & Jones. Faneuil Hall Market ; Lunis Leavens, commissioner of fisheries and game, Vermont; D. A. Loomis, superintendent Lake Champlain 59 60 AMEKICAN--CANADIA1ST FISHEEIES COXFEEENCE. Transportation Co. and president Lake George Steamboat Co. ; Koy L. Patrick. Vermont Fish and Game League ;" Joseph A. Rich, of the Bay State Fishing Co. : and John W. Titcomb, New York State fish ciiitnrist. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD. Secretary Eedfield. Gentlemen, please be seated. The Canadian- American P'isheries Conference has met here through the courtesy, which we desire to acknowledge at the very beginning, of tlie Boston Chamber of Commerce "for the purpose of giving a full opportunity to any who may so desire to express their views upon the subject which the conference has under consideration. The conference had its origin in facts which must be widely known to you all. In this great war the people of Canada and the people of the United States are fighting side by side for one common cause. The enemy Avhich threatens them is the foe which endangers us. They have been longer in the field than we; they have made greater sacrifices than we thus fav for the common cause, and bee ause it is a common cause, because we are thus united in a struggle upon which tlie future of both nations alike depends, it was deemed wise by the Government of the United States to extend to the Government of the Dominion of Canada an invitation that that GoAernment and our own discuss together in the same spirit of mutual concord which is animating- our armies all the questions that may remain open con- nected with the fisheries both upon the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, as well as the Lakes, that the fullest possible light may be thrown upon the facts bearing upon all these questions. It is de- sired that the fullest opportunity maj'^ be given to everyone who wishes to do so to contribute facts throwing light upon the subject in all its phases, in the hope, and, judging from the progress of the con- ference thus far, in the belief, that it will be possible to remove the causes of irritation wherever they may be found to exist, continuing in that spirit of mutual good will wliich is leading their sons and our sons to die together on one common field of battle to-da}^ This conference meets, furthermore, under other cii'cumstances which are peculiar. We are giving to the question of our food sup- ply a degree of thought Avhich it lias never been given before, and the temper of the public mind of America is one which will not ver}- readily brook a future which interferes with the largest freedom in obtaining that food supply. The question with us. therefore, is not only a question concerning Nev\ England or any portion of New England, but is one affecting St. Louis. Chicago, Spokane, New Orleans, Nashville. Buffalo — cities South. North, East, and West — in a vital way. all communities being deeply concerned. We must not. therefore, think of this in any sense as a local matter. It is a national matter. We are dealing Avith a very sensi- tive public conscience and a very well-informed public mind on the subject of a national food suppl3^ or. I should say more truly, the subject of an international food supply. It is the purpose of the conference to hold hearings in Gloucester, in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, and ultimately to proceed to the Pacific Northwest and to British Columbia, if not to Alaska. AMERICAN-CAN" ADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 61 This, gentlemen, is to be open diplomacy. So far as my knowledge goes, it is a unique courtesy that the Canadian Government has done us, not only in sending of its best but in permitting them, at our invitation, to sit in our own hearings. They are here with all the privileges that the commissioners of the United States have, to give information and to ask it. They are as free to ask questions of you as we are, representing the United States more directly, and they will gladly give information to j^ou. Through their courtesy they have extended to us the same privilege of going into their country, a unique courtesy, one which we value highly, and the American com- missioners here present expect next week to be with our Canadian brethren in St. John and wherever else in Canada the necessities of the case may call us. I think nothing more need be said by way of introduction. We have no program, but are ready to listen to any one who may desire to lay facts before us. We shall ask you to be prepared, if 3^ou make suggestions to us, to submit to questioning. We are here not in any- body's interests; we are here to get the truth, and we intend, so far as lies within our power, to get the truth, no matter whom it may affect, no matter what its results may be. We are not here to protect or defend any person, interest, party, or organization, but to rep- resent, so far as lies in our power to do so, all the people of the United States at large. Our friends, on their side, are here to rep- resent the people of the Dominion of Canada at large; and we will ask .you, so far as lies in your power to do so, to remember that the broad view of the question, the countrywide view of the question, the view that affects the dwellers in the Mississippi A^alley as much as it affects the people in New England and along the Atlantic coast, is the viewpoint from which, in this world crisis, it seems important to deal' with this question. Chief Justice Hazen. I would like an entry made in the minutes, Mr. Secretary, to the effect that our colleague, Mr. George J. Desbarats, deputy minister of the naval service of the Dominion of Canada, is unfortunately unable to be present to-day by reason of illness, a fact very much regretted by Mr. Found and mj^self , who will be deprived of Mr. Desbarat's valuable services. I am sure also that his absence will be regretted by the members of the American section of this com- mission, who had the pleasure of meeting him in conference in Wash- ington recently. I hope and .expect, however, that his indisposition is of only a temporary character and that he will be able to resume his duties in a very short time. Secretary Redfield. The minute that Mr. Chief Justice Hazen requests will be made. The American commissioners, who have had the pleasure of Mr. Desbarats's assistance in Washington, very greatly regret his illness and join in the hope that it may be but brief. T\Tiat is the pleasure of the gentlemen present? Is anybody ready to pro- ceed with anv statement or expression of views? Mr. Sylvester M. Whalen (secretary of Boston Fishing Masters' Association). Mr. Chaiiman, I think it would be very helpful if the chairman of the commission would outline any concrete propositions that might be considered in respect to this question or toward which any discussion might tend. Of course, we want to avoid an aimless discussion of the fisheries in general, and I think it would be very helpful to people here if some concrete facts could be put before us. 62 AMERICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, Secretaiy Redfield. The chairman will say that the only reason Avliy a definite announcement was not made is because neither the purpose of the commission nor its scope is limited to any particular program nor to any particular phase of the matter under considera- tion. We are ready to hear anything on any phase of the matter. Our discussion in Washington has I'un fi'om the halibut banks off the coast of Alaska to general conditions cloAvn the coast. We have talked about the Fraser Eiver, have talked about the whale fishing off the Pacific coast in its present form, about the Great Lakes, about Lake Champlain, the Lake of the Woods, and about the Atlantic coast, considering these questions in their various relations. There is no phase of the whole subject about which we are not anxious to learn all that can be learned. But if it can be clearly understood in advance that in putting before ,you any subject we are not thereby imposing limitations upon anybody who desires to speak upon any- thing else, if that is perfectly plain, I shall be very glad indeed to say that, as set forth in the notice sent on the 24th instant to the New England fishing interests, it was stated that these subjects were before the conference, and. among others, they will be made the subject of inquiry. 1. The proposed extension of the Canadian modus vivendi licenses to American fishing vessels, by whatever means they may be pro- pelled, and the reduction of the annual fee from $1.50 per registered ton to the nominal sum of $1 per vessel and that the renewal of the licenses from year to year be not conditional on an order in council of the Government of Canada, but form part of the arrangement itself, 2. That United States fishing vessels be allowed to sell their fish in Canadian ports for Canadian markets, subject to customs duty, as well as to sell in bond. 3. That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to purchase bait and all other supplies and outfits in United States ports on equal terms Avith American fishing vessels. 4. That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to take their catches direct to ITnited States ports and sell them there, subject to customs duty, if any. 5. That the fishing vessels of either country visiting ports in the other be given clearances for the fishing grounds, if so desired. 6. That the United States prevent American lobster well smacks from fishing off the Canadian coasts during the closed season foi lobster fishing on such coasts. I think that covers the substance of the memorandum, but it is not in any sense to be taken as either inclusive or exclusive. We have discussed other matters and are ready to do so now. The question of the Canadian bounties is one that has been frankly discussed; the Avhole question of the constructions of law in either country upon its own vessels or the vessels of others ; the whole matter of the relative wages and standards of living. All those questions have been dis- cussed and are open for discussion. So the whole subject is open. We should like light upon any one of these matters. Take foi- example, if you wish, the fact that under the present modus vivendi American vessels with power are not given licenses in Canadian ports, that for the licenses which are given a fee of $1.50 a ton is now required, and that both of these propositions are now AMEBIC AN-CAXADIAX FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 63 proposed to be waived; that, on the other hand, the suggestion is made that Canadian vessels may clear from Boston direct to the fishing grounds and come direct with their catch from the fishing- grounds, the whole weight and bearing of the Canadian bounty, so far as it exists: all the conditions that you understand alfect the conditions of the industry favorably or unfavorably. Is there anything you care to suggest, Mr. Chief Justice? STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. Chief Justice Hazen. I presume, Mr. Secretary and gentlemen, that the gentlemen who are gathered here together this morning are principally interested in the question of the Atlantic fisheries, and not in the question of the protection of the Eraser Eiver, except to the extent that all people in this country interested in food supplies are interested generally in the protection of that river, as they are also interested from the same standpoint in phases of the question affecting the Pacific coast. But I presume those here are more di- rectly interested in what is known as the Atlantic-fisheries question, which is one that has been discussed from time to time practically ever since the War of 1812. It is unnecessary for me to point out to the gentlemen here inter- ested in the fishing business that the only rights which the fishing A'essels of the United States have in the ports of Canada, except tem- porary ones, are given to them under the treaty of 1818, which is still in force, under which treaty the fishing vessels of the United States have a right to enter Canadian ports for four purposes, and for four purposes only — for shelter, for repairs, to obtain wood, and to obtain water. Those are the only rights that are secured to-day under treaty to American fishermen in Canadian ports. Attempts have been made from time to time, and negotiations have taken place between Canada and the United States with that end in view looking to a more permanent and satisfactory arrangement than exists to-day ; and sometime, about 1886 or 1887. a treaty was en- tered into which unfortunately, I think, looking at it in the light of past events, did not receive the approval of the Congress of the United States, providing that, in exchange for the free admission of Canadian fish into the markets of the United States, United States fishing vessels should have the right to go into Canadian ports practically as freely and for the same purposes that Canadian fish- ing A^essels can go into those ports to-clay. That is, they could go there for the purpose of selling their catch, for the purpose of buy- ing bait, for the purpose of shipping crews, and for any other pur- pose that the fishing interests might think desirable. Unfortunately. I say, that treaty did not receive the sanction of the Congress of the United States: but. pending the consideration of the treat.y by the Congress of the United States. Canada enacted legislation, and it was expected that that legislation would only require to be effective for a year or two until the treaty was agreed to. under which a modus vivendi was established by means of which, upon the payment of $1.50 per ton for the registered tonnage of the Aessel, the American fishermen took out a license which gave him the right to enter the ports of Canada for other purposes than the four purposes named in the treaty of 1818 — namely, for shelter, repairs, wood, and water. 64 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Although that proposed ti'eaty I have referred to was not con- tinued by Congress, for 30 years, annually, that modus vivendi has been renewed. Year by year for the past 'M) years the GoA-ernment of Canada has passed an order in council each year extending the opera- tion of the modus vivendi for another year, and under that modus vivendi United States fishing vessels have been making use of Cana- dian ports over and above the rights secured by the treaty of 1818. That has been by no means, of course, a stable arrangement. It has been entirely within the rights of the (Tovernment of Canada each year to decline to renew the modus vivendi, and then the United States vessels would have to depend on the rights secured to them under the treaty of 1818. Some years ago a change was made in the Ignited States tariif under which fresh and frozen fish were admitted free to the inarkets of the United States, and after the tariif Avas changed in that respect representations Avere made to the Government of Canada by the Goa^- ernment of the Ignited States asking them if they Avould not consider it proper and right that, in view of the fact that they were noAv obtaining the free admission of fish into the markets of the United States, the modus vivendi prevailing should be extended so as to include all fishing vessels, and not simply the fishing vessels that are propelled by sail, Avhich is the laAv of to-day. As it is to-day, onl}' those vessels Avhose motive -power is the wind have the right to come to our ports under the modus vivendi. The vessels Avhose motive power is steam, or some other motive poAver such as gasoline, vessels Avith auxiliary poAver of different sorts, are not alloAved to take out a license under the modus vivendi. In answer to that representation on the part of your Government, Ave pointed out that the admission of fish free into the United States was not a concession to the people of Canada, but that it Avas the out- come of a general tariff policy adopted by your country ; that it Avas not under a treaty made with us, but that the same privilege was extended to the Avhole Avorld, to Newfoundland and to any other country from Avhich fish might come; that it Avas simply a matter of domestic policy Avith you, and a policy that you might revoke at any time that it occurred to you that it Avas to your interest to revoke it and place a protective tariff against fish coming from other countries. We further pointed out that, under your customs and navigation laAvs, we AA'ere not getting the benefit that Avould otherAvise accrue from the free admission of fish, because our vessels that Avent to the Banks to catch fish could not bring those fish into the port of Boston or any other port of the United States along the Atlantic coast; that they Avere first obliged to go to a. Canadian port and there either transfer their fish into a merchant vessel or change their oAvn regis- ter, getting themselves registered as a trading vessel, and then com- ing to the'ports of this country. We further pointed out that our vessels, having discharged their fish in American ports, could not clear then for the fishing grounds ; that they Avere compelled to clear for a Canadian port, and from that port to the fishing grounds, thereby causing considerable delay, seriously limiting their poAver to bring rapid cargoes of fish to your market. We further pointed out that* Ave Avere having difficulty in protecting the lobster industry Avhich unfortunately has become a Avaning in- dustry. It is becoming very difficult to protect it. We have been AMERICAN- CANADIAN FISIIEEIES CONFEEENCE. 65 endeavoring to protect it by the use of closed seasons, but unfortu- nately our jurisdiction extends only to 3 miles from the shore, and just beyond our territorial limits, at certain times, when our closed sea- son is in effect, well smacks from the American side have come across, and, lying just outside the three-mile territorial limit, have caught lobsters, while our own fishermen could look out from our shores and see the Americans catching the lobsters outside the three-mile limit that our men would not be allowed to catch within the law; and, v,'hat has heightened the dissatisfaction and caused irritation among our people, is that American vessels have come there simply with a captain and engineer, from an American port, and have hired our own fishermen to go on those vessels and help yioJate our own laws passed for the protection and conservation of lobsters, laws which are as necessary for you as for us. We, therefore, suggested that this whole matter was a matter for consideration. We believe, as has been pointed out by the Secretary of Commerce, that it is most desirable at the present time that every- thing should be done to conserve our food supplies, to develop our fisheries, especially at such a time as this, when we are lighting side by side, your sons and mine giving their lives on the fields of Flanders and France for the sake of democracy, and for the sake of the protection of Canada, and, as was said in an article in Munsey's the other day, for the sake of the freedom and prosperity of the people of the United States. This seems to be the opportune time for us to get together aiid, regardless of the past, make an arrangement that v;ill be in the interest of the people of both countries, of the people of the whole North American Continent. We are here to-day for that purpose. I have l)een re€[uested hy the Government in Canada to serve on this commission, because for a period of six years I was minister of marine and fisheries of the Dominion of Canada and had to do with making the negotiations that led to the present conference. I think we are now to see a new step taken in the diplomatic relations between the two countries, as pointed out by Secretary Eedfield. As commissioners, representing both countries, we are meeting here together in Boston, and probably in other parts of Massachusetts, to hear what the people interested in the subject here have to say, and wdien we leave here we are to have the pleasure and honor of being accompanied to the maritime provinces by the Ameri- can representatives of this conference, whom the people there v^ill be delighted to meet, placing before you their views as you are novr placing before us your views to-day. So you see this means a new departure in diplomatic relations between the countries. I think there will be disappointment in both countries if something beneficial does not result from these conferences. I would say, in regard to the admission of American ships to Canadian ports and of Canadian ships to American ports, that we have practically the same question to deal with on the Pacific coast. But it would appear that on the Pacific coast the law to some extent has been disregarded, because the Canadian vessels reporting at Ketchikan, Alaska, are given a clearance, and can then go out and get a supply of fish and take it down to an American port or to a 51950—18 5 66 AMEBIC A^^-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. Canadian port, as the case may be. without being first compelknl to make the port for which they clear; while on this coast, for instance, a vessel clearing- from the port of Boston for a Canadian port must gv to that port before going to the high seas to make its catch. There seems to be, from the statements we heard in AVashington, seme differentiation in the construction of the law on the different coasts. Secretary Keofield. I think it is correct to say. as Mr. Chief -Tustice Hazen has pointed out, that the custom on the Pacific coast, both with American and Canadian vessels, is the direct reverse of that which prevails on the Atlantic coast. Our fishing vessels there do go. are invited to go, are urged to go, and in a certain sense have felt compelled to go into Canadian ports, in a way that is not per- mitted under the modus vivendi on this coast. It is the fact that from the American port of Ketchikan Canadian vessels take clearance and go direct to the fishing grounds and make their catch before mak- ing the port for which they clear, the custom in that respect being ex- actly opposite to that Avhich prevails on the x\tlantic coast. On both sides of the line, therefore, we are facing an entireW different practice. The practice on the Atlantic coast, both in the United States and Canada, is entirely reverse to that which prevails on the Pacific in some respects; and one of the things we are anxious to know is Avhether that condition yonder has worked harm to anybody ; Avhether it is causing any trouble, and we are going out there to find out. But obviously. I submit for your thought, it is a little difficult toj urge that a condition ought not to be which already exists yonder if it shall appear, shall bo shown that its existence there has worked iw harm there. That we are not pre])ared to say as yet. because we have not been out thei-e to find out. Xow, gentlemen, we are ready ro hear from any of you in the fullest way. Capt. NiCKERSox. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is M. H. Nickerson, of the Boston Lobster Co. Will you allow me to suggest that in order to expedite matters that may come before this com- mission it would perhaps be the best plan to call over those topics you have already named, one by one in their order, and let whatever discussion is necessarv take place (M1 each one of them as thev come up? Secretary Eedeiei.d. I concur with Mr. Chief Justice Hazen in thinking that that is more likely to delay than to help. I am sure there are many gentlemen here who are familiar with the whole subject and have their views upon it. There can be no objection, I ihink. to speaking them out plainly. Perhaps, folloAving in a way the line suggested by Capt. Nickerson. I might raise one simple question. What is the objection, if any. to Canadian vessels clearing from Boston to the fishing ground, and coming direct from the fish- ing grounds to Boston? Not only Avhat is the objection but what are the advantages, if any? There is one clear-cut question. STATEMENT BY MR. WILLIAM J. O'BRIEN, PRESIDENT OF THE BOSTON EISH MARKET CORPORATION. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Chairman, we are distributors of fresh fish. In regard to the matter mentioned by the Secretary, I am highly in favor of it. The great problem before the people of the North AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 67 American continent to-day is that of increase in the food supply and reduction in the high cost of living. If we could have reciprocity between the fishing interests of Canada and the United States it would practical]}^ help to solve that question. Chief Justice IIazen. Mr. O'Brien, Avill you permit me to ask you a question? If the Government of Canada was Avilling to abolish the modus vivendi as it exists at present, doing away with the necessity of making an annual order and entering into an arrangement by which your vessels would ha^e practically the same rights in Canadian ports that the Canadian vessels have — I am speaking of fishing vessels — irrespective of whether they are propelled by steam or other motive power: if we were willing to do that for a merely nominal license fee of. say, a dollar a year, not a dollar a ton, but a dollar a year, would it, in your opinion, be a fair thing for the United States to agree that Canadian fishing vessels might bring their catches directly from the fishing grounds into American ports and clear directly from the American ports for the fishing grounds? And. in addition to that, would it be a proper thing, in your opinion, for your Government to enact legislation that would prevent citizens of this country, or the owners of boats registered from the United States, from catching lobsters in the high seas opposite territorial waters of Canada during such time as there is a closed season in those waters for lobsters? That is a pretty long question. Do you compre- hend it? Mr. O'Beien. I do. Chief Justice Hazen. You do think so? Mr. CBrien. Yes, sir. Mr. Swi<:et. You answer that to both questions; do you? Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir. STATEMENT BY MR. H. C. WILBUR, OF THE BOARD OF COMMIS- SIONERS ON SEA AND SHORE FISHERIES OF THE STATE OF MAINE. ^Ir. AViLBUK. Mr. Chairman, T would like to answer the question that Judge Hazen asks. x\s I understand it. the commission wants expressions of opinion from people interested in the industry? Chairman Reufield. Froin eAerybedy. Mr. Wilbur. And, I understand, from the meii who may represent the different States in connection with this industry. I have studied the matter which concluded Mr. Hazen's question in regard to the lobster situation, with a number of dealers in lobsters in the State of Maine, and a number of men who are fishermen. 1 have discussed it with men interested on both sides of the question, and I have never heard an expression of opinion, except to the effect that it was a very, very unfair thing for the American vessels to do that, and that it would be proper governmental regulation to stop them. We in Maine are having the same experience from the smacks coining from neighboring States where they have a ^-inch lobster law. They are doing the same thing with us. They are lying off outside the three-mile limit and buying lobsters which it is illegal for our own fishermen to catch. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the feel- ing against that sort of thing amongst men interested in the lobster 68 AMEEICAX-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. industry, both as fishers and dealers, is universal. It seen;s to nie in the interest of the lobster industry and in the interest of the good feeling we are so desirous of bringing into play at this time bet^Yeen the tAVo countries, Ave should realize that that is unfair and do our best to stop it. I shoidd like to say one more thing that perhaps is not (luite rele- A'ant to this hearing. The lobster industry in Maine is a large indus- try. At least 5,000 men in the State of Maine make their living fishing for lobsters. ^YQ have a stringent law in Maine, as all men familiar with the industry knoAV. "(A'e believe that at the present time, under the neAV order of things, the enforcement of our Maine laAv Avill be important. We do not believe that the lobster enters into the question of the food supply of this country. The lobster is a crustacean, and its A'alue as a food substance is very dotibtfnl. and Ave all knoAv that most of the lobsters, both the Kvlegged and the 2-legged, go to the Great White Way! (Laughter.) We Avovdd merely ask this commission, Avhen they cosne to the (jues- tion of considering the throAving doAvn of the bars in regard to fish- ing, to bear in mind that the same problem Avhich is presented in that respect in connection Avith fishing for sea food fish does not apply to lobsters. If there is to be any throwing cloAvn of the bars to in- crease the catch, bear in mind the fact that down in Maine we liaA'e Avorked a good many years to get to the place where Ave are noAv in our lobster bu.siness. As Judge Hazen has said, the industry has waned. FolloAving the literature on the subject of lobsters, you can look forAvard along the line of direct arithmetical progression to the time Avhen the lobster is going to disappear, and not in the dis- tant future, but in the very, very present future. So Ave ask the connnission to bear in mind some of the difficulties Ave have met with in the past, and Ave hope they Avill not in any Avay throw doAvn the bars regarding our lobsters. Chief Justice Hazen. What is your limit in Maine? Ten and one-half inches? Mr. Wilbur. Yes, sir ; practically that ; Ave measure the carapace, 44 inches. Chief Justice Hazen. And the lobsters sold in Boston must be 9 inches long? Mr. Wilbur. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. And those that are caught below your limit and up to the Boston limit are sold in the Boston market ? Mr. Wilbur. Yes, sir. The result of that is — I don't know whether it sounds very good to a Massachusetts audience — that we are greatly injured, as far as protection of the industry goes, in a manner simi- lar to that Avhich has been referred to by the chief justice in Canada, Avhere A^essels come just outside the 3-mile limit and catch lobsters. We suffer from that same sort of thing, from Boston smacks and a feAv NeAV Hampshire smacks that come on to our coats. They buj^^ all the 9-inch lobsters from the men, and that means in many cases that they get the whole catch, because a man selling to them knows that they don't have to be culled, that these short ones don't have to be throAvn out, as these felloAvs Avill take them all. Besides, the fisliermen are being educated along lawless lines. The result is, as I saA\ that the felloAv Avho can sell his 9-incli lobsters leo-alh^ in AMEEICAJSr-CAjSTADIAlSr FISIIEKIES CONFEEEISrCE. 69 this way will not only sell his 9-inch lobsters to the Boston market, but also the 104-inch lobsters. Secretary Eedfield. I think perhaps it is proper for me to say a word at this time as Secretary of Commerce and as a business man. as having- a deep interest in the fisheries of the United States, aside from what I might say as a member of the commission. I say this in all seriousness. Those who are dependent upon the lobster busi- ness for their livelihood in any form in this country must expect, unless there is an almost immediate change, to have that part of their livelihood taken away from them, and not by the act of any- body in the woi-ld except the men engaged in the industry itself. This is no time for mincing words, and I should be guilty of neglect of duty if I did not put this matter frankly and squarely before whomever it may concern. If the present methods are continued, if the present discordant laws are adhered to for the sake of profit, the time when there will be no lobster business can be measured by a very few years. We should have had examples enough of this kind of thing to lead us to tai^e warning. We have been through a painful five years in our department encleavoring to restore the seal herds, as they would take them because they could make money out of them, and that sort of thing continued until the herds were all but gone. Now, at the end of a five years absolutely closed season, protected by cruisei's that did their job, we have got the thing back again and can maintain it, but we can only maintain it by the strong arm of the law. That precise situation faces the lobster industry of this country. Please do not think I am speaking of it from a Washington stand- point. I have had a house on the coast of Maine for 16 years, and I know intimately the facts of which I speak. That business is going to be ruined speedily uidess there is a prompt change in the presenr discordant laws and methods in New England. I am sorry that I have to speak so plainly in this matter, but I am telling the plain truth, and this should be said to the men who have an interest at stake. Now, to the question raised, what objection, what advantage, one or the other or both, will arise from having Canadian vessels sail direct from Boston to the fishing banks and enter Boston direct from those banks ? I will raise another question : What advantage, what objection, one or both, would come to American vessels from having the present license fee of $1.50 a ton removed from American sailing fishing vessels in Canadian ports, and having free entrj^' into those ports, on the nominal basis of $1 per vessel per year of fishing vessels of whatever -motive power? What advantage, what disadvan- tage? That license fee amounted, if I am correct — I am speaking from memory — to $106,000, about two years ago, in the year 1915-16. I understand that that was the amount of the annual sum collected. Chief Justice Hazen. I don't think it has ever been as much as that in a single year. Secretarj^ Eedfield. Wliat has been the largest amount? Chief Justice Hazen. About $8,000 or $10,000, hasn't it, Mr. Found ? Mr. Found. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. Of course, it has been falling off because of the decreasing number of sailing vessels and the increasing number of vessels under other motive power. 70 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. STATEMENT BY CAPT. M. H. NICKERSON, OF THE BOSTON LOBSTER COMPANY. Capt. NiCKERsoN. I would like to say just a word on this ques- tion at this time. It is one in whicli I liave been interested for a great many years, as 1 think some of the gentlemen in Maine know. I have obtained a prett}' wide expression of opinion in regard to the uiatter in both countries, and I think all are agreeable to it except, I think, outfitters in Boston. This same question, to all intents and purposes, has arisen on the Pacific coast, and I liave been advised that the greatest objection on that side has come from the outfitters in Seattle, who would like the patronage of the American boats and do not relish the privileges that have been extended to them in Prince Rupert. Of course, there has been a different way of dealing with the question out there from what prevails here. Of course, this law in regard to $1.50 a ton has been a very hard law in some ways, because the license fee had to be paid yearly, and would ordinarily amount to over $100 for a vessel; and, besides, if a Xew England fishing boat took advantage of the modus vivendi and came on the scene late in the year and purchased a license, as many of them do, along in October or November, they have had to pay the full amount and then renew it again as soon as the new year came in, if they wished to fish down on that shore. I kept up a constant agitation of the matter in many ways, through the press and on such platforms as I could get access to, and I found that there was great unanimity in both countries on the matter; and I may say that when the ill-starred proposition of reciprocity occu- pied the attention of both countries, I succeeded in getting Mr. Field- ing to put into his platform that very same formula with regard to admission of A^essels that is being considered here to-day. It was there stated that they could have the same privileges that are now given for the sum of $1, and I am sorry to say, and have always regretted it since, that both countries turned down that proposition. I am now ready to support it with all my might as it appears here, and I think it represents the general opinion of all the gentlemen present. STATEMENT BY MR. A. L. PARKER, PRESIDENT OF THE BOSTON FISH PIER CO. Mr. Parker. Mr. Secretary. Ave have to do mostly Avith the dis- tributing of fresh fish. In regard to the proposition in regard to American vessels going into Canadian waters and ports, we belieA'e that that would be a great help, especially in the case of vessels that have power. At the present time the greater part of the vessels have poAver, and this would alloAv them to go in there Avhen they have a small trip aboard, for instance during hard Aveather in the winter, and ship their fish home if they so desired, thereby having fish arriA^e in our markets jn a better condition, giving the people better fish. In regard to the other side of the question, about having the Canadian vessels land their fish in our Abaters at our Avharves, we AMERICAlSr-CANADIAIS" FISHEEIES CONFEKENCE. 71 also, looking at it from the point of view of the greatest good to the greatest miniber, approve of that. I think the remarks you made in the opening address were verj' good. Taking everything into consideration, looking at the matter from a patriotic standpoint, I think I may safely say that I repre- sent the opinion of my company, which includes 28 of the distribut- ing firms on the new Fish Pier, in this matter. I tliink that is the opinion of the greatest distributing firm around here. Secretary Eedfield. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to us on tile question of the advantage to the American fishermen of having the American and Canadian ports open in the way sug- gested ? STATEMENT BY ME. WILLIAM H. BEOWN, SECEETAEY OE THE EISHEEMEN'S UNION. Mr. Bkown. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, speaking from the fisliermen's standpoint — that is, from the standpoint of the men actn ally emph)yed and working the vessels, catching the fish — this license law of a d'olhir is a very good thing. That is the way in which we regard it from our standpoint. It doesn't mean as much to the owner of the vessel as it means to the fisherman himself, because in my 19 ,years' fishing I have always found that when the license was taken out the fisherman had to pay three-quarters or four-fifths of that license, Avhich weighs heavily on him. So that would be one benefit to the men, the fishermen. In regard to our \essels, American vessels, landing their fish in Canadian ports, that is a rarity, unless Ave have got what we call a broken trip in our American vessels. We know that when we come home we have to go to our families bringing a dollar, anyway. Our expenses are high, and when Ave get through Ave have got to have a dollar, anyway, to keep oui- families Avith. If Ave have to stay out a Aveek or a month more before we can raise a dollar, our families are put out of our homes before we get back. I have in mind an inci- dent only last week. Avhere a man Avas gone aAvay seven Aveeks and made a j)retty good trip, sixty odd dollars, but in the meantime his Avife, Avith t,Avo or three children, kept coming to my office and had to be kept going until her husband came home. He Avas gone seven Aveeks. although he had, as it turned out, a pretty nice trip. He has gone again, and as things are he may not get back for 9 or 10 Aveeks. NoAv,^ if the Canadian vessels haA^e the privilege of landing in the port of Boston, Avhere they Avould be getting a fair price for fish — that is, from the fisherman's standpoint — the market Avould dro]), naturally, in accordance Avith the laAV of supply and demand. If it drops Avith the present scale of prices noAv, the fishermen from the ports of Boston and Gloucester Avould go home Avithout very many dollars in their pockets to feed their families, because our expenses haA'e been raised in some cases 300 or 100 per cent in this last year. Take the matter of lines: I understand to-day a 10-line tub traAvl, 11-pound line, costs $16. Every man on a single dory vessel has four of them in his charge. If they lose them, and in this Aveather they lose a lot, as high as 14, 15, or 16 tubs a trip, three-quarters or four- fifths of the expense has to come out of the crcAv. The OAvner pays 72 AMKRR'AN-CANADIAX FlSllEKIliS COXFEEENCE. one-tiflli or oiie-cnua-ter. It is the same way in regard to bait. I Ava>s talking to one of the lisherinen yesterday on the dock and he said they paid 5:[ for herring, and that it was poorer and they had to throw a good deal of it away. It is the same with all other com- modities that are shipped — grub, ice. and bait. Five hundred dollars or six hundred dollars used to be a big expense for going on a five or six weeks' trip. To-day you can not go away with an average of $900. and we have to have a very good stock to take home on the average a common laborer's pay to our families when 3^ou figure on the losses such as I have referred to. Now, what will be the result if we have Canadian vessels running into the port of Boston with large cargoes of fish? I don't think the price of labor or the price of building those schooners or steamers will cost as much as it would cost on the American end. So, natu- rally, they will not look for so much percentage. Chief justice Hazex. Why won't they cost as much, Mr. Brown? Mr. Broavx. Labor is cheaper in Canada than in America. Chief Justice Hazex. Have you any figures to justify that state- ment ? Mr. BpxOwx. I think vou can get the carj^enters in Xova Scotia for $3 or $4. Chief Justice Hazex. I think you will find that Avages in Canada to-day are as high as they are in the Ignited States. Mr. Bmvwx. Labor of all kinds? Chief Justice Hazex. I think so. Mr. Bkowx. In connection with slupbuiUling? Chief Justice Hazex. Yes. Mr. Bkoa\x. Well. I stand to be corrected. I know the wages used to be pretty low when I was over there. I worked in Yar- mouth f(n' prettv cheai) wages. But undei- the ccmdilions I speak (d', the law of sup}dy and demand, on the fishermen's end of it, will soit of drive a lot of fishermen out of the fishing industry, because the life is arduous. The fishermen have to go aAvay and leave their families vdiei tl-ey are on fishing trips, and unless there is some inducement they will not continue. Thev are trying hard now to keep the men going and to kee]") the ve-^sels up. The tendency of the times is to dri\ e nreu ashore, to shore work, workijig in business of other kinds — carpenters and others. We have all kinds of men going fishing. ^Ir. Sweet. Is there any law uoav to prevent an American from getting his fishing vessel built in Canada, if he Avants to. instead of in the United States? Mr. Broavx. He can't go down there uoav and build. Mr. Saveet. Can't he? Mr. Broavx. I don't think so. Of course, an American concern might have a branch doAvn there, I suppose. 5lr. Saveet. Just Avait a moment. Until recently there Avas a law that forbade American registry to foreign-built vessels, but that is not the laAv noAA'. Capt. NiCKEESOX. AlloAv me to say that there has been an order since that time. Secretary Eedfield. Perhaps it wo\dd be Avell not to interrupt ]\fi'. Bi-OAvn at this time. AMEETCAN-CANADIAN" FISHERIES CONPEEElSrCE. 73 Capt. NicKEKsox. Well, I simply vvanted to say. as lono- as this point is up. that we wanted a vessel built down there and brought over here, and the Canadian Government refused, except under a certain license, and w^e have not yet discovered what kind of a license was necessary. That boat is being built at Clarks Harbor; and I think the department answered my first request by sending me a copy of the order and said that the license was necessary, and it also stated in the letter that this act would show where to obtain the license and in what way, and it didn't. Then I put the matter into the hands of Mr. Fielding, who is working it up now. But at the present time the boat can not come from Clarks Harbor to the United States — not because the United States Government is against it but because for some reason a regulation in Canada forbids it. JNIr. Sweet. Undoubtedly a war measure, the same as we are now putting rulings into force for war purposes. I suppose it is simply a rule applied owing to war conditions. Mv. Brown. Well, I haven't much more to say, gentlemen, except that I am looking at this from the fishermen''s standpoint, from the standpoint of the wages of the poor man — the laborer — and I feel that if the wages are cut down or the price of fish is cut down to a Aery great degree, while other commodities are not cut down, it will drive a great many men out of the business. If we could get cheaper bait, cheaper grub, cheaper ice, etc., from the owner's stand- point as well as from the fishermen's standpoint, we might be able to drop the price of fish a little more. A short while ago some gentle- men appeared in front of Mr. Endicott, in connection with the food situation, trying to see if there was any way of getting cheap fish, and I think the gentlemen on the dock have complied to the best of their ability with suggestions that have been made, in order to give cheap fish. But they Avill answer for themselves, I suppose, after awhile. We catch them, and they have the selling part. But I don't think that side of the thing w^ould be a benefit, or that alone wouldn't be enough, with the situation that would arise if w^e let the Canadian steam trawlers come in here in this way. I don't think the Canadian schooners would bother coming here very much. If they could get a good market in their own country, I don't think they would come. But take the steam trawlers, carrying 240,000 and •250"^,000 pounds of fish, they would probably be attracted by a good market here, and I think, as I say, that that would hurt our men, because the wages of the fishermen there are not as large as the wages we are getting here in American ports, and it might result in reducing our wages, instead of making things a little bit better for us. Secretary Eedfield. Mr. Found, what can you say about the wages paid on Canadian vessels? Mr. FouxD. I would like to be clear as to whether fishing schooners or steam trawlers are referred to? Mr. Bboavx. Steam trawlers. Mr. FocxD. You mean to say that the wages on steam trawlers operating from United States ports are low^er than on those operat- ing from Canadian ports? Mr. Beown. Higher. Mr. Found. That the wages are higher on this side ? Mr. Brow^n. Yes, sir. 74 AMERICAX-CAXADIAX FISHEKIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Found. Can you tell us what the wages are, operating from here ? Mr. Brown. Well, I was just talking to a man around a week ago — in fact, talked with two young fellows who came from Canso, in regard to the matter. In fact, I think Mr. Otte or Mr. Xickeison have a letter showing the situation in regard to steam trawlers in Canada. I understand that they are getting $30 a month and $7 a thousand, where they are getting $40 and $7 here, and I think with the bigger price for fish here they make more money on the per- centage end of it. Chief Justice Hazen. You think a lai'ger ^^rice is obtained for the fish here? Mr. Broavn. Yes. We get $40 a month steady Avages on the steam trawlers. We simply go out and have no w^atch system outside, only in name. We work from 25 to 50 hours night and day, until we get that trip of fish out, dressed, and put down in the hold, and there is an enthusiasm for it. They are getting a percentage on the catch, which makes the men work longer hours than they would at steady wages of just so much. If they had only those, they would simply demand six hours on and six off — the same as sailors. But when you are giA'ing them a percentage also, they catch all the fish they can and dress them and put them in in good shape. Chief Justice Hazen. That same percentage system is in practice on Canadian vessels? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir ; but the Avages are a bit different. Mr. Saveet. Is that $7 a thousand based on the price the fisherman get for the fish in the market. Mr. Broavn. Yes, sir; $7 on eA'ery $1,000 of stock — the Avhole catch — seA^en-tenths of 1 per cent. Mr. Found. I have something here that I would like to get on the record. Mr. Secretary. I have not before me an exact state- ment of the wages paid on Canadian vessels, but I do have before me a letter from one of the biggest steam traAvlers operating out of Canada — out of Halifax — the writer stating that he has to pay 10 per cent more wages than prevail on this side. But I liaA^'en't the exact figures. We can get those AA'hen Ave go to St. John. Chief Justice Hazen. This is from S. Y. Wilson, of Halifax, the Leonard Fisheries, Limited. [Handing letter to Chairman Redfield.] Secretary Eedfield. I Avill read from this letter sent from Hali- fax, jSTova Scotia, dated January 26. 1918. It is from the Leonard Fisheries, Limited, and is signed by Mr. S. Y. Wilson. "' The captain and mates on Canadian steam trawlers are paid from ii per cent more than on the fleet operation in United States, as they are invariably men of large experience in European Avaters. The steam traAvler BaJe!)ie, which we are at present outfitting, has been pronounced by one of Gloucester's most successful captains as superior to any other steam trawler on this side of the Atlantic.'" The commission Avill take pains to get as fully as it can, both from this port and Gloucester, and other United States ports, as Avell as from Canadian ports, the exact facts as to the operation of these vessels, and will welcome now any further light that can AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 75 be thrown on the rehitive cost of operation of these ships. Mr. Brown, we will hear from yon fnrther, if yon wish. Mr. Brown. Well, that letter may be all right. I guess the English laws on steam trawlers give the captains and mates of the trawlers a good amount, but that the crews get the poorest amount. Chief Justice Hazen. Have you any evidence to support that statement, that the officers get more than on the American side, but that the crews do not get as much? Secretary Eedfield. The chief justice asks you if you have any evidence to support your statement that in Canada they give an excess to the officers, but take it out of the men, which I understand is the sum and substance of your statement? Mr. Brown. Oh, the men get a less percentage than on the Ameri- can vessels, I understand. Secretary Eedfield. Have you any evidence of that — actual facts ? Mr. Brown. I wotdd have to get Mr. Burns to corroborate that statement. He would have the figures in his office. He is more in touch with those people than I am, as a common man. Secretary Redfield. Well, we shall be very glad indeed to hear from Mr. Burns. Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Brown, you have referred to the cost of supplies. Have you made any comparison of the cost of supplies required on board these fishing vessels, in Canada and the TTnited States? Have you a list showing the different costs? Mr. Brown. No, sir; I haven't — only I suppose that 75 per cent of the men that go out of Boston and Gloucester are Canadians and Newfoundlanders, who come across here, and they tell me that more is paid here than for Canadian vessels. But as far as the facts and figures are concerned, I haven't got them. I think, however, that there would be no trouble in getting them. Chief Justice Hazen. I simply wished to find out if you had made any comparison of the cost — the prices paid in Canada and in the United States for food and materials used in vessels? You have stated that the cost is greater in the United States than in Canada, and I wanted to know what the figures w^ere. My statement, of course, is not evidence ; but my information is that the cost of those supplies entering into fishing vessels is fully as great, and in some cases greater, on the Canadian side than on' this side of the line. I thought, perhaps, you might have some figures to show whether or not that was correct. Mr. Brown. No. Chief Justice Hazen. You will try to get them, of course? Mr. Broavn. Yes. Secretary Redfield. I would say, Mr. Brown, that now or later — at any time when you get hold of definite figures, or when anybody here gets hold of definite figures — we shall be more than glad to have you send them to Washington to be made a matter of record in Washington. Mr. Sweet. I did not understand you to say whether you attach any advantage to American vessels having such privileges in Cana- dian ports as have been referred to here to-day — with $1 license annually per vessel. Would there be a material advantage to our 76 AMERICAN-CAN ADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. American fishermen on power or steam vessels in being allowed to go into Canadian ports and have the privileges there that Canadian vessels have? Mr. Bkown. Why, in the way I have referred to, there would be in connection with this license matter. It would saA^e $75 to $80 a 3^ear on the creAv. Secretary Redfield. Apiece? Mr. Beoavn. No; the whole creAV. Then, sometimes, in hard Aveather, when a A^essel has been out three, four, or fiA^e weeks without taking a seine, it could go in and get supplies. They might haA^e 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000 pounds of pretty good fish, and could go in and have it taken care of; and, then, they could go out on the banks again instead of lying on the banks for nearly tAvo weeks more catching fish — b}^ Avhich time those fish Avould be very old before coming to Boston. In that Avay Boston Avould be more of a fi-esh- fish market, and people would be able to get at all times fresh fish on the market. Mr. Saa'eet. Weighing the advantages and the disadvantages, is it your judgment that it Avould be more for the interests of American fishermen that the Canadian A^essels should not be permitted to come into our ports? We haA^e been talking about American A^essels being kept out of their ports. Of course, it is a question of such permission being granted on each side. Mr. Broavn. From my standpoint — from the men's standpoint, representing the fishermen of Ncav England — I think it Avould be a benefit to make both America and XoA'a Scotia harbor places, to leaA^e in those clauses; that Avhat Chief Justice Hazen has said would be all right as far as our end of it is concerned, in that respect. STATEMENT BY ME. JOHN BURNS, JR., OF THE BAY STATE FISH- ING CO., BOSTON, MASS. Mr. Burns. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown has asked me to substanti- ate his figures of comparison of Avages paid on the Canadian traAvlers as compared Avith our traAvlers here. It may be asked, before I get through, if I can substantiate those. I can only do it in this way: That it is a fact that the officers of traAvlers from Canadian ports are paid a larger wage or the compensation is greater than on our boats liere. At the same time the creAvs get a less amount. Those figures I haA^e in my office. But, representing the Bay State Fishing Co., which is primarily a producing company, I belicA^e it would be more or less harmful to throw the ports of the United States open to foreign ships producing fish. We are placed, I think, under many disadA^antages. Whether or not this is a Avar measure, Avhether or not it is proposed that the arrangement be made simply for the duration of the Avar, it seems to me is a A'ery important question. As to the cost of operating, we get most of our nets from the other side. We are paying 60 per cent duty on our nets at the present time. Those nets could be shipped, I suppose, from England to Canadian ports Avithout that duty. That is a very big item in the operation of our ships. We do business by the year and not by the trip, and if our market at spasmodic interA^als was to be loAvered AMEEICAN-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFEKElSrCE. 77 or partially destroyed, our grand average would not be what it is to-clay. Altogether I think it costs us — well, I haven't the figures exactly, but I think it costs us — one-half more to operate in this country than it would cost the Canadians. So, if the}^ come into our waters and enter our ports, as suggested, speaking from a i:)artisan standpoint, I think it would be harmful. Seci'etary Eedfield. Mr. Burns, have you ever figui-ed what the difference in cost per hundred pounds per annum is for operating a Canadian trawler as compared with those of your own ? Mr. Burns. K'o ; I have not. I have had no opportunity to do so. Secretary Eedfield. What proportion of the price that you obtain for the fish is represented by the Avages of the fishermen? Mr. Burns. Well. I could figure that accurately. Mr. Brown has stated that he paid the men a certain scale and bonus and paid the officers another scale and bonus. It goes from the lower paid men up to the captain, all scaled according to the bonus. Secretary Eedfield. Have you ever had placed before you an actual table showing the actual cost of operation of a Canadian trawler ? Mr. Burns. I have not. I have seen the scale of wages and bonuses. Secretary Eedfield. Yes. Is there any difference in the method of operating vessels which would offset in any degree the difference in the rate of the men? Mr. Burns. I didn't get that. Secretary Eedfield. Is there any difference in the way of operat- ing the vessels Avhich would in any degree offset the difference in the wages paid? Mr. Burns. Not that I know of. Secretaiy Eedfield. How many men do you operate on a beam- trawler ? Mr. Burns. Twelve. Secretary Eedfield. Is the difference in the Avages of the crews made up or more than made up by the difference in the wages paid the officers? Mr. Burns. You mean the general scale, the way it works out in comparison ? Secretary Eedfield. Yes. Mr. Burns. I think it is pretty close. Secretary Eedfield. So you think j:he total Avage paid per annum per vessel Avould be approximately the same? Mr. Burns. W^orks out about the same ; not much difference. Secretary Eedfield. Then, what other cases are there operating to your disadvantage, as compared Avith a Canadian vessel ? For ex" ample, is the price of coal greater here — under ordinary conditions, not to-day? Mr. Burns. Well, I can only ansAver that for during the Avar. I can not say Avhat the prices of coal might have been in comparison. Secretary Eedfield. Of course, Ave are not speaking in reply to your suggestion, in regard to a Avar measure at all, but are talking about a permanent measure. W^ould it make a material difference if the duty on the nets Avere reduced ? Mr. Burns. It Avould, a great deal. 78 AMERICAN-CAN ADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE, Secretary Redfield. AYho are the inamifactiirers in this country of nets of that chai-acter? Mr. Burns. There are none. Secretary' Eedfield. Then. Avhat do you understand to be the pur- pose of the 60 per cent duty ? Mr. Burns. It is simply the chissification that we are phiced under. These nets are chissified with hair nets, for instance; come nnder the same chissification. I shouldn't like to see a woman wearing one, but nevertheless that is the classification they conne nnder. Secretary Redfieij). Have you made any effort to obtain a reclassi- fication in connection with that matter? Mr. Burns. We liaAe. We have been working on it for some time. Secretary IIedeteld. Then, would it or would it not be a matter of relief to your industry if that conld be revised ? Mr. Burns. I shonld say that it would be. Secretary Eedeield. I would ask the Chief Justice what the facts are regarding the relative costs of those nets in Canada and the United States? Chief Justice HAZi<:N. I don't know. T was going to ask the witness what a net costs in Canada and what it costs in the United States. Perhaps he does not know. Mr. Burns. I conld not say what they cost in Canada, bnt would refer to Mr. Otte. who is in charge of that and who conld perhaps give n ssome idea of the actual cost. Whether he knows what is being- paid in Canada or not, I don't know. What we must do here and what, it seems to me. would be of great advantage to our ports along the Athnitic coast, wonld be to build np as large a fleet as possible. I wonld say that at the present time the United States — I snppose it Avas felt that it was absolntely necessary — have taken fonr of our steam traAvlers from the port of Boston to protect against mining, etc. If it did not have those trawlers the Government wonld not have any mine sweepers. They have been n\ine sweeping for a year and have been taken away from ns with nothing to replace them. We would have been able to bring in millions of pounds of fish if we conld have nsecl them. Secretary Redeiei.d. I sliall mention that fact to the Secretary of the Navy. Mr. Burns. Of conrse. we need protection. If we are going to be enconraged in bnilding np an iriclependent fleet, whether it is for merchant marine or for the fishing business, we mnst have a certain amonnt of protection. There is no question abont that. We need protection on the coast and we need fishing vessels, and the qnestion is to be considered whether this is going to work detrimentally to the independent bnilding of ships going from the United States ports. Of conrse, we need those vessels. I don't know what they wonld have done Avithont ns. Of conrse. our New England ports must be protected. I wonld now like to call upon Mr. Otte to tell ns what he knows about the subject. Mr. Found. The nets you speak of are those used on the traAvlers? Mr. Burns. Yes, sir. Mr. Found. Do you knoAv the comparative value of those nets in both countries? AMEBICAN-CAIsrADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 79 Mr. Burns. No. Secretary Eedfield. How big- are they ? Mr. Burns. About 90 feet across. Coiiiniissioner Found. I understand that these nets are only manu- factured at the present time in the okl country. Practically all of them are imported by (\\nada and the United States froni Great Britain : but the others, gill nets and lines, are practically all imported by us from the United States. Secretary Eedfield. Do you pay duty to the United States, Mr. Found? Is there 'a tariff that you have to pay for the nets vou get from the United States, in Canada ( Mr. Burns. Not for fishing purposes. Secretary Eedfield. You buy your nets in tlie X^iited States and get them in free of duty ? Mr. Burns. Yes. The nets and lines. I think, are practically all imported from the Ignited States — these other nets and lines. Chief Justice Hazen. I understand on those that the price paid is the same in the United States and Canada. I would like to ask Mr. Burns one question. In the case as put it was suggested that the American vessels could buy their supplies in Canadian ports. You are paying 60 per cent duty, or say there is a duty of GO per cent on these trawler nets, and vou sav thev are im])orted into Canada free of duty? Mr. Burns. No; I didn't say that. Chief Justice Hazen. Perhaps you said they migiit !;e. 1 thouglit 3'^ou said thej'^ were. Mr. Burns. No. I ke])t away from that question because I doii't know about it. Chief Justice Hazen. That is, you do not make the assertion be- cause you do not really know. But, of course, in tlie case put by the Secretary, if United States vessels are permitted to purchase supplies as the Canadians do, in Canadian ports, they would be able to pur- chase nets in Canada at the same price as Canadian vessels? Mr. Burns. Yes. Secretary Eedfield. That is the proposition. Chief Justice Hazen. And perhaps your Gox-ernment would con- sider removing the duty, as it does not protect anybody. Secretary Eedfield. I suppose the proposition" is clear that if the Canadian Government opens its ports to motor vessels, steam vessels, fishing vessels, and removes the license of $1.50 a ton and substitutes a nominal license of $1 per annum per ship, that Avould carrv with it the privilege of purchasing supplies of every kind and nature in Canadian ports, at the price there prevailing". So vessels of each Government would have the advantage of the prices in the ports of the other. If a thing, therefore, was cheaper in Canada, it would be bought there ; if it was cheaper in the United States, it would be bought there. Mr. Brown. In reference to the last question the gentleman asked me, I think there was a misunderstanding in rega'rd to Canadian vessels coming into Canadian ports and American vessels going into Canada to sell fish. Mr. Sweet. Not only to sell fish, but for all puiposes. Mr. Brown. I thought I made myself clear, as far as the fishing is concerned, would like to see the same old rule go on. 80 AMEEICAX-CAXADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEEXCE. Chief Justice Hazex. Of course, if the present modus vivendi were discontinued, not extended, that would simply throw the thing back to the treaty of 1818, so that American vessels could only enter our ports for four purposes — shelter, repairs, wood, and water. What would you say, then? Mr. Bkown. Well, all I can say is this, Mr. Chairman and gentle- men, that our American capitalists might have to make up the needs of American fishermen — supplying more bait — putting the bars down in a way, so that we could gel all the fish we wanted in Massachu- setts waters, bays, and rivers, and wouldn't have to go to Nova Scotia for much bait. STATEMENT OF ME. HENSY OTTE, MANAGER OP THE MARINE DEPARTMENT OF THE BAY STATE FISHING CO. Secretarv Eedfield. You heard what Mr. Burns said about the nets ? Mr. Otte. I think the question was relative to the cost of the nets to-day. Secretarv Eedfieed. Yes: that was one question. Mr. Otte. In round figures, I think a net to-day costs $260. Secretary Redeield. How big is the net? Mr. Otte. One hundred and twenty feet across the mouth and with a depth of 180 feet. It is commonly known as No. 1. Secretary Redfield. Do you know what the price of a similar net in Canada is to-day? Mr. Otte. I do not. Secretary Redfield. Is it not a fact that any disadvantage, if there be one, would be removed if you were free to buy them in Canada and outfit a vessel from there in that respect, if you desired to do so? Mr. Otte. There would be a saving on the cost of the nets, although I will say that we enjoyed free entry of those nets under the Panama Canal act until such time as the Secretary of the Treasury revised that rule and made a different ruling, the net being put on a 35 per cent basis under clause — I don't remember what it was now. Secretary Redfield. Is that the amount of duty to-day — 35 per cent ? Mr. Otte. Then, the same department revised the ruling again and classified nets under a class which covered hair nets and such finely, which is being protected at the present time. Secretary Redfield. In what way and before whom? Mr. Otte. Before the Customs Board of Appeals, and I believe it comes ujD in April. Secretarv Redfield. How Ioro- has that ruling been in effect, Mr. Otte?" Mr. Otte. That ruling has been in effect since, I believe — well, this is simply hearsay — but about a year, perhaps. Secretarv Redfield. How manv nets have vou bought durine: that year, Mr. Otte? Mr. Otte. About 150 nets, and as many spare parts which, if put together, would make a similar quantity. AMEEICAN-CAN-ADIAiS" FISHERIES CONFEBEISrCE. 81 Secretai^y Eedfield. On which the 60 per cent duty has been involved ? Mr. Otte. Practically. Secretary Redfield. And about what is the consumption of nets? Mr. Otte. The natural consumption, I think, is 15 nets per annum per vessel, and with 7 vessels there Avould be 81 to 100 nets per annum. Secretary Redfield. So you wish me to understand that those you have bought under the larger duty would approximate a year and a half's consumption? Mr. Otte. Yes; I should say so. Mr. Burns. And you might mention the chances of loss. Mr. Otte. Oh, yes. We had one shipment that never arrived, owing to unfortunate circumstances. The vessel was lost at sea while the};^ were in transportation, and we figure that from the time an order is placed it is 6 to 8 months before we receive a deliver}^ of the goods. Secretary Redfield. In that respect is there au}^ difference be- tween yourselves and the Canadians? Mr. Otte. I don't know, sir. Mr. BuRxs. Our whole fleet consists of seven boats, operating. Mr. Otte. I am talking about seven boats operating. Secretary Redfield. What, in detail, so far as you can give it, in the relative order of their importance, are the disadvantages under which you labor in competing with a Canadian vessel of the same size and type? Mr. Otte. I can speak only relatively as to the actual increased cost of operation of our owm vessels. As to the exact comparative increased cost of our vessels as compared with Canadian vessels I have not posted myself sufficiently to anwer that question in the manner j^ou would like. I can not give you the relative operating expenses of the Canadian vessels, because I don't know. Therefore 1 can not give you the comparative disadvantages or advantages that might accrue if the steam trawders received the privileges of entering Canadian ports either for selling, refitting or getting supplies. Secretary Redfield. Do you think it would be advantageous to you to have the privilege of entering Canadian ports and having the same freedom therein that the Canadian vessels have ?. Mr. Otte. I can not say, as far as steam trawlers are concerned, because in the past 12 years' operation of our vessels we have used our natural home market, which was capable of supplying our fleet in such a manner as to keep them operating as nearly 100 per cent of efficiency as it was possible to do so. Secretary Redfield. Have your vessels never had occasion to enter Canadian JDorts and apply for special licenses? Mr. Otte. We have only had occasion to do so in emergenc3^ One case I remember, where the chief engineer was injured at sea and received aid at Halifax; and there was another occasion, perhaps two or three in the life of the company, on account of weather con- ditions. Then, two of our vessels out of Canso and Digby cooperated down there last summer in connection with producing food for the allies. 51950—18 6 82 AMEEICAjN^-CA^^ADIAK- fisheries CONFEEEN'CE. Secretai'v Rv^DFiELn. Do yon confirm what Mr. Burns said, that it is a fact tliat on the Canadian vessels the officers are paid a higher compensation, but tliat the crew are not paid quite as hirge a com- pensation, and that upon the whole the total wage cost would be approximately^ the same? Mr. Otte. I would not personally confirm that as a fact. I Avonld sa3% from such meager knowledge as I have obtained, that that is the case. Secretary Eedfield. What coal do you use on your ships? ^Ir. Otte. Bituminous. Secretai'v Redfield. From where? Mr. Otte. From New River mines (n- PocalK)ntas mines. West Virginia. Mr. Burns. From anywhere. Mr. Otte. But at present we are getting what Ave can. Secretary Redfield. Anything you can get. I suppose. Mr. Otte. It is called " coal.'' Secretary Redfield. Have you any knowledge Avhether you have to pay more or less for fuel than a Oanadian vessel? Mr. Otte. Yes; I have. In one particular instance, in the month of November, brought a ncAv vessel from ManitoAvoc "Wis., to Boston, and this A^essel stopped at Port Hastings for coal. I believe, if I remember the figures correctly, the price was $().T5 a ton tliere. We Avere paying at that time $9.25. While the price of our coal at $9.25 seems a great deal more than the $6.75 at Port Hastings, in my opinion the quality of the coal I receixed at $9.25 Avas such that it Avas probably one-third cheaper than the other. Secretary Redfield. Speaking noAv of Pocahontas coal? Mr. Otte. Yes, sir. Secretary" Redfield. $9.25 is pretty liigh for Pocahontas coal in ordinary times? Mr. Otte. Very high. Secretary Redfield. Hoav high Avould it run in ordinary times as to price? I have used a great many thousand tons of it myself. Mr. Otte. In the A'icinity of $4— ^as low as $3.75 for bunker coal. This is a different proposition from rail coal. Secretary Redfield. Yes; but even then you speak of the Poca- hontas coal as the cheaper coal? Mr. Otte. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. So thei'e would be no disadvantage against you on the ground of fuel there? Mr. Otte. No. Secretary Redfield. x\re you able to state any other respects in Avhich the Canadian vessel has an advantage over you, ]5articularly if the bars Avere removed and a'ou Avere free to go into any Canadian port, if you saAv fit, and buy at their prices? Would there then be, in your judgment, any disadA'antage to you; and if so, Avhat? Mr. Otte. Why, I have not seen the necessity arise for our fleet to enter any Canadian port for any purpose, outside of Avhat I liaA e re- ferred to in the brief statement I haA^e made. Our oi^eration for years has been wholly confined to American ports, and perhaps for that reason I have not made as close a studA^ of Avhat mip'ht occur. AMERICAN-CAISrADrAISr FISHEEIES CONFEEEIS^CE. 83 Secretary Redfield. That is undoubtedly correct, but it was not quite my question. Mr. Otte. Perliaps I did not quite get it. Secretary Eedeield. Assuming, under the proposed phin, that you are free to go, if you wish, into a Canadian port, if you find it to your advantage to do so, so that whatever price a Canadian trawler gets in its own port is open also to .you, and vice versa, under those circumstances what are the disadvantages under Avhich j'^ou would labor? Mr. Otte. Does this question cover the sale of the products? Secretary Redfield. I am talking about the operation of the ves- sel, now. It would also be a fact, however, that if there vvere an advantageous Canadian market you would, under those circum- stances, be able to take advantage of it, and if there was an advanta- geous American market you would be able to take advantage of it. I am speaking of an entirely open arrangement. Mr. Otte. I doubt if it would Avork out. I do understand that at the present time, however, there is a Canadian duty on fish brought in by an American vessel of a cent a pound and that, of course, would be a disadvantage to American vessels. Secretary Redfield. Of conrse, that is a sales proposition. I am referring to the operation of the ship. Mr. Otte. I thought you meant that we would have a market in Canadian ports for the fish. Secretary Redfield. Well, of course, you Avould have the oppor- tunity to take adva^itage of that nuirket, if it existed. , Mr. Otte. It couldn't exist, under the duty conditions. Secretaiy Redfield. That would depend on the market prices. Mr. Otte. Well, they would still have the advantage of us, with the duty. Secretary Redfield. Well, of course, we can change our own duty at any time we see fit. Tariffs are not involved in this discussion. Mr. Otte. I understand that, but that is a point of fact to be con- sidered. I don't understand whether there would be an advantage one way or the other, materially, under your question. Mr. Sweet. It occurs to me that perhaps in Canada, as well as here, gentlemen engaged in the industry Avill give us their impres- sions as to the expense of operation, etc. That would be a very natural thing to do. I want to ask you if there is anybody here that you knoAv of, engaged in the industry or otherAvise, Avho could make out for us a statement of actual expense of operation, going back, perhaps, for several years, taking in normal conditions rather than Avar conditions, so that we might then get the same figures, perhaps, from Canadians, and make a more just comparison than is possible from hearing the impressions of people stated. Each side, perhaps, may have a tendency to consider that its OAvn relative ex- penses are more than those of other people. There may be an im- pression on their part that they are at a disadvantage and on our part that we are at a disadvantage, and perhps if Ave had the exact figures Ave Avould find that the equality was much greater than we could imagine. Is there anybody you know of here Avho could give us figures of that kind, making a sort of statement that we could put into the rocord? 84 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Otte. In connection with sailing vessels, I think several con- cerns in Gloucester would be competent to give you statistics dating several years back on sailing vessels. I believe there is a possibility that the Bay State Fishing Co. could also give j^ou figures on the operation of steam trawlers. Secretary Redfield. I would like to ask you or Mr. Burns this question. We full}^ understand the privacy that prevails in busi- ness matters, and there is no desire to make such matters public where there is no right or wrong involved at all. But can you not furnish us something of this nature? We have in our Lighthouse Service one hundred and forty and odd vessels operated, and we have the exact cost of wages, fuel, supplies, repairs, every other item, per mile run of every ship, so that we can tell precisely, taking each ship of one size, for example, precisely what such vessel costs per mile run in any year back, for 8 or 10 years; and we can tell, therefore, whether the ship is economically operated, where the work is of a similar character to that of other ships. Can you furnish us something of that nature, which, if furnished, would be confi- dential as far as the commission is concerned? I must, of course, let everything we have be made clear to our Canadian associates on the commission, but as far as publication is concerned, if the matter were one of privacy, for any reason, it would not be made public. Mr. Otte. I doubt if we would have as elaborate figures as you have described, because we have never had the facilities at hand to go into details in that way, in building up from small beginnings to what we have to-day. But we would be glad to give whatever in- formation we can. Mr. Saveet. I understand that what you have said refers particu- larly to traAvlers? Mr. Otte. Absolutely. Mr. Sweet. And not to other kinds of fishing vessels; and you say that the advantage of going into Canadian ports, that sort of thing, does not apply to trawlers as to the other vessels. Is that what you say Mr. Otte. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweet. They don't use bait, so that privilege would amount to nothing. But there are other kinds of fishing engaged in by people of our own country quite extensively to which the advantage would be greater than to trawlers of admission to Canadian ports? That is true? Mr. Otte. Yes; but I couldn't talk on that subject. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Burns, will you furnish us with a table of operation costs on the basis suggested? Mr. Burns. Mr. Secretarj^, we shall be very glad to do what we can. Our records are pretty public. We don't try to deceive any- body, although the United States Government might at other times seek to indict us for what thej noAv ask us to do. That would seem to be a contradiction of theirs. But we shall be glad to give you our operating costs. Of course, we don't want to have too much get to our brothers the Canadians, because they are bound to be our com- petitors ultimately. But I can not understand how it would help the commission, for the reason that there ha^e been very few steam trawlers operating out of Canadian ports. It is only recently that AMERICAN-CAlSrADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEKENCE. 85 they have been operating — I think a matter of a couple of years. The first j^ear of the war they were operating very little, and now they have several more trawlers, either chartered or owned by Canadians. These trawlers are coming over here under charter. I don't know whether they are working independently^ or not. But that is where the great competitive factor is coming, mostly from the other side. It was our impression before the war that it cost us twice as much to build a trawler as it cost in England, and that was one heavy setback — what it cost us to get a vessel ready for sea. But if those figures would be of any service to you I have no doubt our com- pany would be glad to turn them over to the commission. Secretary Redfield. I ask you to do so, Mr. Burns, with the under- standing that, while they will have to be known to our Canadian col- leagues on the commission, they will not be made public in this country or in Canada without your consent; and, in general, I will say, too, gentlemen, that if there are facts which in your judgment bear upon the discussion of any of these questions in which there is no principle involved that requires their public use they can be handed in confidence to the commission and will be made known to all of its members, but the confidence will be respected. STATEMENT BY MR. ARTHUR L. MILLETT, OF THE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS OF MASSACHUSETTS. Mr. MiLLE'rr. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question, for information, if I may. I would ask if it is in the province of this conference to decide anything regarding a proposed extension of the 3-mile limit to 12 miles on the part of Canada, on the beam trawlers? Mr. Found. Extend it from 3 miles to 12 miles? Mr. MiLLETT. Yes. Secretary Redfield. That is a matter new to me, Mr. Millett. Mr. Found. If I may explain that, as far as Canada is con- cerned, it applies entirely, and can only apply, to trawlers operat- ing from Canada as a base. Canada's jurisdiction, internationally, of course ceases at the territorial limit of 3 miles from shore. But with a vie^y to protecting certain inshore boat fishermen during cer- tain times in the year, in cases where certain of our trawlers would otherwise be dragging up their hand lines, we have refused privi- leges to our oAvn trawlers unless they undertake to fish not closer than 12 miles from shore at certain times in the year. Of course, that prohibition could not be extended to vessels beyond the Canaclian jurisdiction. jMr. Millett. I take issue with you in that matter, because I have personal knowledge of a steam trawler belonging to the United States sailing out of Boston, making a catch, going to Halifax, and being obliged by the collector at Halifax to sign a paper to the effect that he would not do that sort of thing. He was asked to sign such a paper for the year. Mr. Found. That is, a trawler operating out of Halifax? Mr. Millett. No. Mr. Found. Then it is quite obvious that it was beyond the right of any officer in Halifax to do that. He would be going beyond his rights. That is a regulation that is only applied, and can"^ only be applied, to Canadian vessels.. In fact, I "think I have the regulation here. 86 AMEEICAX-CANADIAIsr FISHEEIES CONFERENCE, Secretary Redfield. While Mr. Found is looking for the regula- tion, Mr. Millett, you say you have personal knowledge of that? Mr. Millett. Yes, sir ; knowledge first hand from the skipper, the captain of the vessel. Secretar}^ Eedfield. You mean that the skipper told you so ? Mr. Millett. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. So that is your first-hand knowledge, the statement of the skipper? Mr. Millett. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. What vessel was it? Mr. Millett. The Seal. Secretary Redfield. When did this take placet Mr. Millett. Within six weeks, just after the Halifax disaster. Secretary Redfield. Give us the full statement of the captain, all the details, bearing in mind, of course, the fact that in view of the statement the commission will call upon tlie collector at Halifax to state his side of the case. Mr. Millett. Yes. Secretary Redfield. In order to have the record complete and not ex parte. But will you be good enough to state all the facts as the captain stated them. By the way, is the captain here? Mr. Millett. No. Secretary Redfield. Well, state the case as fully as you can. Mr. Millett. I think it was something like this. The captain put into the j^ort of Halifax some time after the disaster, not knowing anything about the disaster. Of course he was cast down by the calamity. In the course of his business he Avent to the customhouse, and he tells me that while there the collector or the deputy, I Avon't say which, but I think he said the collector, produced this document and asked him if he w^ould sign it. The captain asked him what it was, and they talked it over. He was asked to sign this agreement not to fish within 12 miles of the Canadian coast for a year, and in repl.y he said, as he tells me, '^ My friend, Mr. Collector, I can not tie this vessel n]3. I do not ov/n her. There is a couple of hundred thousand dollars here at stake. But I will tell you what I will do. I Avill be a good fellov\^ about it and sign it for this trip if that is any good to 3^ou,'" which he did. Secretary Redfield. What v/as the consideration for the agree- ment ? Mr. Millet*]'. None. That is why I ask you, Mr. Secretary, sitting here in this matter, to take that into consideration. Secretary Redfield. Certainly. Then I understand your state- Fiient to be that without any consideration at all a Canadian officer asked the captain of an American vessel to enter into an agreement not to fish in waters that both parties knew were not under the jurisdiction of Canada ? Mr. Millett. Yes, sir; within 12 miles. Secretary Redfield. And you accept that statement as probably correct, Mr. Millett? Mr. Millett. I should have no hesitancy in doing so, sir — know- ing the man. Secretary Redfield, And is it not a fact that the agreement when sia'necl was null and void? AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEEIsrCE. 87 Mr. MiLLETT. That is what I don't know. I am not a hiwyer. Secretary Eedfield. Is it not a fact that if we required such an agreement in the port of Boston from the captain of a Canadian A'essel, he would tear it up, and that there would be no ])Ower under the law to enforce such an agreement ? Mr. MiLLETT. I don't know about it. Secretary Eedfield. But, pardon me, isn't that fundamental, this being a case outside of the territorial limits? Mr. MiLLETT. Well, I didn't know but Avhat the collector was try- ing to enforce the 12-mile provision of the North Sea convention,- and, if so, I thought it is a maiter that might be taken up here. Chief Justice Hazen. There is no such intention on Canada's part. Mr. MiLLETT. Well, that is a matter that was brought to my at- tention, and I thought that this would be the time to thresh it out. Mr. Found (reading) : Tlie inasier of evei-y stejun trawler a1 any port on tlie Atlantic sealxianl of Canada shall before departure come i)efore the collector of customs, or other ])roper otticer,, and deliver to him a report outwards under his hand of the destination of such vessel, stating her name, country and tonnage, the port of i-egistry. the njune of the master, the name of the owners, and the number of the crew, and such other pai'ticulars as are demanded by such officer. The report outwai'ds shall also ccmtain a declaration to the effect that the master of the steam trawler, in considertition of the clearance granted by the officer of customs, undertakes and agrees to restrict all steam operations by such steam trawler to waters which are at least 12 miles distant from the nearest shore on tiie Atlantic seaboard of Canada, during tlie calendar year in which the clearance is granted. That is a regulation iruide under the authority of the customs act on the 6th of April, 1915, and that was amended so as to apph^ from January to May 1 in certain watei's. Mr. MiLLETT. How can they ask an American skipper to sign that. Mr. Found. If that was clone, no doubt it was a mistake on the l^art of the collector of customs at Halifax. The reason for the regulation, as far as Canada is concerned, is undoubtedly the reason that has been stated. That is, these trawlers were operating around near the coast, largely for haddock. There were hand-line fisher- men operating trawls, as has been stated, and they. were having their trawls torn up by the steam trawlers. But in the case of vessels other than Canaclian vessels, operating outside the three-mile limit we have no jjower to stop their doing it. But there were vessels operating from Canso and other Canadian ports — Canadian ves- sels — and it was to control those during that particular time of the year that the regulation Avas made. Mr. MiLLETT. I v/ill say that there are other men in the room Avho can corroborate my statement, and so I have brought the matter up. As is well known, there are places like Cape jSTorth, Ingonish, and Scatteree, where the chances for American fishermen to fish are very valuable. If we are going to have some such limit as this put on it we should know it. There is a great deal of spring fishing there, as well as at other times in the year. If we are going to be kept 12 miles off. you know that we can not go 12 miles off and get fish. Chief Justice Hazen. We have no power to keep your vessels or the vessels of aii}^ other nationality 12 miles olf the shore. We have a right to do so within 3 miles of our shores, the same as vou haA^e SS \A1 i:UU' A \ TA NADl \ N I' I S 1 1 I'llJI IIS CO N VM'".K1''.X(""K. tho riii'hl (o U(>oi> o(hor> nwny iVom your slioros for a dislanro of ;> luilos. but (1\m( is !ill. Mr. Mu.MVir. 'I'luU is w lui^ I (hoiiiilil. Chiof ,Ius(i('i' IIazkn. AVi* havo no jui-isdiclion to do «Ulu>r\viso. SiH'i'olary Kkdkiki.o. 1 will ask a furlhor (iiioslion at this point. iiuisnuK'li as Mr. Millott has hrouoht (ho luattoi' ui), so that wo may hnvo \i pori'ootly cU^ar in our minds. Mr. CMiiof Justioo, is it not a ftiot that if tho Canadian ooikH'tor of ouslon\s al Halifax nunlo such ;i ivquironiont it was null and \o\i\ whon it was mado ^ Chiof Justioo IIazkj^. Absolutoly. Dr. Sautii. I wn)uld liko to ask this qnostion -Avhilo tho matter is up, in oi-ilor (hat 1 may ho j)orfootly oloar about it. If this rooula- (ion o\' tho Canadian (u)vornmont is intondod to apply only to Canadian \ossols. what is the siii'niiioanoo of tho loqniromeut that the master , the tonnajiv, and other items, which indicate that some other country than Canada, may be involved^ Ml-. FovNo. The trawlers that were ojierating- at that time be- lonaod to some extent in (ireat l^ritain and were operatino- nnder an aiiroomont of sale of catch to certain hrms in Canso. Therefore, this was worded so as to apply to sjich vessels, oporatinii' from a Canadian base, as snch. The only way we could get at these trawlers would be when they eame back again with their oatoh. So it was intended to cover tlu>so vessels comino- in aiul ont fi'om a t^anadian povt. STATEMENT OF MK. FRED L. DAVIS. PRESIDENT GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. Ml-. l>A\\s. Ml'. Chairman. I only rise to I'ontirm partly the report made by Mr. Millott rolatixo to this trawler. 1 got the same inftunna- (ion. i (hink Mr. Millott failed to make one statement relative to this, which gives the real pith of the whole matter. It is that this vessel went into Halifax for water and was refused tho water unless the captain signed this agreement. He was out of water and he went in to replenivsli his water, and was refused the water unless he signed this agreement, and he refused to sign it for more than one trip. He said. " 1 am the captain on this vessel for this trip ai\d don't know anything alnuu what is proposed further than this trip. I don't kn«nv what the owners may want to do wiih the vessel. I will sign it tor this (rip. because I have uti intentitni of tishing. anyway." Secretary Rkofiklo. Where does your infiUMuation come from? Mr. Davis. From the owners and ^he captain. Secretary TvKniMKi.n. Where did the owners get thcii- information ? Mr. Danis. 1 presume from tho captain. STATEMENT BY CAPT. CARL C. YOUNG. OF GLOUCESTER. ('apt. \'oi NO. Mr. Chairman, the captain was Henry Atwood. and that is the statement he gave me. Of course. I know him very well. He went in for water, and when he went io the customs they asked hin\ to sign this docuu\ent not to tish inside the I'J-mile lin\it for a year. The steamer was the Seal. Dr. SMvrn. Of Boston? AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 89 Capt. Young. Of Gloucester. Secretarj^ Eedfield. And did he tell .you who the officer was who made that request? Capt. Young. No; because when we go to the custondiouse at Hali- fax we don't try to find out about who particular officers are. Of course, there is another thing- that ought to be taken into considera- tion, and that is that this was at the time of the disaster at Halifax. Secretary Eedfield. Was the captain sure that the particular per- son who made this request knew that it was an American vessel? Capt. Young. Yes, sir. The captain is a pretty fair business man. has been in the business for a number of years. Secretary Eedfield. How long had he been on that job? Capt. Young. This was his first trip on the job. Secretary Eedfield. How long had he been fishing? Capt. Young. Oh, fishing perhaps 20 to 25 years. Mr. Burns. I have no doubt that everybody here in the fish busi- ne-s Avill vouch for Capt. Atwood's integrity. Secretary Eedfield. There is no question about that, not at all. But the thing that astonishes me is that the captain, with his experi- ence, should not have known that this could not be done. I take it that everybody who has had anything to do with the sea at all vvould know that a document like that after it was signed Avovdd not l)e worth anything, that it could be innnediately torn up and tbat no power would exist anywhere in the world to enforce it. We have just heard the honorable Chief Justice say that. The thing is on its face so foolish, so absurd, to my mind, as to bear on its face evidence that it was a blunder of the man, the individual. Certainly exevy seafaring man knows — and I know myself. becaU;Se. although not a seafaring man, I have had to do with seafaring men for nuiny years — ^very seafaring man I ever had to do with knows that the right of a nation to enforce its domestic laws cease at 3 miles offshore. If the I'^nited States, through Congress, passed a hnv regulating what should be done outside of that 3-mile limit, and should instruct the Department of Commerce to enforce it. and we did enforce it through our officers in this court of Boston, it w^ould be perfectly worthless. No nation on earth can do a thing of that kind; and I am a little bit surprised, gentlemen, that none of you appears to have told the captain so. Mr. Davis. I don't think it is so surprising. J\lr. Chaiirnan. When our men go down into Nova Scotia watei's with their vessels and go into harbors, they feel that they must live u]i to the rules. Secretary Eedfield. Well, that was not a rule. It was null and void. Mr. Davis. That is all right, but Ave have had trouble there, a good many people have had trouble there. When a thing is put up to you, you do the best thing you can. If you telegraph to the United States for any assistance, yon are held u]3 for awhile. Secretary Eedfield. Another question — he refused to sign the paper ? Mr. Davis. For a year. Secretary Eedfield. Did he get a clearance? Mr. Davis. He did. Secretary Eedfield. How do you account for the fact that he got a clearance after he refused to sign the paper? 90 AMEKICANT-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. ^Ir. Da>is. He signed the paper for one trip. Chief Justice Hazen. Made a compromise. Secretar}^ Redfield. So we understood that there is in existence this document signed bv the captain agreeing for one trip not to do this? ^ . ^ . '' Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfteld. It must be in existence in the customhouse in Halifax, I suppose. Chief Justice Hazen. Without an}'- question, the official at Hali- fax made a mistake. This paper will probably be found on the records. -Secretary Redfieed. In the meantime I think you can take the assurance of his honor the chief justice that there is no power on the part of any Government to do such a thing. Mr. Found. And officers will be so instructed that there will be no repetition of it. Capt. Young. What would it mean, taking out a license in Canada? Chief Justice Hazen. It would mean that any fishing vessel rep- resentative would go to any customhouse on the Nova Scotia or New Brunswick coast, pay a dollar for a license, and that that avouIcI entitle the vessel to sell fish and entitle it to the same privileges that our vessels have. Capt. Young. Can it sell fish free of duty ? Chief Justice Hazen. The (|nestion of duty is not being raised here. The question of tarilf is one for each country, and it is not being raised in this inquiry. Capt. Young. Well, that is the question. Can we sell fish without duty there? What is the reason why you ask us to pay a dollar license fee for our vessels'^ I vrould like to have that explained. Chief Justice Hazen. We are giving 3^ou a privilege in our ports and are doing it by way of license for that merely nominal sum, $1 a yeai'. Capt. Young. But you put a restriction on us bj^ a license. Wlw not have it the same as in America — come into our ports and do just as you like? I believe in that. But wh}^ not do the same to us down in Canada? Chief Justice Hazen. Would you have objection to paying a dollar for a license fee? Capt. Young. But there is no duty on fish in America. What is the reason Avhy you want to charge us a dollar? That is a question we can not understand in Gloucester. When the board comes cloAvn there they will want to find out the reason for paying the license fee. For instance, if you don't want to give us a license, you haven't got to do so, ancl then you might want to take the license from us to morrow, and you could do it. It has been done. Secretary Redfield. I understand that the difficulty in your mind is in having to pay a dollar a year? Capt. Young. Yes: it isn't" the dollar at all; not the dollar, but the principle of paying the dollar for the license. Chief Justice Hazen. You see, one of the difficulties in the matter at the present time is that there is a treaty. Under that treaty you have the right to come into our ports for certain purposes. It is proposed, by making an agreement, to override that tjreaty. There- AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 91 fore we say to you, " Come into our ports and have all the advantages Ave ha^•e;' That is what is proposed ; that is what is being discussed here. I don't say that that will be agreed to here or that we will agree to it. There is simply an attempt being made to arrive at a proper agreement between both countries, we representing our hsh- ermen and your commissioners representing yours. There must be a mutual agreement, must be mutual concessions, of course. So we say, " Here is the treaty, which we can override by an agreement, it you will pay a dollar a year as a license fee, you can come into our ports and enjov the advantages that our vessels enjoy. As tar as amount is concerned, it makes no difference whether it is a dollar or a cent. The idea is simplv to allow the American vessels to come into our ports. Capt. YouNCx. But under the treaty we must enter and clear. Chief Justice Hazen. This whole thing is a matter for considera- tion, of course. It is a very proper question for you to raise. Captain, and a proper question for consideration. Capt. Young. It handicaps all fishermen a little bit. We go into a Nova Scotia port for bait, and then we also have to buy a license. Chief Justice Hazen. Let us see how this would work out. prac- tically. You go and enter when you visit ports — go to the custom- house ? Capt. Young. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. And when you enter you say that you want a license, and hand over a dollar' and the collector hands you a license. Is there any delay about that ? Capt. Young. Sometimes a little delay. Chief Justice Hazen. How much? Capt. Young. According to where you are. Chief Justice Hazen. You have to have some delay in making the entry, anyway? Capt. Young. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. And in making the entry you have to see the collector or the officer there, and he issues the license. So I don't see why that makes any additional delay. Mr. "Saveet. Your point is that it is not done in one country and has to be done in the other? Capt. Young. Yes ; I like to get fifty-fifty. [Laughter.] _ Chief Justice Hazen. You have raised a proper question. Cap- tain. Mr. Sweet. And, in the final analysis, I would like to raise this question: Whether it is advisable for either country to require a license to be given. It might be better to eliminate it entirely in both countries. Chief Justice Hazen. Yes. Secretary Redfield. Before leaving the subject let nie simply repeat what Mr. Found, the superintendent of fisheries in Canada, has said here, that if it shall appear that the customs officer_ Id Hali- fax made a mistake — and it is admitted to be a mistake, if it was flone — he will be instructed not to malre similar mistakes in the future, and similar instructions will be given genei-ally to the cus- toms officers. 9*2 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FlSllKHIKS CDNFKKEXCE. Mr. ^liLLK/rr. Of course, it wtis not a matter of any consequence to me personally. It has come to my attention, and l' simply brought it up here. Secretary Kr.nnKi.n. And vo arc ahul to have you hriui)- it up. Chief flustice Hazkn. It is one of those things that causes a cer- tain auuMint of irritation and annoyance, and should not have oc- curred. Steps will be taken to prevent anything of the sort in the future. Mr. Burns. And Ave should take the disaster into consideration and excuse it. Of course, everybody was probably Avorked up at that time. FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. M. H. NICKERSON. Oapt. NiCKEusoN. Mr. Cduurman. will you allow me to say a word at this time? T think it is absolutely necessary to maintain the integ- rity of the old treaty. There is an old instnuuent dating back to the days of (leorgc 111. just 100 years ago. that is in full force to-day. and the nunhis vivendi Avas merely a rider Avhich suspended its full operations, as has been explained here. Xow, if the Canadian provi- sion should admit an American tishing boat to those privileges with- out the payment of a nominal sum of $1. it is clear that that would be overriding the whole treaty, which Canada is not competent to do. as the United Stares and Great Britain Avere the only signatories to that convention. I think that view of it is correct. Mr. Chief Justice? Chief Justice Hazkn. 1 think that is one vieAv of it. Captain. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. H. C. WILBUR, Mr. "Wu.Bi i{. Mr. Chairuian. I understand from Avhat has been stated here that Canada has a restriction Avhich it attempts to enforce outside its territorial limits against its oAvn traAvlers through a restriction in connection Avith the issuance of a license. Thaf has been coupled here Avith the stateraent of the order or regidation Avhich Avas read by Commissioner Smith, in regard to the uutster of the vessel giving to the authorities the name of the A'essel. the eoiui- try. and so on. It seems to me. as I heard that read, that the cus- toms official in Canada construed the laAv as his mind understood it. He really acted in accordance Avith the letter of the hiAv. as it reads, although he Avas mistaken in his application of it. But this is the suggestion I have in mind noAV relevant to that question. If Canada can enforce such a provision, by refusing to license traAvlers unless they agree to comply Avith it, at certain times in the year, Avhy is that not in the interests of the felloAv who goes in for hand lining, and Avhy cotdd not something of the sort be done here I In talking about traAvlers. Ave have perhaps overlooked the other felloAv. Xow, I do not undei-stand that that restriction in regard to the 12-mile limit is violated by the Canadian traAvlers. if they submit to that condition, and I believe in this era of good feeling, in Avhich it is proposed to deal with questions that have been bothering the people of both countries a gocxl deal in the past, it might not be Avell for this coinitry to take some action along that line. We Avill all. then, be in the same boat, and the hand-liner Avill be protected. If they can prt.tect their hand-liners up thei'e by a mere restriction apply^ AMERICAlSr-CAlSrADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 93 ing- between the 3-mile territorial limit and the 12-mile limit, Avhy can not we do it? The trawler is not harmed, and certainly the small fellow is protected. Mr. Sweet. I think that is an excellent idea. STATEMENT BY EOEMER STATE EEPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM E. DOYLE, OE EAST BOSTON. Mr. Doyle, Mr. Chairman, I simply desire to call the attention of the commission and of the Secretary himself to the lobster situa- tion. We have heard statements here in regard to the situation on the Maine, coast and in Nova Scotia. I think the only Avay that the lobster business can be kept going, the only future for the lobster business, lies in a permanent understanding between both countries as to what size lobsters can be caught. Maine has a 10^-inch law; Massachusetts has a 9-inch law. I believe the future of the lobster industy, if it is to have a future, lies along the Nova Scotia coast. But Canada, Nova Scotia, have canneries taking lobsters but 4 or 5 inches long and canning them for export. Those are the lobsters that should be saved. Secretary Eedfield. Where is that? Mr. Doyle. I have been there and have seen it mj^self, personally, all over Nova Scotia. I have seen them canning 4 and 5-inch tinkers, millions of them, Mr. Secretary, and there lies the future of the lobster industry. We are the port of entry for the lobsters of Nova Scotia, here in Boston, and Boston is practically the export market for the lobsters of the world. I think, while there is the present feeling now existing between Canada and our country, a feeling which I hope will always con- tinue, and while this commission is existing, something will be done. I hope both countries Avill honestly get together, and then there will be some hope for the future. Look into this matter of the can- ning of tinkers. I know the chairman of the fish commission in Massachusetts, because I had the pleasure of serving in the legislature, and I served on the committee in Avhich he was interested. He could tell joii of hundreds of crates of lobsters that he has handled himself that have come to the Boston market, with tinkers, which have been dumped overboard, quite recently. I certainly think the present situation should be corrected. I don't know the disposition of the bill that was before the Fish Commission. Secretary Eedfield. Perhaps Mr. Millett can inform us in regard to that. Mr. Millett. I would say that there were 36,000 lobsters of illegal length, some berried lobsters, and those were put overboard at various points along the coast, at regular lobster fishing spots, so that they might grow — 37,000, if I remember aright, that did not come up to our 9-inch law. They came from Nova Scotia. Secretary Eedfield. Can you define the word " tinker," Mr. Doyle ? Mr. Doyle. Anything under 9 inches. Secretary Eedfield. This raises an interesting point. I have had occasion personally to see a good deal of this situation in connection with lobsters. 94 AMERlCAN-CANADIAlSr FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. JNlr. DoYLio. Yoli Avill see the sort of thing I have referred to all iilong the Nova Scotia coast. I happened to be entertained b}^ a distinguished friend there, who sei'xed in the Canadian Parliament, and I saAY a good deal of it. Chief Justice Hazen. Thero is no (jiiestiou aljoiit it; along parts of the Nova Scotia coast there is no size limit, bnt the season is short. In many places their only chance to dispose of lobsters is by canning them. ;is they do not have access to the New England market. The time is ap|)roaching Avlien canning Avill be abolished altogether at ])oints to this side of Halifax. Mr. Doyle. It will have to he. Chief Justice Hazen. It is that sort of thing tliat has caused the condition of affairs about Passamaquoddy Ba3^ in New Brunswick. But theie arc places thai I could i)oint out to you Avhere they Avill liaA'e to allow canning oi' the lobsters will be of no use at all. places too fai- away from centei's to Avhich they might be transported. For instance, there are places along Northumberland Straits and Prince Edward Island, and along ])arts of New BrunsAvick and the Gaspe coast. Mr. Doyle. I think that is absolutely right; but if they Avill pre- vent canning anything below 9 inches, it Avill preserve the industry. Secretary Redfield. That is, your criticism is directed not against the canning industry in those cases, but against the size of the lob- sters canned ? Mr. Doyle. Yes; it stands to i-eason that if they are going to take lobsters 4, 5, or 6 inches in length, tinker lobsters, and can them, you Avill see the same results that yon have seen aromid Passamaquoddy Bay, that the lobsters Avill disappear, because Nova Scotia noAv fur- nishes practically all the lobsters. The same thing AA-.ill happen in Nova Scotia that has ha]ii)ened elsewhere. Secretary pEOFiELn. Thank you. very much, Mr. Doyle. This is very helpful. STATEMENT BY ME. FRANK S. WILLARD, LOBSTER DEALER, OF OF PORTLAND. ME. jMr. WiLLAKi). Mr. Chairman, there are no people any more inter- ested in this matter than the people doAvn in Maine. The great trouble is that there is a conflict of hiAvs in regard to the lobster industry. I think Ave ought to have a Federal hiAv on the subject. I have been in the lobster business for a number of years and have seen it gradu- ally going to pieces. The laAv doAvn in Maine is all right if you can enforce it. but you have to have the different States and countries get together on the matter, in order to get anyAAdiere. Under the present situation the business is simply being driven to Boston and NeAv York. It is going aAvay from Maine altogether. I Avould sug- gest that the lobster industry be made the subject of a Federal laAv and that it be enforced. Then everybody Avill haA'e to be on equal terms. Secretary Redeield. I think, in aIcw of Avhat Mr. Willard has said, and in view of AA'hat Mr. Doyle and others have said, that this may be the proper time, before adjourning in a fcAv minutes, to saA' AMEE.TCAi;r-CA]SrADIAISr FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 95 something which will express our view of the seriousness of the lobster situation. We are ready to cooperate with money and with men in almost any way to keep the lobster industry going. We run a hatcher}^ now at Boothbay Harbor, in Maine, Avhich, from a certain point of vieAv, may be said to have had a measure of success. We are quite prepared at Washington to consider asking for authority and for funds to do more, if there can be some reasonable coopera- tion in New England on the subject. But. and this is the point, we are also being forced reluctantly to consider whether, in the absence of eft'ective laws effectively enforced, we are not coming close to the time for the application of a mandatory law of Congress, which may or may not have been called to your attention, which requires that the United States cease to spend money, cease operations, wherever State laws are not sufficiently enforced to protect a fisherj'^ in the judgment of the Commissioner of Fisheries. In such a case, then and there Ave are mandatorily instructed to stop oi^eration, and we have had in the back of our minds the question Avhether we must not stop the Boothbay lobster hatchery. We have it at the moment under serious consideration. I do not speak of that in any sense, I will say to you gentlemen who are interested in the lobster business, as a blutf. In Texas we failed to find the State laws sufficient to protect our officers in the full and free discharge of their work, under the provisions of this mandator}^ law. and insufficient to provide protection for one of our principal hatcheries, and we closed the hatchery. It is idle now, and the plant has been transferred elscAvhere. We foiuid in Maryland, at Havre de Grace, the laws of ISfar^dand insufficienth' enforced to protect the shad industry, and we have closed the shad hatchery at Havre de Grace. Observe, this is not a matter of choice with us. It is a mandator}^ laAv. and Ave haA'fe no choice. The moment it becomes clear that State laAvs are insufficient for the job or are insufficiently enforced Ave are prohibited from spending money to encourage the fishery. That is a very unfortunate state of affairs. I personally know a number of the poorer men Avho make a living out of their little motor boats on the coast of JMaine. I have knoAvn them for many years, and have seen man}^ of them groAv up from childhood and go out on their first trips. But they are losing their livelihood, and it seems that it may be necessary for the United States Government to take its hands off unle-ss Ave can agree upon laws good enough or Avell enough enforced to make it possible for the United States Gov- ernment to continue. (A recess Avas taken from 12.50 to 2.30 p. m.) AFTERXOOX SESSION. The hearing Avas resumed at 2.30 o'clock p. m.. Chairman Redfield presiding. Secretary Eedfield. The meeting Avill please come to order. I tim informed, gentlemen, that there is a delegation present from the State of Vermont Avhich desires to present certain facts Avith regard to the fisheries on Lake Champlain. Are those gentlemen here noAV? (It appeared that the delegation referred to had not yet appeared.) 9G AMERICAX-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. STATEMENT BY MR. JOSEPH A. RICH, PRESIDENT OF THE BAY STATE FISHING CO. Secrehiry Eedfikld. Is Mr. Joseph A. Ricli, president of the Bay State Fisliing- Co., present? Mr. Rich. He is, Mr. Chairman, but is not president. I am con- nected Avith the Bay State Fishina" Co. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Rich, the commission is very much inter- ested to got your viewpoint on the matters we were discussing this morning. I think you were present, were you not? ]Mr. Rich. Yes, sir. Secretary REOKiri.u. AA'e sliali be ghul to liear what you have to say. Mr. Rich. There is tlie poiur that Capt. Young brought up. Will you read the first paragraph of those six points? Secretary Redfielo. This is not intended, by any means, to be inclusive or exclusive. The first memorandum was: '''The proposed extension of the Canadian modus vivendi licenses to American fish- ing vessels, by whatever means they nuiy be propelled, and the reduc- tion of the annual fee from $1.50 per registered ton to the nominal sum of $1 per vessel, and that the renewal of the licenses from year to year be not conditional upon an order in council of the Government of Canada, but form part of the arrangement itself." Mr. Rich. That does not say that they shall be subject to the same laws and regulations as Canadian vessels, but simply names what they will have for that $1. Secretary Redfield. Of course, this is only understood to be a condensed statement of the thing, and we shall be very glad to re- ceive from you suggestions as to the form it should take. That is Avhat Ave are here for. ]Mr. Rich. I am only expressing my OAvn opinion. Secretary Redfield. And that is Avhat Ave Avish. Mr. Rich. Well, that sounds like a big advantage, but it simply means a fcAv dollars less. Of course, it is an accommodation, and it is Avorth something. Secretary Redfield. It is understood by the connnission to invoh'e the extension of rights not noAv suggested to motor or steam A^essels to those vessels. In other Avords, they are not now free to enter at all, except upon some special emergency : and this, as Ave are in- formed, Avould extend to practically the entire sea-going fleet the privileges noAv accorded to but a feAv vessels of that fleet. Mr. Rich. That Avonld be some advantage, quite a little advantage, and Avould be Avorth something. Secretary Redfield. What advantage would that be, in your judg- ment, as a business man ? Mr. Rich. Well, vessels that are going there and paying the pres- ent amount wouldn't have to pay so much money. If it is extended to motor-driven vessels, vessels driven by other poAver than the wind, those vessels are increasing all the time, and there Avould be that many more vessels to take advantage of this for Avhatever it is A\;orth. Secretary Redfield. Then, aren't there other advantages, arising, for instance, from purchasing their supplies in Avhatever port they Avish, the shipping of creAvs Avherever they are to be obtained, the transshipment of fish in bond through to the United States, and the AMERICAX-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 97 selling- of fish in the Canadian market whenever it miglit be funnd expedient to do so? Wonldn't those advantages induce a consider- able nnmber of vessels to go there if the tax were removed? Mr. Rich. Why, it is not a question of tax. The vessels have been going there and taking advantage of it, and paying the tax. Secretary Redfielu. Yes: certain classes of vessels have found it worth doing, have they not? Mr. Rich. With sufficient advantage they would pay the tax. The greater proportion of the fleet is at the present time, or will be in ^he near future, equipped with auxiliary power — crude oil or gaso- line engines — and thi.s opens that advantage to that many more vessels. Secretary Redfield. The object, the pur})()se we want to see achieved — and we would like to get your opinion wdiether it is a desirable purpose — is to make just as completely as possible an ab- solute mutuality of interests, so that an American vessel entering a Canadian port shall receive the same treatment that it Avill receive in our ports or vice versa. Mr. Rich. In reading over the terms and articles of the proposed agreement it seems, in the light of a trade, that we have some ad- vantages to offer the Canadian fishermen, and the Canadian Govern- ment also have some advantages that they can offer to us. That is about it, isn't it — that it is in the nature of a trade? Secretary Redfield. Why. in the nature of one offsetting the other, certainly. The question is whether this is a good bargani to make. Mr. Rich. That is a matter of opinion, whether it is a good bar- gain to make. Secretary Redfield. That is what we Avant to find out. Mr. Rich. When it comes to opening our ports to vessels of Can- adian registry to get clearances such as have been referred to. etc., in exchange for the same rights to American vessels in Canadian ports, it merely means swapping a market of 10,000,000 people for a market of 100,000.000 people. Secretary Redfield. Well, on the American side isn't there some advantage in having the use of the Canadian ports for whatever purposes American captains may desire? Mr. Rich. As I said before, that is, in my opinion, of consider- able advantage, but isn't the other side of the thing to be considered, that in return for the opening of a market of 10,000,000 people you are opening up to them — to vessels of Canadian registry — a market of 100,000.000 people? Secretary Redfield. Well, our ports are now open to vessels bring- ing their fish here. Mr. Rich. As merchantmen. Secretary Redfield. Yes; as merchantmen. There are certain ob- stacles in the way. as we know, that this would remove. That is. they can not go from Boston or from Gloucester direct to the fishing banks or the Atlantic, although the law seems to permit them, as a matte]' of fact, to go from the Alaskan ports, on the Pacific, to the halibut banks, without going to a Canadian port. Of course, the whole question is. whether there is any material advantage in the whole proposition. The Canadian, fish are now admitted free, largo .-')^f).^o— 18 7 9S AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Cjiiaiitities of them. Do we, or do Ave not, wish, hi ^iew of die con- cessions they suggest, to have the hxrgest and freest possible niove- nient of food of this kind? Is it advantageous? That is the point. You see, it can be looked at from several viewpoints — from the point of Aiew of the fishermen, from the point of view of the fishing-vessel owner, the fish dealer, #r the factor, or from the point of view of (he man who eats the fish. Mr. Eicir. There is no question that the people of the United States want cheap food and plenty of it; that the}^ Avant it as cheap as they can get it : and that is what we all want, looking at the matter from the standpoint of the producer during normal times. These times are not normal. But during normal times it is common knowledge that British built steam trawlers, taking them for an illustration, can be bidlt and o])erated for something like 50 per cent of what we could operate the fieet over here. If that trade is carried out, that you have outlined here, it means that when the times become normal, lis they were previous to 1911, British steam trawler owners can take a fleet of travlers, bring them to Canada, put them under Canadian registry, send them out with Canadian crews, fish on the Georges, or any of our local banks at certain seasons of the year, bring the fish to Boston, and that the American fleet would be handi- capped by 50 per cent cost of operation in building and handling, as compared with them. I don't think the American fisherman asks for any charity, but you can not say to him, " Go ahead and produce fish,"" and then submit him to that 50 per cent handicap while doing it. Secretary Redfield. Isn't it a fact that they can do that to-day. and how far does this handicap you? Mr. EiCH. I don't think they can to-da}', because of abnormal con- ditions in XeAv Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I think the prices of materials down there now are practically as high as they ai'e here. Secretary Redfield. I don't mean under existing economic condi- tions, but under the present law there is nothing to prevent the very tJiing that you speak of happening? Mr. Rich. Previous to 1911. if that trade you noAv speak of was in force, it Avould have meant placing practically a 50 per cent handi- cap on American vessel owners ancl fishermen. In other words, to produce the same fish under the same conditions, Ave Avould have had lu invest $150,000 against tlie other man's $100,000. Of course, that is aiiessAvork. and T don"t suppose you Avaiit me to do any guessing here. Secretary Redfield. This Liav Avas passed in 1914? ]Mr. Saa'eet. The Panama Canal act Avas passed before the Avar, and that was modified about a month after the Avar commenced in Europe so as to apply to all vessels, not only those built Avithin fiA'e years, but all A'essels, so that American registry, as the hiAv stands to-day, is granted to a vessel of foreign construction. So the Canadian Avould have no particular adA^antage as the laAv stands iiOAv over an American or over a citizen of the United States in regard 't() the consti'uction of the vessel, as Ave can buy our vessels in the same m;ii'kets that they buy theirs. I Avas going to ask you if. under those circumstances, it Avould not be merely a question of Avages or a (]ues- tion of operation. Mr. Rich. Didn't that proviso apply exclusively to merchant ves- sels, principally OAvned in the United States, the biggest part of them AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHEEIES COXFEEEISrCE. 99 owned in the United States, and built a short time previous to tlie time when the act was passed ? It didn't apply to fishermen, did it 'i Mr. Sweet. Oh, yes. It applied to all vessels, as I under- stand: but as originally passed it applied only to vessels con- structed fi^e years. I think, previous to the passage of the act. But within a month after the war began in Europe that five-year clause was eliminated entirely, and as the law stands to-day Ameri- can registr}^ may be granted to any foreign-built vessel for any pur- pose, as far as I know. Mr. KiCH. I don't care to question that, but are you sure, for any purpose? As I remember at the time, it was for merchant vessels and rot for fishing vessels. I looked it up at the time. Mr. Sweet. According to my recollection no distinction was made. I think Mr. Quigley. our attorney, may recollect about that, whether the Panama act applied to fishing vessels. Mr. Quigley. I think we have the Panama Canal act here. I will look at it. (See pp. 105-106.) Secretary Redeield. Fish became free. ]\lr. Rich, before the war began, with the I'nderwood tariff in 191-3. Mr. Rich. Sure. Secretary Redfield. So that the Canadians have been free, with power vessels, and vessels of every kind, to bring fish in free, before war conditions arose. Mr. Rich. I was not speaking of the tariff, but of the war condi- tions. Secretary Redfield. Long before the war fish were free. ]\Ir. Millett. I would like to hear that statement again from you, ^Ir. Chairman. Secretary Redfield. I say that fish were free under the ITnder- Avood tariff. ^Ir. Millett. Fiesh fish? Secretary Redfield. I am not speaking of salt fish. Mr. Rich. In regard to the tariff' paid. I think Canada buys her gear in the same place we do. We pa}" a 60 per cent duty, coming into the I'^nited States. I think there is no duty on fishing gear going into Canada, is there? Chief Justice Hazex. That is correct. Mr. Rich. Except 7 per cent war tax. Mr. Millett. This indicates 13 per cent on trawl gear. Chief Justice Hazex. But if your vessels come into our ports and buy supplies there they will pay just the same price as Canadian fishermen pay. Perhaps, also, you can influence your Government, as there is no industry here that is protected by this particular dut3% to abolish the duty. It is only a source of revenue. ]Mr. Rich. But doesn't a part of this mean exchanging the market of 100.000.000 people for a market of 10,000,000 people f Secretary Redfield. Pardon me, is that quite so? That is not quite the fact, is it, because already fresh fish is free in this market. It is not a question of exchanging a market of 10,000,000 people for a market of 100.000.000 people. .By the present law fresh fish is free in this market. So I don't think that is a correct point of view. Any Canadian vessel that sees fit — and they do see fit and come here con- stantly — can bring its cargo of fresh fish into Boston or Gloucester to-day, and they bring a great maii}^ million pounds of it in. ISTow, 100 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FlSllEKIES CONFERENCE. Ave are not altering thai condition at all. It is simply a matter of saying- to them, "You may sail direct to the hshing grounds from one of onr ports instead of having to sail hrst to Yarmouth and then to the fishing grounds.'" They may come direct to Boston also from the fishing grounds, instead of coming first to Yarmouth and then coming here. Mr. MiLLETT. Do I understand that millions of pounds of fresh fish are conung into onr market here free from Nova Scotia ]3orts? Secretary Eedfield. What is your record on that. Dr. Smith? Dr. Smith. I could not give it offhand. Secretary Redfikld. But it is a fact that millions of pounds are coming in free? Dr. SMrrii. Yes; very large (luantities are couiing in. Secretary Redeteed. I would like to ask Mr. Millett in what re- spect he questions that? Mr. Millett. Do I understand the statement to be that millions of pounds of fresh fish are brought in here free? In the first place, I understand that they are expected, to change their registi'y before coming in. But I would ask the conference to make a statement in regard to that matter. Seci'etary Redfield. Do you question the fact? C^hief fJustice Hazen. What is the (|nestion you raise? Mr. MiLLE'j'T. About fresh-fish trips into Boston. Secretary Redfield. I do not know at present whether the million of i)ounds I have spoken of have come into Boston or not, but we do know that many millions of pounds of Canadian fresh fish are coming into the Ignited States. Mr. BuKNs. In Canadian bottoms? Secretary Redfield. Canadian-caught fish? Connnissioner Savef/i\ (^f course, a great many are brought in on the Pacific side. Secretary Redfield. I am informed that "20,000,000 pounds have come in. T shall be glad to have further information on the subject. Mr. RiCFL There are hiuulreds of thousands of ]:>ounds of fisli that come to Boston, fresh and frozen fish, the year round, vfinter and sununer. free, out they ccmie in merchant vessels and on railoads and steamers. Secretary Redfield. 1 understand that. I am not attempting to make a technical point nor to trip anybody up on a technical ])oint. We are here not to give information, but to get it, to learn and not to teach ; but the fact remains that Canadian fresh fish comes in large quantities into the American market. I am not concerned in the question whether technically it comes on the fishing vessels, in a dray, by canoe, or by airplane. That is a technical question. We are only discussing at the moment Avhether there is free access to this market for Canadian fresh fish. Is anybody going to question that fact ? If so, let him rise and let us see what the facts are. Does any- body doubt that fish, Canadian-caught fresh and frozen fish, comes free into the markets of the United States in quantity? Is that questioned? Mr. BiR^s. Mr. Secretary, has it not been the law that no fisliing vessel could come direct from the fishing grounds into Boston? Secretary Redfield. I am not tlisciissing that qnesticm. AMERICAX-CAN'ADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, 101 Mr. Burns. Well, if it is a technical point arising under the . United States law, and one that might, if necessary, be regulated, I had an idea that the question might be raised here and might be discussed. Secretary Redfield. It is a perfectly proper question to raise and to discuss, but it is not the question that is being discussed at this time. Mr. MiLLETT. This is a matter of the most grave import to the fishing interests of this country, all the way through. We, as mem- liers of the commission on fish and game of Massachusetts, realize it perhaps more than anybody else. I had not intended to say a word on this matter seriously outside of raising any point that I thought might help you in your work, but I do want to quote from this. The first knowledge we had that this thing was even coming up was contained in a letter dated the 21:th of January, just the other day, from Washington. That arrived here the 26th or 27th, so you can judge how much chance we have had to prepare ourselves on am^- thing. Tliat letter was sent to the commission on fish and game, audi understand was also sent to different firms aiul different boards of trade in Boston and (xloucester. My friend from Vermont here. Ml". Titcomb, got the same letter, and they got the same thing in Xew York. This enumerates six questions or points. Now, our ex- istence depends on this thing. Secretary Redfield. Well, what is your point, Mr. Millett ? Mr. Millett. If you will allow me to continue just a second I will point it out to you. You see, we are required or asked to dis- cuss these six questions. Now, I have not seen any chance to discuss these questions in any way, shape, or manner. You have taken the Avhole matter up in a general way all the way through, and the minute a man gets up and says something he knows something about lie is immediately squelched. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Millett, I think you owe the commission an apology. Mr. Millett. Well, I apologize no^^■, jNlr. Secretary. Secretary Redfield. Your apology is accepted, provided you do not repeat the offense. What you have said is unworthy of an officer of the State of Massachusetts, and is not consistent with the truth. The first thing I said this morning was that there was no limit as to the time and the nature of the cliscussion. ' Mr. Millett\ We are trying to get ahead Secretary Redfield. If you will please let me say a few words more — ^there has not been and will be no effort to limit discussion. It has been invited and is now invited, fully and freely. But the commission is here to get the truth, and the only Avay to get the truth is by hearing what is said by those who appear, stating what they understand the facts to be, and then discussing the matters that are brought up. You are noAv breaking into a discussion of a subject at this moment, and breaking the whole current of the discussion of that subject ; and in doing that you also undertake to cast reflections on the good faith of the conference and to accuse it of bad manners. Mr. Millett. I do not do that, sir. Secretary Redfielix You certainly did. Xo man has been squelched. Every man is permitted and will be invited to say what he wants. Your imputation is an unworthy one. No time limit has 1 1)2 AM I'.h'U'AN CANADIAN I' I S 1 1 l', IM KS CON l von w an(. \o\\ aro not liiu- iloil to ti>-day or to this placo. and any suoh intimation as yon have luado is ontiroly unwarrantoil and is (|iiito unworthy of an otlioor of tho St a to of Massaohnsetts, sir. AVo woro discussin^LT with Mr. Ivioh a \ory distinol [ihaso of this ({iiostion — tho quosliou whothor. as ho statod it, this proposition, in short, was ono whioh oj)onod the niarkots of l()O.OlH),()l)0 poopU> on tho ono hand to tho markots of but 1(),()0().()()() people on the other hand. To that suggestion I raisod tho ciuostiou whothor it was not tlio fact (o-chiy, in suhstanoo. that our luarkot is at tho prosont tiino opon to Canada. That was tho. only subjoot at tho time boing disoussod. \\'o woro not discussing tho naturo cd' trading \ossols. tho naturo of fishing vessels, but tho more faot as to tho mtirkot boing opon. Thai was all. Upon tho discussion of that (]uostion. if you will parilon im\ you broke in with u mattor of irrolovant concorn at this liuio. 1 am uoi concornod. and said so, nor is tho coulVrouco concernod, with tho method of entering that market. r>nt 1 think llu' fact staled is uiu]uestionod. I think it is not true thai this proposi- tion makes such a change in the situation that it can bo truthfully said to opon the market. Tho faot is. as 1 understand it. at (he pres- ent time, and 1 shall bo ghul to have Mr. Kich correct mo, that fresh lish now comes from Canada to the Unitotl vStatos free of iliity. I think nobody rises to question that fact. 1 think tho fact is that Hsh comes here — Canadian-eanglit iish — in largo (]uantitios. Does any- body question that ^ Now, if that is the truth, if lish is free lo-day Air. JMiM.ETT. Fresh tish. Secretary Kedfiklix AVo aro talking about fresh lish. and nothing else: wo aro not talking about chestnuts or boiled ogas. AVo aro talk- ing about fresh lish, and it is not necessary to remind us constantly, please, of tho subject we aro talking about. If that is true, that Hsh is now free, ami if it is true that (luantilios of Hsh are coining in now. whatoNor tho way in which they come in. is it then true to say. is it correct as a mat tor of jiulgment to say, that this change is of such a character that it can bo correctly described as openini>- the markets of 100,000,000 or 110,000,000 people as against those of 10.000.000 i^oo- ple i That is the subject we aro talking aboint of the State of Alassachusetts. If I have erred, sir. 1 beg vour pardon. Secretary Ekofiklo. That is very satisfactory. Chief flustico 11a/.kn. Mr. C^hairman, it seems to mo, if 1 may bo permitted to say so. that we are getting a little away from the point at issue. Fresh fish is brought into tho Ignited States at present not only from ports in Canada, but from Newfoundland and from every other place. From our returns for 1915-1 (> I find that the fresh livsh brought into the T'nited vStatos that rear, from April 1. li)ir>, to Ahirch :U. 1911), was as follows: -J.^T-kSKV) pounds of cod: ni.^'iD.nOO pound- of herring: 4,.^So,(U)0 pounds of mackerel: (>,'i78,800 ]-»ounds of lobster: 5,797.100 pounds of smohs. 1 am referring only to the Hgures for Hsh AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAX FISHEBIES COXFEEEaSTCE. 103 ill Atlantic ports, not the Pacific ports. This is fish brought into ports along the Atlantic coast of the United States, free of cUity, under the Underwood tariff, which went into effect, as ,you will rec- ollect, in October, 1913. It was not an agreement between the two countries at all, but Avas in the interest of the people of the United States, as a matter of domestic policy, without any question of agree- ment or quid pro quo. Fresh fish were placed on the free list that year, and have been continued on that list ever since. FURTHER STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. Now, I think the manner in which the questions here have ai'isen should be borne in mind at the present time. This is a conference of representatives of both countries, in which the question of the ad- mission of fish free into the United States from Canada is not an issue, because fish is already so admitted into the United States as a matter of domestic policy of the United States. The question has arisen whether the privilege of taking out such licenses as are now given under the modus vivendi in Canada should not be extended to all vessels of the United States, no matter hoAv propelled. But I repeat, as I have already pointed out, it must be borne in mind that the United States in making fish free was considering simply its own domestic interests. It did that because it thought it was in the interests of its oAvn jieople. There is no certainty of any such l)oli('y continuing. A different ])()licy might be put into etl'ect at any time by the existing governuient or a succeeding government. That being the case, there are other matters that should be considered, and the other matters that we pointed out should be considered are those that have already been suggested. There is the (juestion of extend- ing the modus vivendi licenses to any Auierican vessel, no matter how propelled. On the other hand, we point out that if fish from Canada are admitted here free that does not give to our fishing vessels the right to bring fish in here and clear again for the fishing- grounds on the high seas, then returning here before going to a Ca- nadian port. Having caught their fish they have had to go to a Ca- nadian port and then transfer their catch to a trading vessel, or have to take out registry as a trading vessel before coming to an Ameri- can port. This has caused delay ; and then, having brought the fish into an Americcin ])ort, they could not clear again for the fishing- grounds. The result of the correspondence between the Department of Commerce in the United States and the Department of Naval Service of Canada Avas a suggestion by your (xovernment that a conference be held to consider these matters. The question is whether an arrangement can be uuide that is of advantage mutually to both of us, fair and reasonable. We have thousands and thousands of people in Canada Avho will think that Canadian interests are being absolutely sacrificed if the modus vi- vendi licenses are extended. There are probably people in your country who think American interests Avill be sacrificed if a modifi- cation is made of the navigation laAvs or customs hiAvs. It is,- of course, desirable that an arrangement be made between the two countries that will possess elements of stability, because to-day a Ignited States fisherman has no right of a permanent character in Canadian i^orts at all. Year after year when the bill to extend the modus vivendi has been introduced it has been criticized, and at 104 ami-:hican-caxadiax fisheries conference. any time tlie extension of the modus \i\eiKli may bi' lefiisod. and if that should happen the United States fishermen at once go back to the rights conceded to them and agreed to under the treaty of 1818, under ^vhich an American fisherman can only go into a Canadian ])ort for the humanitarian |)urposes of shelter, rep^iirs, wood, and water. Therefoie. the (juestion naturally arises whether a mutually beneficial arrangeuient can not be made, (.ne that is fair and right to the interests of both counti'ies(' We say nothing about the tariff. Your (irovernment can at any time impose a tariff' upon fresh fish, and it is up to our (Tovernment to abolish the tariff' of 1 cent a pound, Avhich I do not think is of any importance to our people to-chiy. In this matter I s])eak i^ersonally. of course. The matter of tariff is simply left where it is, as a matter of domestic policy in the gov- ernment of either country. But we would be making an arrange- uient that we thought was desirable for both parties, and if it is agreeable to both to arrive at such an arrangement it will remove a great deal of friction and make things much easier and more pleas- ant in every way — at least. I should hope that would be the case — for fishing vessels of both countries. The question sim]:)ly boils itself down to that in a nutshell and nothing else. FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. NICKERSON. Capt. Xkivkksux. Mr. Secretary, might 1 be [)ermitted to offer a suggestion right in connection with this third i)oint? First, the Canadian interior is uoav mostly supplied from the decks of British beam trawlers, landed at Hawkesbury, forAvarded for the most part by the Intercolonial Railroad, the Dominion of Canada, of course, paying part of the freight charges. Except the port of landing, no point in the maritime Provinces provides for transit over the line within their limits. The corporations interested and directly con- iH'rned have their headquarters in Montreal or some city farther west, and i)resumably in Europe. As a local industry this branch of the business is not of pai'amount impoi'tance. Second, the fish areas adjacent to the western coast of Xova Scotia lie closer inshoi'e and are more productive than the banks of the east- ern shore of the belt. The products in this part of the Province, whether landed from beam trawlers, schooners, or small boats, could be forwarded to Montreal and points west through St. John or Port- land with less than half the time and expense that is necessary by the established route. The fish could be ]mt down at its destination with no shrinkage and in prime condition. Local dealers would de- rive something from the handling of these goods and the other pro- vincial forwarding port would profit in like manner. Now, this being the case, Avould it not be advisable for the Cana- dian Government to open the highway for this routing through the Canadian Pacific or Grand Trunk and thus effect a great saving of time and expense, beside giving our inland fish-eating population the real article, almost alive and Hipping? Then the Hawki^sburv trawlers could devote themselves to Hshing for the European supply and the Nova Scotia boats could fish for the home market, develop- ing it more efficiently from year to year, thus avoiding the competi- tion, if nothing more, arising fi'om running their fish to Boston and Hooding the market of the New England producers. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 105 Secretary Redfield. Mr. Rich, dropping for the moment the mat- ter of lobsters, it appears that something in excess of 43.000,000 pounds of Canadian-caught fresh fish entered the markets of our Atlantic coast in the year between April 1, 1915. and March 31, 1916. I am now looking for information. I have no infoi'mation on the subject myself and know nothing about it. In what sense would it be true that the plan Avhereby Canadian vessels wovdd come direct into American ports and would go direct from American ports to the fishing grounds, as they are now doing upon the Pacific coast. Avould be opening the markets in a sense in which they are not now open? Having the facts as they have been stated before you. in Avhat sense would that be true, if at all ? STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. RICH— Continued. Mr. Rich. AA'^hy, I can only cit.e. perhaps, what might be done. We never know what is going to happen. Secretary Redfield. I want to get your opinion. Mr. Rich. If it is true that in normal times they can build steam- ers in England for ])ractically 50 per cent of what they can be built here Secretary Redfield. Excuse me: you know you can buy those ves- sels and use them in our trade. Mr. RiciL I"^nder Canadian registry. Secretary Redf]i-:ld. I think not. AVo are looking into that. Ex- cuse my interruption and go right oil I am sorry to have inter- rupted you. I suppose you meant that that would give them a de- cided advantage as far as it went. Mr. Rich. If Ave could build a Aessel as cheaply as a British-built vessel could be built in normal times, I don't see that they Avould have any advantage over us in that respect. Secretary Redfield. Would your experience lead you to think, if forty-three and odd million pounds of fresh fish ])er annum is now coming into Atlantic ports, that a change whereby a Canadian A^es- sel. instead of going from the banks to a Nova Scotia port and trans- ferring its cargo to a trading vessel, or haA'ing its registiy changed to that of a trading vessel and then coming down to an American port — in other Avords, a change Avhereb}^ that vessel Avould come di- rect to Boston from the fishing grounds — Avould iiiA^ohe a ver}^ large increase in the amount of fish brought in that Avay? Mr. Rich. In the future ; A^es, sir. Secretary Redfield. "Why? Mr. Rich. Why, in normal times there will be more British beam traAvlers than they Avill knoAv Avhat to do Avith. and they Avill try to charter them in Canada and have them come here. There Avill be nothing to prevent their being put under Canadian registry. Secretary Redfield. They could do that before the Avar. Mr. Rich. They didn't have entry into our ports before the Avar. Secretary Redfield. The same entry that they have now. The ])oint I am trying to get at is simply the difference betAveen the ex- isting practice and Avhat is proposed. Under the existing practice, the ports being located here and the banks there [indicating on map] , the vessel goes from here to here, and then there, and then here again. That is, she travels on the three sides of a triangle. Under the pro- posed arrangement, instead of traveling that exceedingh^ great dis- 106 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. tance, she might travel simply on the hypotheiiiise of a triangle. Now, if under present conditions the vessels bring in from Canada 43,000,000 ponnds of fresh fish to our Atlantic ports, to what extent, hi your judgment, woidd that be increased by what is ]:)roposecl? Can yon sa}'- that it wonld be largely increased? Mr. Rich. Why. in m_v jnclgment it Avonld be in the matter of a few years largely, hngely increased. Secretary REDriELo. What would the effect of that be, in youi- judgment, upon the markets of the country? Mr. Rich. Fish would l)e chea])er, which everybody wants. Secretary Redfield. vSo T understood you to believe that the mass of the American peo])le would be benefited by that pro})Osition? Mr. Rich. There is no doubt of it. Secretary Redfteed. Tlu've is no doubt, in your judgment, that that would be for the achantage of the largest part of ^-our fellow citizens? Mr. Rich. No doubt there would be more fish and the prices would be controlled absolutely by the law of supply and demand. Secretary REnFiKLo. Ts it conceivable, in your judgment, that the (Tomaud might largely increase if the supply couhl be largely in- creased ? Mr. Rich. It certainly would. Secretary Reivfield. You think the people of the Ignited States might be induced to eat as large a jjercentage of fish as the people of Great Britain ? Mr. Rich. We are almost the smallest fish-eating people in the world. Secretary Redfield. And if we increased our consum])tion of fish per capita to that of (ireat Britain, woiud it involve a great inci-ease in the demand and in the necessity of a large supj^ly to meet that demand ? Mr. Rich. An enormous increase. Secretarv Redfield. Into the millions of pounds, would it, Mr. Rich? Mr. Ricir. I haven't the figures in mind, but the per capita con- sumption of the British Islands is much more than it is here. Secretary Redfield. Five times as great as ours? yiv. Rich. I bad the figures. The consumption there is a great deal more. Secretarv Redfield. Approximately five times, I understand. So, if we were to cultivate our mai'ket for fish in this country isn't it a fact that there are not to-day sufficient vessels to meet the demands? If we should raise our consumption up to the point of Great Britain*-^ consumi)tion to-day, isn't it a fact that there r.re not enough vessel-^ in the Canadian and American fleets to bring the fish in? Mr. Rich. That is a fact. sir. Secretarv Redfield. So is it a fact or not that we are dealing Avith an industrv that is capable of indefinite exj^ansion? Mr. Rich. It is. Secretarv Redfield. That is so. is it not ? Mr. Ricii. Yes. Mr. Sweet. I would say, Mr. Rich, referring to this registrv- law, that it was made to apply to vessels engaged in foreign trade. It doesn't say anything about fishing vessels one way or the AMERTCAN-CAN-ADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 107 other, but it does say that A^essels enoag-ed in coast Avise trade can not l»e admitted. What these vessels wonkl be considered as being if this phin Avere cnrried out I am not quite sure. yiv. Qi lOLKY. A trading vessel coming from a Canadian port to an American port wonld not be considered as being in the coastwise trade, and if it shoukl merely go from an American port to the fishing banks, as suggested, without going to a foreign port. I should say that it would still not be considered in coastwise trade. So I think there would kax'e to be legislation on the subject. Mr. Eirii. I should say that a vessel coming along the coast, under foreign registry, and clearing from one of ,our ports for the fishing' grounds, a vessel coming to Boston and really doing a coastAvise l)usiness. could not be cousidcu'ed as doing a foreign business under that act. STATEMENT BY MR; 0. M. ARNOLD, PRESIDENT OF THE NEW ENGLAND FISH CO. Secretary Redfield. Is there anybody here connected Avith the halibut interests of the Pacific coast? Mr. Arnold. Mr. Chairman. O. M. Ainold. of the Ncav England Fish Co. Secretary Redfield. Have you ever heard tlu\t the fact that fish- ing A^essels on the Pacific coast are obliged to go from an American port direct to the fishing grounds has injured your business? Mr. Arnold. Not a mite. Secretary Eedfield. You never heard of that? Mr. Arnold. No, sir. Secretary Redfield. You have considerable interests on the Pacific coast ? Mr. Arnold. We have, both Canadian and American. Secretary Redfteld. Will yoTi giA^e us an idea in a general Avay of the extent of those interests ? Mr. Arnold. I would say that I could give you some idea of the situation out .there for the past 18 or 20 years. I couldn't give the exact time, but about 20 years. I can say something about the growth of the consumption of fish in Canada. When Ave first went out there you couldn't sell one cargo of fresh fish through the Avestern part of Canada. It is 20 years since Ave Avere established in Vancouver, the New England Fish Co. Chief Justice Hazen. 1894. Mr. Arnold. And at that time, speaking of the increase in the consumption of fish through Avestern Canada, there Avas no sale at all through there for fish; couldn't sell them; didn't haA^eany call for them at all. We started in there Avith two A^essels that Ave chartered, the Catalina and the Coquitlann, and at first Ave made hardly any headAvay at all. But after aAvhile we did better and commenced to build American vessels out there, and pretty soon increased our trade to a million pounds. In 1908 w^e established a Canadian branch. Since that time we have increased the trade through the Canadian consumption of fish 100 fold — more, 300 fold. Secretary Redfield. That is, you have increased your Canadian market for fresh fish ?>00 fold OA^er Avhat it Avas at the time Avhen you started in there ? lOS AIM i; HI CAN CANADIAN I'MSIl I'.HII'IS I 'ON I'M'^.m-'. N CM'!. Mr. Akn()i.i>. ^ OS ; aiul that was doiu' hy hard work, ami w r had (ho Caiuulian Pacilio road w\{\\ iis. ii'oKiuii- (hiMii (o oatinii; lish out thero (hroiijih woslorn Canada. Soorotary llKnni'.i.n. Ol" coiirso. il niiii'ht l>o incroasod ;'>(•») fohl and still bo small. Mr. Ai{N()i,n. ^^'olK i( is |)rotty ,iii>od now. Thoy aro iisiuii' a bic jnlo of Hsh now. If (ho pooplo of (ho I'nitod Statos a(o tish in (ho proportion (o which it is oaton (horo. wo conldn't iio( tisli ononii'h to suply (luMn any way. Sooro(ai'y Hkhfikm). This (|iios(ion is ono of pt'ouliar in(oros(. Von havo in mind tho fact that a C\uuidian tishinii; vessel passing north from British C'ohimbia throuiih tho inward passai>'o is oblii>od by our hiw (o rnn into Kotohikan. onr port, that (horo sho takes her dopai'diro (oohnii'ally for a Canadian por(. bill actually for tho tishinii' ii'ronnds^ Mr. AiJNoi-i). (u)os (o (ho tishino- iiioiinds; yos. SocrotaiT l\Ki)nKi,n. And on (ho Pacilic coas(. (o yoiii- own know I odiiV- 1 would like to havo you confirm mo in this if 1 am rii>hl. oi' toll mo if 1 am wronji' — an exactly contrary condition exists in (hat respect lo what exists on the Atlantic coast; that that contrary con- dition is the ono that exists on the Pacific coast in connection with (ho frosh-halibn( trade, and that that is the condition which would also bo os(ablished here by this proposed memorandum? Mr. AitNOi.n. Yes. sir. Secretary Kkhkiklo. Tliat is a fact l Mr. Aitxoi.n. ^"os, sir. Secretary HKui'iKro. Now. ha\o you found (ha( arran<2;omon( to work l\arm (o \our iniorcsis. cither .Vmorican or Canadian, out thero i Mr. Aknoi.u. 1( has noi. It has worked to owv ad\au(aii'c. Secretary KKDrirrn. And in the prosiMico of (hat condition has your business arown ^ Mr. Akxoi.u. Oui' business ha- oi-own e\ery year until the last two years, and the only troubli> now is tlu> scarcity of lish. (hat is all. Secretary l\F,ni'MKLn. Is it or is i( not a fact that in the distribution of (ish the v^amulian \ossols are permitted — even rec|uirod — to ao directly to the lishina" Ji'rounds from the American |->ort ? Is that a fact that you would o'ive any woiii'ht lo it in yoiu' operations: Mr. .Vknoi.o. ^'^>s. If (hat were not allowed we would ha\e to uo bat'k into a Canadian port. 1( would take longer, but we would havo to do il. Secretary Kkdi'ikiu. And you prefer to ha\'(^ thorn ao (o an Ameri- can i^orl i Ml'. Akxoi.u. \ OS. Secretary IxKOFiKm. .Vnd }our lishinu- concern prtd'ers to ha\e vessels ii'o direct from an American port lit the lishinu arounds? Mr. Akxoi.u. \ es. sir. Secretary KKnriKi.i). >A'hy ^ Mr. Aijxoi.n. It saxes time, and liuu' is u\oney. \\'e also ha\e an ottice at Prince Kuport. and have a place there— a Canailian bianch there — and if (he vessel should havo to ao t(^ Prince l\U})ert lo clear for tho tishin«»' a'ronnds. thai wouUl moan a distance of tU) or St> miles eac1\ way. ;uul that W(Mdd take too much lime. Pv usina that time on (he aronnds tishina. we can ac( :> a»'od nian\' more lish. AMERICAN-CAlsrAI>IAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 109 Sccretai y Redfield. Is there anybody here who Avonld like to ask this gentleman any questions? This is an important phase of the case. Mr. Arnold. I will say that I am in favor of this proposition as representing the New England Fish Co. Secretary Redfield. That is, yon approve this proposed arrange- ment '. Mr. Arnold. Certainly. Secretary Redfteld. Do you have any vessels on the Atlantic coast i Mr. Arnold. Xo. Secretary Redfield. Your fleet is entirely on the Pacitic? Mr. Arnold. A Pacific fleet; yes, sir. Secretary Redeield. And it comprises both American and Ca- nadian vessels? Mr. Arnold. It does. AVe just lost one of our steamers. We now have only one steamer that is an American vessel, and have seven Canadian. Secretary Redfield. Are your vessels among those recjuired under certain conditions to go into the Canadian port of Prince Rupert ? Mr. Arnold. Our steamers? Secretary Redfield. Your \essels of any kind. Mr. Arnold. We do have the privilege of going in there; yes. Secretary Redfield. Do you use it? Mr. Arnold. We do not. We go into Ketchikan, and then to ^"an- couver. Of course, we would use the privilege to go there if occasion required. Secretary Redfield. Have you had experience vs^ith an order in council, which has been referred to, which would require you in case you went into Prince Rupert to get bait to go back to Prince Rupert to sell your catch ? Mr. Arnold. No. We have had nothing of that kind. You mean Yvith an American vessel? Secretary Redfield. Yes. Mr. Arnold. No. Secretary Redfield. Do you know of the existence of an order in council to that effect ? Mr. Arnold. No. We have never had that occur to us. Secretary Redfield. You don't use Prince Rupert, yourselves? Mr. Arnold. We use that for our Canadian branch, although our American vessels have been in there and shipped fish in bond. Secretary Redfield. In going there to ship fish in bond by the Grand Trunk Pacific do yon buy bait and supplies there? Mr. Arnold. No. Secretary Redfield. Why not ? Mr. Arnold. Get plenty at Ketchikan. Secretary Redfield. The places are 80 or 1)0 miles apart? Mr. Arnold. Eighty or ninety miles. Secretary Redfield. (\in you buy as cheaply at Ketchikan as you can at Prince Rupert? Mr. Arnold. I don't think there is much difference between the two places — pretty high in both places. Secretary Redfield. Is it not a fact, to your knowledge, that American halibut vessels go right by the American port of Ketchi- 110 AMEEICAN-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEEXCE. kail and go to Prince Eiipert, because of certain advantages of Prince Eiipert? Mr. Arkold. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Why do they do that? Mr. Arnold. Go there and ship fish direct from there, and that saves their going to their home port, Seattle. Secretary Redeield. Mr. Arnold, do you regard the American market as being, or do you know the American market to be. sub- stantially open to fresh fish caught by foreign vessels ? Mr. Arnold. I do. It comes in free now. Secretary Redeield. And are you availing yourself of that free- dom in 3^our business ? Mr. Arnold. Certainly am. Secretar}' Redfield. You find no restriction upon it ? Mr. Arnold. None at all. Secretary Redfield. Do you understand that the pi'oposed ar- rangement here in an}' way alters or enhirges the freedom of that movement ? Mr. Arnold. I think there would be a benefit. I am s])eaking now of what you asked me in regard to the west coast. Secretary Redfield. As a New England man yourself, experienced in fisheries, what reason is there for thinking that this proposed change, if made. Avould be an injury to New England? Mr. Arnold. I think it would be a benefit. Secretary Redfield. Why? Mr. Arnold. Because we would have a chance to get more fish. I am speaking for the public as a whole. I think, speaking for the country as a Avhole. we would have more fish and cheaper fish, and we are all looking for cheaper food. Secretary Redfield. Do you think it would be possible to largely increase the American demand for fish food ? Mr. Arnold. I do, by opening the market to Canada — I mean, letting the Canadian boats land fish here. Secretary Redfield. Do you think it Avould be possible to increase the American demand for fish food by deliberately cultivating a liking for fish food to an extent greater than it is noAv used? Mr. Arnold. I think it would create a liking for it. Where the prices of beef and everything else are going so high, and where the price of fish also is going so high, to get more fish in would bring the price of fish down. Secretar}^ Redfield. Is or is not the consumption of fish in the United States the smallest per capita of any of the great nations? Mr. Arnold. It certainly is. Canada, I think, is a much larger consumer, according to the population there. Secretary Redfield. Do you know how much larger the average consumption of fish in Canada is than in the United States? Mr. Found. In Canada, 29 pounds per year per capita. Dr. Smith. Then the relative per capita consumption of Canada as compared with the consumption of the United States would be as 29 to 18 ? Secretar}^ Redfield. What is the consumption of Great Britain, Mr. Found? Mr. Found. Before the war, in Great Britain, it was about 56 pounds. AMERICAN-CAXADIAiS^ FISHEEIES CONFEEEI^TCE. Ill Secretary IvEDriELD. The fact being, therefore, that if we could increase oiir consumption of fish to the point of consumption of (Ireat Britain, which consumes 56 pounds of fi,sh per capita per an- num, tliat woukl be more than three times the number of pounds per capita per annum that we now use. Is that vour understanding of it, Mr. Arnold? Mr. AiJXOLD. That is my understanding of it. Secretary Redfield. Oiie thing more, Mr. Arnold. HaA^e you had any trouble in connection with cold storage on the west coast ( %lr. Ar.>;oLD. In what direction'^ Secretary Redfield. Well, have you found that proper cold-stor- age facilities were provided for you at Prince Rupert? Mr. Arnold. We have none at Prince Rupert. I will say that in l^rince Rupert, our branch there, I don't think they have had any trouble in getting the fish frozen. Secretary Redfield. Doesn't the Canadian (xovernment subsidize cold-storage plants^ Mr. Ai;>-0LD. I don't know Avhcther they do or not? Secretary Redfield. Is there any objection to other parties l)uild- ing cold-storage plants in Canada? Mr. Ak>oli). I couldn't tell about the condition at the present time. I knoAv that we built (mrs in Canada. Our agent out there AAOuld pi'obably knoAV more about that. Secretary Redfield. But you did build a cold-storage plant of your own ? Mr. Arxold. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Any objection to building it? Mr. Arnold. Xot at all. Secretary Redfield. You haven't heard of any objections on the l-iart of Canada to Americans building cold-storage plants in Canada? Mr. Arnold. We didn't find any objection to our building there. Secretary Redfield. And you are operating one there? Mr. Arnold. Yes, sir; and one at Ketchikan, Alaska. Secretary Redfield. There is a free and open market for fish in Prince Rupert ? Mr. Arnold. There is; yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. And your buyei's and sellers operate freely without restriction? Ml'. Arnold. They bid on them the same as they do here. Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold. We wdll now take up the Lake Champlain question, I think, if the repre- sentatives of that section are here. I will say now that at an}^ time statements of any kind may be filed with the commission, in addi- tion to the statements that may be made to us here orally. Com- munications may be addressed to me as Secretary of Commerce at Washington, and I shall be delighted to see that they are made a part of the records of the commission. We invite an,ybody who ma.v not be prepared now to say what he maj wish to say, or who may later desire to present facts to the commission, to write to us at Washing- ton, and I shall see that such communications are made a part of the record of the commission. If further hearings are desired here, we 112 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHErtTES CONFERENCE. shall aiTango to hold them here, until e\'erybodv has had an oppor- tunity to be heard in such a manner as he may Avish to be heard. We want to give the very broadest and fullest ()])portunity to all. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. FRED L. DAVIS, PRESIDENT OF GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. Mr. Fk'kd L. I)a\is. I would lil^t> (o ask to be referred to the law ivJating to the purchase of foreign \-essels to be used in the fisheries. ^y\]] you kindly inform me where I can find that? Secretary Kedfield. I understand that that was passed in I !)()!). I said to Mr. Rich that an examination of the" law showed that it applied (mly to \'essels engaged or to be engaged in foreign trade. No reference is made to the fisheries one way or the other, but it says that it does not apply to vessels engaged in the coastwise trade. But it nudves no i-eference to the vessels engaged in the Hsheries for or against, one way or the other. Mr. Davis. That practically jueans that we can not i>pply it to Vessels engaged in the fisheries, doesn't \t( It looks that way? Mr. QuiGi.EY. Yes; it looks that way. Mr. Davis. Since the war, haven't there been orders, in council or otherwise, of the British (Tovernment which have prevented the sale of vessels inuler British i-egistry to othev nations, or their registry in other nations? Secretary IvEdkielo. There ha\e been regulations in regard to ncs- sels issued by ever_v mitiou engaged in the war without exception, not excepting our own. (Miief Justice Haze>'. You have j^ractically a similar regulation in the United States. Mr. Davis. Exactly; and I was wondering how the problem Avas to be Avorked out. if vessels couldn't be bought or transferred. Secretary Rerfielo. Well, that is a Avar measure, entirely. Ca})t. Nu'KEUSox. A transfer of flag is not permitted. We had a conununication in regard to the subject, in regai'd to the \essel being- built in Canada, that I si)oke to you about, that a license could be obtained, but it didn't say l)y application to what (luarter. The ques- tion arose in coimection with the transfer of a small boat from (^larkes Harbor to Boston, and it A\as interdicted by the Canadian (xovernment uidess a .s[)ccial license Avei/e taken out. Chief Justice Hazex. I think Capt. Nickerson is absolutely right. It is not absolutely prohibitive, but can be done by special [)erniission. Mr. Sweet. l*robably the board there has some such authority as our Shipping Board. Chief Justice Hazex. Yes: done by the department of marine. Secretary REOFiEEn. The same thing can be done in this country, and has been done. Capt. Yoi'xo. Will this hearing take in Xewfoundland? Secretary Redfieed. No; avc are not discussing Newfoundland. Conunissionei- Hazex. I understand that Newfoundland will not discuss it, that they are i)erfectly safisHed. Secretary Redeield. I understand that our friends from Vermont, Avho are interested in the Lake Champlain situation, aie here, and we shall be j)leased to heai' from them. AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEREXCE. 113 STATEMENT BY MR. E. L. PATRICK. OF THE VERMONT FISH AND GAME LEAGUE. Mr. Patrick. Mr. Chainnaii. I represent the Vermont Fish and (iame League. I wish to take only a few minutes' time upon this matter. I realize the fact that the question of nets and seines in the Canadian waters of Lake C'hamplain is perhaps a trifling matter compared Avith the otjier large questions you Avill be called upon to regiilate and decide. But one of the objects of this Vermont Fisli and (rame League is propagation and conservation of fish: and. gentle- men, if there was ever a time in the history of this North American Continent when Canada could ask a favor of the L^nited States or Avhen the United States could ask a favor of Canada, it would seem to me that the time is the present, when our boys are fighting side by side with your boys, and when both countries are linked togetlier in an eli'ort to win a world-wide war for democracy. With the present good feeling that seems to exist between the two countries, for that reason, we feel that we now have a right to ask that the seining or drawing of nets in Missisquoi Bay be discontinued, and Ave hope this request will receive impartial and careful consideration and will be granted. Vermont and New York States prohibit seining in all the Avaters of Lake Champlain in those States for practically 250 miles along the shore line, and is it right that this seining should be alloAved in Canada at a time Avhen the fish are going through their particular Av.-iters for eople to get in line by that method. But the result is that your Hshernum ship fish to ]NIontreal and then reshi]:) them here, so that tliey do not appear to come from Missisquoi Bay. So it is pretty diihcult to whip the devil rouml the stump. Missisquoi Bay elects re)u-eseutatives on the issue, also, the same as is done on our side. Your fishermen elect meml^rs of Parliament by campaign funds on this issue, and the same thing is done by fishermen in Vermont in connection with the Vermont Legislature, and men on our side assist in helping your members of Parliament to get elected, to keep up fisliing on that side. So you see the thing is all mixed up. Conunissioner Hazkn. It may get hig'her up than you. Mr. TriHOMB. I can't tell you about that. But that is the situation, anil it is a matter of connnon knoAvledge. Of course. Vermont might be persuaded at the next session of the legislature to go back again, and there you are. Some men think they are making themselves jnetty good fellows by voting for that sort of thing, and then others nill trv to have New York do the same thing. If these etforts are AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 117 successful you would see what would happen, that there would be no restriction at all the whole length of the lake. If they were allowed to seine there, after a few seasons 3'ou couldn't even catch a bull head. Xew York would not even have to pass any legislation in the matter to allow the use of these nets. The State could issue licenses at any time to net Lake Champlain. But conservation is the policy of the day, and certainly something should be done in this matter by con- certed action. We trust that you can take the matter up. represent- ing both countries, and do something to remedy the situation on Lake Champlain. Attempts have been made to use nets also in the Ivichelieu liiver, through which the fish from Lake Champlain also ascend some, but we do not intend to issue any licenses there. We are going to stand by Vermont on this question, and our appeal to you is to get into line and join us in this movement. Let me tell you a story in regard to the situation in Canada. You are familiar with the fish known as the whitefish. locally called " shad." I, when I was the humble connnissioner of Vermont, got an audi- ence through one of the representati^■es higher u[) in the country to talk with your Minister of Marine P'isheries, and I ai)peared before him and said, " You are issuing licenses to catch whitefish during the spawning "season and we want to stop that, if possible." He said : " Xo : we don't allow licenses for whitefish during the spawning season. You are entirely mistaken."" I told him that such licenses were issued, and he immediately called upon JNir. Prince. I am sorry that Mr. Prince is not here, so that 1 can get the joke on him. Mr. Prince came in and produced one of the licenses, and said : " We are issuing licenses to catch fish in Missisquoi Ba.y, but this license reads for catching shad,"" and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries dismissed me, saying, '' That is all : we are not issuing licenses to catch whitefish, and you can go."" But they were not catching shad: there is no such fish in the lake, and men of your in- telligence know that there is not. But that is one of the times when they put it over on me. Xow, let us give and take in these matters. In this particular case I hope it has been presented in such a Avay that you can understand the situation. The fishery is comparati\e1y unimportant. It gives only a fcAv men a monopol_y of the fishing. If we can get the rough fish out of the lake without interfering with the fish that bring these people into the region and that have brought in property there, so that it has increased fi'om a very small, nominal value to an innnense amount, increasing the wealth of the surrounding country by bringing in beautiful homes, well and good. But when you issue licenses to just a few landowners you are not making it general enough. On the Vermont side, if we were going to give fishing privileges, they ought to be opened to anyone in Vermont who could pay for tlK' license, and the same in Xew York, and if the method were not pur- sued of seining to the shore it would be eas}^ enough to do it. They fish through the ice with nets, setting their shanties opposite us. and sometimes the shanties stick over our line at the mouth of the Mis- sisquoi River. The present state of affairs is not right, and I think you will cooperate with us with the idea of having uniform laws. One more point. As soon as the Federal hatchery went in the fish- ing began to improve, and the State put in a fish hatchery and the lis AM I'.ltU'AX CANAniAN IMS 1 1 I'.KII'.S (ON I' I'.i; I'.N (.M! l'\HliM'al li()\ oruiiioiK t'liriiishod (hr ou'U's to siork i( : luil diry dis- lril>u(0(l so f;u' ;nv:iy from thai sod ion of Canada. wIum'o whisky is a littlo rhoapcr than it i> down lioro. tlu-i't many of owv proplo woro not alilo to ii'ol np tluMo and aio not <2,\'Hino- du' licnolit o\' ii. When k c'omos to thi> tinani'ial pai't o\' it the --latisiirs of rexonue diM'ixed from the lishorios— winter before hisi 1 took the statistics of tlie lish and line lishorios throiiiih tlie iee. and those lishorn.ien lishiiio- IT) foot throng-h the it'O, haviiiii" sonu> roerea-tion and pleasnre at the same time. Avoro making- $10 to $1'J a day. (dii(M' .lustioo IIa/.kn. ^'on an(>N\ tisiiinii- ihrouah ihe iee^ Mr. TrrcoMU. Yos. sir. Chitd' Jnsi iee IIa/.kn. ^'on thin.k thai is noi dest met i\o ^ Mr. TrreoMr.. \o. "\^'e can -land that. That is dilVerent fr(an liu^se nets ihal ha\e been rtd'erred lo. and it is open to exeryltody. ^ our people ean !isl\ ihrouii'h iht> iee in owv waters, and New ^"orkers ean. Many whom 1 moot therc^ in llie summer i.\o \\o[ lia\e an (>!'- portunitx lo i\() t o[' iioopK> at a lime of the year \vl\on thov aro not (H'oupit'd tiilint;: th(> soih 'j'he farmers" boys ean then a'o out and make stnue money and ean ha\e a ii'ood tinu>. Then | roforrina' to that soet ion o[' I he ma|^ where the ■-eininii' o-ronnds are | the men iheiv w ho own I hi' sliori>-^ and those siMuino- are empU>yed as ii'uides in tlie sum- mer, and I he rexeniie I hey ean derixe ihe li\elihood ihe\' ean obtain from ihai soiwee will bo nmeh moi'e pornuuiont and will last thronah a miieh loniitM' season than the revomto they ii'ot from a sea- Min diirino- the siunino- period, and their oeeu]iation uill bo more permanent if these waters are pvoteeloth The fisliino- there is for piko-poreh ospoeiall} . bm ihey lake e\AM\ihini:'. The tishiuii- for white tish. whieh ytni eall "shad"" in ihai pariieular hK-alily. talvos in oilier kinds of tish than the white lish. 1 ha\e here rei)orts and what 1 have written on the subjoet duriiii: the jHuaod of my adniin- istiaiion ilu-re. from 1S0'_> to IWO. o-i\ino; the statistics of the lish- orios oi \'oriiiont State. Tho rovonno never ran tnor $G.000 a yonr. and that is divided n]^ aniono- ^ fow people. Tho valuo of tho hook- and-lino lishorios on Lake Chaniplain — tho intrinsic valuo of tho lish thomselvos. independent of tho sontimontal vnlno which increases ihe \alue o( property and brinii's in all this tonrist traffic — far ox- reed- am revenue whirh eonies from the not tishin«i". T thank yon \ ery nineli. Cdiiof fhistieo U.v/kn. .Vvo there an\- oiber Stato< that border on ;he waters id" Lake (diamplain exeepi \'erinont and New ^ ork ^ Mr. TneoMn. No. sir. Cdiiof dustiee Ha/.kn. And ha- all ti-hinu' been abolished there ^ Mr. 'l"iTcoAii?. .Vll not tisiiiiiii-. Chief flnstice H.vzen. Not tishiiiii-. as well as seine li-hina :' Mr. TrreoMr>. Yos, sir: e\ ery kind. Cliief du-iiee IIa/.kn. So the only tishin all. Mr. Foi NO. 1 would ask the liontlomau if ho will bo kind onouiih to soml to mo a copy of the laws in this matter^ 1 find that the copy of the laws which T had occnsioii to refer to the other day was dated 1009. Mr. TrrcoMii. 1 shall be nlea>od to do so. AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEEISrCE. 119 Chief Justice Hazen. We have listened, gentlemen — especially Mr. Found and myself, the Canadian members of the commission — Avith very mnch interest to what has been said by you gentlemen from Xe^A' York and Vermont, and I have no hesitation in saying that I think they have made out a very strong case. It occurs to my mind that the case they have presented is analogous to the case that was presented this morning with regard to the preservation of the lobster along the coast of Xova Scotia, where we are endeavor- ing to protect the lobsters by means of a closed season, and are to a considerable extent hampered in our effort by people who come and fish just outside the territorial limits and carry the loljstersaway. In the case we have just heard apparentl}^ New York and Vermont liave refused to grant licenses for seining, and yet the Canadian Go\- ernment perndts seining in Missisquoi Bay, an arm of Lake Cham- plain, to which the fish resort for the purpose of spawning. I have no hesitation in saying to ,you gentlemen that I think that condition of affairs is not right. I think, in view of what you have said, that the matter will be taken up by the Canadian department dealing with fisheries, and I feel that they will be impressed, as Mr. Found and myself have been impressed, by the facts presented. I think very little time Avill elapse before the question will l)e fairly met. with the idea of preserving the fish in the lake. While Ave have not heard Avliat may be said by the people on the Canadian side Avith regard to this matter, it appears to us at the present time that this fishing by nets should be abolished and that only fishing by hook and line should be nl lowed. In that Avay the fish Avill be preserved and those Avaters Avill continue to l)e a source of delight to tourists Avho enjoy the fish- ing. T thiidv in the long ru.n such action as is suggested will ])e \ ery much in the interest of all. Secretar}^ Redfield. Is there anybody ^ho desires to present any other ])hase of the question? We are very much indebted to the gen- tlemen from Vermont Avho have come here upon the matter and to Mr. Titcomb foi- their clear presentation of the case. Is there any- body noAv Avho desires to present facts here on the larger ([uestions concerned in the Atlantic fisheries? FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. CARL C. YOUNG, OF GLOUCESTER. Secretary Redfield. I Avould like to ask Capt. Young for some in- formation in that connection. Is it not a fact, Capt. Young, that the larger proportion of the Gloucester vessels are power vessels now — motor vessels? Capt. Young. Yes, sir; a great many of them are poAver vessels. SecretarA^ Redfield. How many sailing vessels Avould you sa}^ still remain ? Capt. Young. Oh, perhaps 40 or 45 or between 40 and 50, perhaps. Secretary Redfield. What is the total fleet of Gloucester, as far as you know ? Capt. Young. In the neighborhood of perhaps 100 large A'essels which go down that Avay to fish. Secretary Redfield. Can you give the commission a rough esti- mate of the number of persons engaged in the actual fisheries of Gloucester ? 120 AMEEICAK-CAXADIAK" FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Capt. YouxG. It would be pretty hard to sa,y, but I think between (xloucester and Boston the number woukl be in the neis'hborhood of 3.000 men. Secretary Redfield. In the tAvo ports ^ Mi'. Brown, do a^ou think that is about right ? Mr. Browx. About 3.500. Secretary Redeield. About 3.500 altogether? Mr. Broavx. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Can either or both of you tell me what the ayerage earnings of those men are? Capt. Young. Well, the last t^yo years haye been A'ery big j^ears for fishing and the creAvs haye made great Ayages. They can not be com- pared Avith the years preyious to those. Preyious to the last tAvo years the fish industrj^ of Massachusetts Ayas not a A^^erA^ good industry. Fish A^^as yery. yery loAy. and a good many firms and yessels haye gone out of existence. I i-eally think if Aye had not had these tAyo pros- perous years there Ayould haA'e been little fishing out of Gloucester to-day. but those years haye helped us a great deal. Secretary Redfield. Are the creAys of the yessels United States citizens? Capt. YoixG. To a great extent. I tliink 50 per cent or better than 50 per cent are American citizens, or ai'e becoming American citizens eyery day. Secretary Redfield. I Ayant to be sure that I do not misunder- stand you. I gather that 50 per cent, or nearly 50 jier cent, of the creAys are not American citizens? Capt. YorxG. Yes. sii-; I think aou are prettv nearlv rioht al)out that. Secretary Redfield. Of Ayhat country are they citizens? Capt. Yoi XG. Xoya Scotia, Canada. XeAvfoundland. some Xor- Ayegians and SAyedes, and some Portuguese — Portuguese to a great extent. We haye a good many Portuguese in Gloucester.^ Secretary Redfield. You haye no subjects of Austria and Hun- gary ? Capt. Yoix'ive any information or ask any (incstions that miuhl snggest themsel ves. Secretary Eedfjeld. Do you understand, in the case that has been referred to, acting under a license, that there is son)e law jicculiai' to (iloncester Avhich requires sending to Ottawa for authority^ Mr. Davis. I do not know about the situation in that I'cspcct. Seci-etary Redfirld. 1 do not understand that there is a i^eculiar law in Canada for Gloucester. Chief Justice Hazen. Xo. Ml'. Davis. My ])oint was simply that (iloncH'ster people will l)e present at the hearing in (rloucester and will be able to state their side of the ca^e and to deal with all these facts as they apply to Gloucester lishermen. That is the only matter T ha\-e in my mind. Mr. Found, I would suggest that one of the (ilouccstcr cajMains have his license with him when we go to Gloucester, so that that (jnestion may be set al)s('lutely at rest. Mr. Davis. 1 would ask what the (i|nestion is'^ Mr. Foii^No. Capt. Young has just stated that a ITnited States fish- ing vessel having a nu:)dus vivendi license, going into a Canadian poi't to transship fish into the United States has to first, notwith- standing having that license, wire to Ottawa to get permission from Ottawa to do so. Mr. Davis. That. 1 understand, is correct, although T don't know that it is correct. Mr. FoiTNO. My re([ut>st is. as I have not a license' form with n\e and so many Gloucester men probably *lo have it, that one of ihcm have a license present to-morrow when we go to (tloucesrer. Mr. Davis. 1 think that has been done, but it may be another case like that of the man who signed the i:)ai)er in Halifax, that has been i-eferred to here. Chief Justice Hazen. Will you have the goodness to ask some (Jloucestei- cai)tain or vessel owner Avho has taken out one of these nuxlus vivendi licenses to have it there to-morrow? Mr. Davis. I have one. but it is last year's. Chief Justice Hazen. 1 understand that last year's would be the same. Secretary Redfikld. Of courvse. no man's opinion would be worth anything if the license explains itself. That is the real evidence on the question — what the license says. Mr. Davis. T think, notwithstanding, that that is the case, that ihcy have had to get such permission. Chief flustice Hazen. Permits have been asked for by vessels that had no license, and that were therefore delayed. They have feared that their catch of fish would be destroyed if they had to go to a Massachusetts i)ort. and they have g it the right to transshi]> fish to the United States in bond had not been permitted to do so. If we had a license, that would show at once what the fact was. Of course. AMERICAN -CAISTADIAX FISHERIES CONEERENCE. 123 he AYOiikl not lie alloAved to sell fish in Canada. His license does not i^ive him that privilege. Secretary Redfield. That is a matter that is involved in the pro- • posed permit. Chief Justice Hazex. We have allowed fish to be sold in Canada under certain circumstances. We have allowed it to be done. ]Mr. DA^•IS. Of course. Avhere the men could not get a better price here and would have to pay 1 cent a pound duty there, they would l)vefer to sell here. For instance, the price might be 3 cents a pound there, where the fish was worth about 10 cents a pound here. Chief Justice Hazex. Sometimes there are cases where vessels have been delayed, where they have a few fish and where they don't want to sell to the United States, but come to us and ask permission to sell fish in Canada, for their oAvn advantage, and we have given them the permission in nearly every case— special per- mission. That is not covered by the modus vivendi license; but under the modus vivendi license they have the absolute right to take their catch to a Canadian port and ship it under bond to the United States port. Capt. Yoi^XG. Of courbc it is a small matter. anyAvay. STATEMENT BY MR. SYLVESTER M. WHALEN, SECRETARY OF THE FISHmG MASTERS" ASSOCIATION OF BOSTON. Mr. Whalen. I am secretary of the Fishing Masters' Association of Boston, an association composed of captains of fishing vessels both from Boston and Gloucester, largely offshore fishermen. So far as I have been able to learn, sir, the members of the crews of offshore fishermen and the captains and owners are absolutely op- posed to this proposition of allowing Canadian vessels to come into American markets without restriction. When the American fishing industry or the United States fishing industry is spoken of here there is really no such thing iu a way — in this Avay. The men Avho actu- ally go out and catch the fish on the vessels are not United States men. As has been hinted here before. I venture to say that nine- tenths of the fishermen on American A^essels, offshore vessels, I mean, are NeAvfoimdlanders. Xova Scotia men. and French Cana- dians, at least nine-tentlis of them. As for the skippers of those ves- sels, they are United States citizens, but there again they are almost invariably XeAvfoundlanders. You Avill find the facts in that respect to-morrow doAvn in Gloucester. The men Avho go into this offshore fishino- year after year, season after season, and the captains, almost Avithout exception! are NeAvfoundland men. If you Avant the facts about that. I can give you some of the names. There are Capt. Xorris. Capt. Brophy. Valentine O'Neil, Capt. Watts, Capt. Parsons. Felix Hogan. and 50 others. Invariably they are XeAvfoundland men. Secretary Ixedfield. But American citizens? ]Mr. Whalex. Yes, sir; because they have to be American citizens. But their creAvs are not, and I venture to say that nine-tenths Avould be a small proportion of the men Avho are not only foreign born, but Avho have not even become citizens. Occasionally a man Avill take out his first papers and Avill go along and do nothing more. The vast 124 AMEEICAJSr-CANADIAN 'FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. majority do nothing of the kind. That is why I say, gentlemen, that is not a United States industry, as such. NoAv, Avhat is going to happen if Canadian vessels are allowed to come in here without restriction and sell their fish 'I What are these American vessels going to do? Where are they going to get the men? That is the question. You can not count on American boys going to sea. They never were fishermen and never will be. We have got to rely on Newfoundland men, Nova Scotia men, French Canadians, to man the vessels, and they are not going to man the A'essels here if Canadian vessels are going to be allowed to come in here without restriction. Why should they? The Canadian vessel will be as well otf as an American vessel, and why Avill these men need to ship on American vessels the way they are doing now ? The result will be that American vessels will be tied up to the Avharf. and Canadian vessels will be coming in here and enjoying the market. The American vessels can not get crews to man them. T don't see any ansAver to that, gentlemen. Secretary Eedfteld. Doesn't that depend to some degree on the demand for their services? Mr. Whalen. P]ven noAv it is difficult to get creAvs to go on Ameri- can vessels. Secretaiy Eedfield. Why is that? Mr. Wh'alen. Not enough men here. Secretary Eedfield. Haven't the Avages paid on the merchant marine under present circumstances had something to do Avith that? Mr. Whalen. I don't believe so. sir. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. WILLIAM H. BROWN, SECRETARY OF THE FISHERMAN'S UNION. Mr. Bkoavx. Would you like to have me answer that? Secretary Eedfield. I Avisli you avouIcI. Mr. Broavx. The reason I have found for the shortage of men on the oH'shore fleet is that the season is ovei- Avith nuickerel and quite a lot have gone home, French-Canadian and Nova Scotia fishermen. They go home to their families for from three to five months. Another reason is that Ave have got hundreds of men in Avhat they call the mosquito fleet, guarding our shores, men shipped out of Gloucestei'. Gloucester fishermen AAent into Avhat Avas called the patrol service, and Ave have, as far as I can get the facts and figures from the men, in the last foiu- months, around 250 men as soldiers drafted. I Avent up to the statehouse last Friday, upon the invita- tion of Mr. Putnam, of Washington,- on the fish board. Mr. Endi- cott called me up there to see Mr. Putnam, and I explained Avhere I could put at least 20,000,000 more pounds of fish a year into con- sumption if I had the men. We have the vessels, and I think the Gloucester representatives and oAvners Avill tell you hoAv many ves- sels Ave have alongside the Avharfs in Gloucester. But there is a lack of men. We can get the captains. Quite a number of men go as men Avho could go as captains if we could get the crews to go. But the expense of a captain taking a vessel is so large, and he has to lay around on the bricks for a couple of Aveeks oi- three Aveeks looking- for a creAV. that he is spending money and not making it, and he is up against that additional expense. I told Mr. Putnam and JNIr. AMEEICAN-CANADIAISr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 125 Eiidicott about the situation for the hist three months or more, and they asked me what chiss of fishing I was in. December 18, I thinlv, I got a communication from (len. Crowder, that deep-sea fishermen would be chissecl as mariners and woukl naturall}^ go into class B 1. That is the information we got at the Bulfalo convention, and I think there is the same idea in Gloucester, because they are putting them in B 1. Boston is a bigger place than Gloucester, and they don't know here exactly what a fisherman is, what he looks like even. They think he is a queer fellow. But (Gloucester is a fishing place, and they know Avhat a fisherman is and class him as a mailner; 95 to 98 per cent are .young fellows, because an old num can not do the arduous work that a fisherman has to do, especially on deep-sea vessels. I Avas asked for a cop}^ of Gen. Growder's ruling, and I sent it, and they sent a message to Washing- ton in regard to a ruling on deep-sea fishermen, and I got an answer back Monday or Tuesday that we were not classed as mariners, but we could take class D ;2 of deferred classification and industrial purposes. It is a hard job. I have sent three men up to Judge Cohen's board yesterday, and was up myself, to find out Avhat . ui. to Friday. Fcl)- ruary 1. at the same place, at 10 o'clock a. m.) February 1, 1918—10 a. ^i. Secretary Redeield. The gentlemen will please come to order. Mr. Quigley. I will ask you to make a note to insert into the recoi'd at this stage of the hearing, when they can be obtained, the records from the Ignited States Cnstoms Service, or from the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Connnerce, of the actual importations of fresh and salt fish into the United States from all comitries for a period of five years past for the purpose of comparison. (See Exhibit V. p. 380.) And make a note at this point also in the record that I have asked Mr. P^ound, of the connnission. to obtain from the Canadian customs authorities a statement for the record of the connnission of the im- portations of fish into Canada from the T'nited States, s'ay, for a period of five years also. Mr. Young — I don't mean you. Capt. Y'oung; you haA e a technical title — the gentleman behind you, if you will excuse me. I am looking forward to the pleasure of hearing from you again. Capt. Young. Mr. Y'oung, do you care to make a statement to the commission con- cerning the offshore lobster fishing? I would be glad, first of all, if we might have your full name and the name of the concern which you represent. STATEMENT BY MR. ALFRED L. YOUNG, OF THE FIRM OF J. A. YOUNG & CO. Secretary Eedeikld. Proceed in your own way, Mr. Young. Mr. YorxG. I am very glad to have the opportunity to make this statement. I think that I was the original exploiter of that proposi- tion of fishing for lobsters outside of the 3-mile limit in Xctx a Scotia. It was quite accidental on uw part, and it was not Avhat I set out to do. T have been in the lobster business all my life; my father, my grandfather, and my great grandfather before me were in that business, so that I have got a little back of me to bring the spirit doAvn to the present time. [ always have had the impression, through study and observing the Avays of the lobster, that it was not an inshore fisii; that it could be found offshoi'e on the shoals or Avherever ground fish was found — feeding ground, hard bottom of kelp. I always had the impression there were lobsters there, and I got so after a while that I was quite eager to find out for myself if it was so; but I couldn't find any lob- ster fishermen that would take the initiative and go for a long while. I finalh' got a man from Maine Avho was a practical lobsterman, and AMEEICAK-CAlSrADTAN' FISHERIES COiSTFEEEXCE. 129 lie agreed to get a crew if I would fit out a vessel, wliicli I was very glad to do. And I sent him off on what is known as Cashes Bank, which some of the fishermen here can tell you about better than I can. It is off' of Yarmouth, about a hundred miles off from Portland. It is a small bank, a small fishing ground. And they did find lobsters there ; they found a lot of lobsters there. Secretar}^ Redfield. What bank did 3^ou call that? Mr. Young. Cashes Bank. Secretary Redfield. It is not on this map which we have here. I take it that it is a small bank. Mr. Young. A small bank; but I think these fishermen know all about it. It is a very small bank. We found lobsters there; they found nice lobsters there and for a small place there were lots of them. The greater part of them were egg-bearing lobsters. They went out there in Juh^ or August, I think, and the greater part of them were egg-bearing lobsters. They also reported that the water was chock full of halibut and codfish, and that the top of the water was very thick with these newly hatched lobsters. That proved the theory that I had that lobsters could be found on these banks — these feeding grounds for fish. Thejr did very well there, but they had to stay there a week or more to get the trip. When they came home — they were Maine fishermen, and they had been accustomed to go lobstering in the morning and get back to their homes at night, and they didn't like that staying out there for a week fishing, thej^ were not used to it and the}" would not go again. One of the fellows aboard was a Woods Harbor, Nova Scotia, man. He was a A^oung fellow and had been a fisherman. He came to me and was quite eager to try it again, and I let him go the next A^ear — let him take the vessel, and he got a crew of Woods Harbor men. He went out there and they found that they soon fished that bank over, as it was a small bank, and then they drifted to the eastward and finallj' to the Seal Island grounds, which was their own home fishing ground. And when they got there that was something different from what I wished to exploit. I wished to satisfy myself that the lobsters were off on the banks in the sea, not so near the shore as that. I knew they were there — ever}^ lobsterman knew thej^ were there. The}' finished there and did fairlj^ well. I kept it up for two or tlii'ee years, had a little trouble with the Canadian Government, and it was not profitable. The lobsters were not plenty enough — it took too long to make the trip. They could only make about two or three trips in the year, because weather conditions do not allow fishing later than the last of September, and there was no market for the goods here until after the 1st of July, and it was not profitable. It has been exploited to a considerabTe extent since by different ones, but they have gradually given it up. The crews were alto- gether Xova Scotia men that were acquainted with the grounds. I did get them to go off the South Channel here once and try it on the shoals there, but they either were not acquainted or they did not give it a proper trial and they did not find the goods. Xow, that is simply my experience. What I think in regard to the lobster question is that what we want is a Federal law. We have been trying to get a Federal law. 51950—18—9 130 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEBENCE. I tliink the best thinkers amona; the lobster people know that that is the only proper thing. The laws of the various lobster-producing States are dirt'erent. We used to have a 10^-inch law in Massachu- setts, Ave had it in Xew Hampshire, and we have it now in jNlaine. Nova Scotia lobsters used to come through here and go through into Rhode Island — where they did not have that law — and there they were scattered throughout the country, taking the business right awaj' from Boston; and that i-ather got on the nerves of us lobster dealers, so that we joined with the fishermen and demanded the 9-inch law in Massachusetts, against our better judgment ; but we have got it to-day and have had it for a number of years. Xow, those lobsters stop in jSlassachusetts and they are scattered through- out the country from Boston. Xew Hampshire finally came to a 9-inch law. Of course, there is a demand created among the lobster- eating people for those 9-inch lobsters at the present time. There are times of the year when a 9-inch lobster is more valuable than a larger lobstei'. There has been a considerable drain made on the Maine lobster fishery, on the 9-inch lobsters, contrarj^ to the laws of that State, not alone by New Hampshire and jVIassachusetts dealers and smack men. but by their own dealers — the Rockland and Port- land dealers have been as much in it as we have; and they have all got places in Boston; and they come here with those lobsters and they are scattered all over the country from here. That is wrong. Looking at it from the perpetuation of the lobster standpoint, it is wrong — it is altogether wrong. We know it. The lobster business is gradually getting away from us. Lobsters to-day are a great luxury. Why, we pay — I should hate to tell you what we paid yesterday. You probably know Ave paid nearly 50 cents a pound at wholesale to get lobsters here. That is prohibitive so far as eating goes. It ought not to be so. A proper law would be. to my mind, a KH-inch Federal law. and the same law in Nova Scotia, and in two or three years. I believe, it would put the lobster business back on its feet. For a year or two it would be a hardship, because most of the lobsters now run under 10^ inches • but, I think, after a few years lobstei-s Avould be from 10^ inches up. and they Avoidd breed faster from that length up. and Ave Avould in a shcrt Avhile haA'e moi-e lobsters. Chief Justice Hazex. I judge from your remarks that you are in faA'or of a laAv that Avould admit no lobsters into the NeAv England market, or into the markets of the United States, for sale, of less than 10^ inches? Mr. YorxG. I certainly am in favor of a laAv of that kind, provided Ave have the ]"aAv the same eA'erywhere. Chief Justice Hazen. You say that would have to be a Federal enactment ? Is it not a fact that in the State of Maine the law now prevents the catching of any lobsters of less than 10^ inches? Mr. YouxG. It is so. Chief Justice Hazex. In the State of Maine? Mr. Young. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazex. Now. Avhat other States on the Atlantic seaboard are there in which lobsters are caught? Mr. YouxG. NeAv Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island. Con- necticut, and NeAv York State, and some fcAv in Ncav JerseA'. AMERICAN-CAlsrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 131 Chief Justice Hazen. Would it be possible to get those different States to pass a law similar to the law which now exists in the State of Maine? Mr. Young. I hardly think so. The possibilities are just the other wa}^ Pressure is being brought to bear on the State of Maine to change their law to a 9-inch law. Chief Justice Hazen. But has the attempt been made with the other States? Take Massachusetts, for instance. Has the attempt been made to have a law passed that no lobster shall be sold in Massa- chuetts which is less than 10^ inches? Mr. Young. It has been, and we used to have that law on our books here. We used to have a 10^-inch law in Massachusetts; but, as I say, the fact that these lobsters from Nova Scotia down to 9 inches came through Massachusetts and went to Ehole Island and were dis- tributed throughout the country from Rhode Island — from Newport particularly — took it out of the hands of the Boston dealers, ancl we did not consider it hardly fair. They came right through Boston and went by us, and we not be allowed to handle them. Chief Justice Hazen. If a law were passed preventing catching along the southern shore of Nova Scotia and Passamaquocldy Bay lobsters of less than 10^ inches, what eifect would that have upon the situation here in the Eastern States? If a law of that sort were passed in Canada, would it have the effect of inducing the States you mention, do you think, to pass similar laws? Mr. Young. It might have that effect. It avouIcI so far as the im- porters of lobsters are concerned. What I mean, the dealers. You know politics enter into this thing a whole lot — have in Massachu- setts. The fishermen want to catch the short lobsters. Chief Justice Hazen. They have votes? Mr. Young. They have votes, and they have representatives in the legislature that are catering to those votes. A part of the pressure brought to bear which changed our law here was the fact that they had a 9-inch law in Rhode Island when we had a 10^-inch law here, and it resulted in bringing those lobsters across the line into Rhode Island and shipping out from there. Chief Justice Hazen. When was the change made in the law from lOi to 9 inches? Mr. Young. Some time ago. I don't know just how long ago. Chief Justice Hazen. I Avant to tell you how that worked in my Province in New Brunswick. The law, so far as the county of Charlotte is concerned, which is the county which is divided from Maine by the St. Croix River, including the islands of Grand Manan, Deer, and Campobello — all those islands are in the county of Char- lotte — in the county of Charlotte and in the county of St. Johns, which adjoins the county of Charlotte on the eastward, there was a law by which no lobster of less than 10^ inches should be taken, and a few years ago the lobster fiishermen of St. Johns County came and made a very strong representation that the size of the lobster that could be brought into the Boston market had been reduced from 10^ inches to 9 inches, and that it was in the interest of the lobster fishermen — it was in the interest of all — that the length should be reduced to 9 inches there. In the county of Charlotte they stuck to lOi inches, as they are doing in the State of Maine. That shows 132 AMKRIOAN-OANADIAN l^MSHERIES CONFERENCE. liow one lliinii' lends lo nuolluM', jus! :is yoii lin\(> (old us about lihode rsliiud 'mlliKMU'iiiii- (he doci.sion hero. 'Hiou your chiiu^e of law here iulliiiMU'od (he iiction of St. flolius (^(>uu(.v. Ml". ^'oiiNo. And (luMi (h(> Tact (lud the chnnoe of hiw here hiduced New Hampshire to ('haui>e her law two or (hree years a^o. Chief flus(ic(> IIazkn, And your \iew is Ihal Ihis woidd ha\e (o ho done by Federal enactment, isn't it. Mi-. 'V'oung^ Mr, YouNO. I think it wouhh I think so, in order to get it unani- mous in (he various lobster-produeinc; States. It has always been put uj) 1(1 us dial it is a question of State rights, and that the States are jealous of their rights and would not gi\e them up to the Fedei-al (u)\ernnuMit, and we ha\e been told it would be impossible to have a I^'edtM-al law. Shief .lustice IIazen. There would be very great hostility, I sup- pose, on the [)art of many of these diifei-ent S(ates to the passage of such an enaetnient by the Federal authorities? Mr. YoiTNG. Well, that may be so. I believe Rhode Island and Con- neetieut would bitterly oppose it. Chief .Justice TIazkn. You have been in (he lobster industry for a great many y(>ars, Mr. "^'oung, and your father and grandfather be- fore you '( Mr. \'oiiNt). Yes, sir. Chief flustiee IIazkm. In view of your experience and what you know about the business, do you consider that the lobster industry, if i( is to be saved from destruction, is in need of special protection at the ])resent time? ISTr. YoiTNO. Well, there is no (luestion but what lobsters are grow- ing less and less all the time, and if you are going to save it you have got (o protect it; and 1 don't knoAv how you ai'c going to protect it unless you make laws. AVe have always had laws, as T say, for a good many years, but it seems as though every law was unpopular^ or if we had it for one State we didn't have it for another, and in spite of our laws lobsters are groAving less and less. In Maine they have the 101-inch hiAv, and they fish them all the year round when thev can, but still thev find more lobsters thei'e than in anv other State. Chief Justice Hazen. Is (here any close season for lobsters in the othei- States you sj^eak of? Mr. ^'oi X(j. 1 think (here is a close season in Khode Island; there is a period when there are no lobsters there. They have a close sea- son in some of the eastern jiarts of INIaine. A good nuiny years ago Maine did have an experiment with a close season for 10 to 12 Aveeks in the sunnuer time, but it Avas not popular and Avas given up. Chief Justice Hazkx, Is there a period of the year during Avhich the importation of lobsters into Boston is forbidden by hnv ? From anywhere? T mean, have you a laAv here in Massachusetts or in Boston Avhich prevents the importation of lobsters into your State at certain seasons of the year? Mr. Young. No, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. So that, therefore, it Avould be correct to say that you can have lobsters in Boston all the year round if you are able to get them ? Mr. Young. We do. We have them the vear round. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 133 Chief Justice Hazen. Have you given any attention to the subject of the artificial propagation of lobsters? Mr. Young. I have in a general way. I have been at the several propagation stations in Maine, the one at Woods Hole and the one at Gloucester. Chief Justice Hazen. What is your opinion in regard to the ef- fectiveness of those stations? Mr. Young. I don't think they are effective. That is my personal opinion. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you think it would be possible to main- tain the lobster industry or to restore the lobster industry b^^ means of close seasons during the year at different points along the coast and by means of lobster hatcheries? Mr. Young. I don't think that would restore it. If you will al- low me, I Avill tell you why. Chief Justice Hazen. That is exactly what I want to know, Mr. Young. Mr. Young. As I say, that was tried in Maine a good many years ago for a period of 10 or 12 weeks — whatever it was — and at the end of that period the fishermen were all allowed to put their lobster pots out, and they put them out, and they got great lobster fishing for a few weeks, and then it \Aent back to normal again. In other words, I believe that if you had a period of the year when there Avas a close season — it is a good deal like this in Nova Scotia at the present time — they get good fishing when they start out, but along toward the end of the season the fishing slacks aw^ay. And the fact that the lobster-fishing industry in western Xova Scotia is a great deal less than what it used to be is to my mind some proof that it is not a success — the close time. I would sooner think that a 10|^-inch law would be more effective. They have that in Maine, and, as I say, they fish there all the year round, and in most places in Maine, I think, they get lobsters when they fish. Chief Justice Hazen. Then, if I understand your opinion, Mr. Young, it is that the most effective method of protecting the lob.sters would be the passage and the enforcement of laws preventing the catching of lobsters at any time during the year of a less size than 101 inches? Mr. Young. That certainly is my opinion. Chief Justice Hazen. Ancl your opinion is that if a law of that sort were passed and were enforced there would be no need of close seasons and no need of lobster hatcheries — — Mr. Young. No; I think nature Chief Justice Hazen (continuing). Which is somewhat experi- mental, anyway. Mr. Young. I think nature is more effective than any artificial means. Chief Justice Hazen, What is your idea of fishermen catching berry lobsters? Mr. Young. They should not be allowed to catch them. Chief Justice Hazen. If every lobster is a berry lobster, they should be compelled to put them back into the water ? Mr. Young. We have laws to that effect now. Chief Justice Hazen. Are they enforced? 134 AMEEICAlSr-CAlSrADIAlSr riSHERIES CONPEEENCE. Mr. Young. Yes and no. No; I should say they Avere not. They are in some instances. The Government and the State at various times has bought these egg lobsters and returned them to the waters again. Of course, I am not a fisherman, but I know there are a lot of those lobsters come to the market at various times. Chief Justice Hazen. Have you had any experience with the tak- ing of lobsters and confining them in ponds? I mean mature lob- sters and confining them in ponds until they are right and have de- posited their spawn, berries, and then placing them back in the sea again for that purpose? Mr. Young. Why, I have personally got lobster ponds in the State of Maine myself, and I have made a practice of putting lobsters in those ponds for a great many je-uvs past. Your Nova Scotia lobsters are put in that pond, and Maine lobsters, too. We put them in in the spring of the year, and we take them out and market them in July and August. We put them in again in the fall and market them again at this time of the year. We can't keep them in those ponds over their moulting season, when they shed. That is impracticable. But as far as putting egg lobsters in the pond goes, we put, as I say, your Nova Scotia lobsters in there in the spring of the year and take them out in July and August and find a whole lot of new berry lob- sters. Lobsters if taken care of and looked after properly would certainly add a whole lot. Chief Justice Hazen. What do you do with those lobsters after you take them out of the pond ? Mr. Young. We sell them to the Government, and a good many in the State of Maine, at Booth Bay Harbor, where the hatchery is. Chief Justice Hazen. And what does the Government do with them ? Did they take the berries from those and hatch them in their hatchery, or did they take the lobsters just as they were and de- posit those berries and put them back in the sea? Mr. Young. They have always taken those lobsters in the summer time and carried them over until the next June, as the lobster car- ries the berries a 3^ear, and then they hatch them artificially in jars and deposit them when they are a few days old. Chief Justice Hazen. Now, do 3^ou think that better results could be obtained by getting those berries and hatching them artificially than would be obtained by taking that lobster and putting it back into the sea and letting it deposit those berries in the way that nature intended ? Mr. Young. I think that is the proper way. Chief Justice Hazen. You think that is the pro^oer way ? Mr. Young. To my mind. My impression is that that would be a proper way. Chief Justice Hazen. We have been experimenting with lobster hatcheries in Canada for some time — a good many lobster hatch- eries — and the fishery officers of the department, I think, entertain very grave doubts as to the effectiveness of that. That is true, I believe, Mr. Found? Mr. Found. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. Now, you spoke of the minimum of 10^ inches as being your opinion of the right minimum size. That no lobsters should be caught under 10^ inches. May I ask you if you AMEEICAiSr-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 135 have given any consideration to the question of a maximum size? It has been represented to us that while a lobster of 9 inches will have a certain number of berries, those berries increase enormously as the lobster gets larger, and a lobster of 12^ inches will have berries running to almost fabulous numbers. Have you considered whether, in addition to having a minimum size of 10^ inches, it would be well to also have a size beyond which a lobster can not be caught? A maximum size? Mr. Young. I have thought that over a great deal, and theoreti- cally it sounds good, but practically it is a hard thing to do. Now, it is a hard thing to measure a lobster anyway. Some States measure it by the length of the lobster from the bone on its nose to the end of its tail, and other States measure it from the bone on its nose to the end of the body shell. Chief Justice Hazex. Which way do you call the carapace meas- ure ? Do you know that expression ? Mr. YouxG. Xo; that is beyond me. The back-shell measure, I presume that is. That is better than the other way. But there is a measure in Ehode Island that has been exploited lately which is better than either of them, to my mind. Chief Justice Hazex. "When you speak of the 10^ inches, you mean the measure along the total length? ^Ir. YouxG. The whole length. Chief Justice Hazex. I think they speak of it in the department as the carapace measurement. Mr. YouxG. The whole length of the lobster from the end of the bone on the body shell to the end of the bone on the middle flipper of his tail. Chief Justice Hazex. Now, to come l)ack to my question. Do you think there should be a maximum as well as a minimum size? !Mr. YouxG. No ; I do not ; because, as I say, it is impracticable for the fisherman to measure the lobster on both ends. I think, if you will let lobsters come to 10^ inches, they have been matured, and they will breed, and there will be enough of them escape to continue breeding. Chief Justice Hazex. AVell, I understand you to saj- it is not prac- ticable to measure. It is practicable to measure under lOi inches, and Avhy isn't it practicable to measure for over 12| or 13 inches ? ^Ir. YouxG. Well, that is true. But we are in hot water all the time trying to measure them 10^ inches. Chief Justice Hazex. You Avould simply make the water a little hotter. I suppose. ]Mr. YouxG. You would make the Avater hotter, and we will be subject to more persecutions, I might say. A fisherman has hard vrork to measure lobsters in a dory out there when there is a little roll on; and if he had to measure them on both ends, it would be quite a proposition. Chief Justice Hazex. I judge from what you have said, Mr. Young, that you were the pioneer in this well-smack business that has caused us trouble in Canada. Mr. YouxG. Well-smack fishing in Canada ? Chief Justice Hazex. You have given the business up, I under- stand? 136 AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEKENCE. Mr. Young. I have. Chief Justice Hazex. Do yon know hoAv mtmy are engaged in it now? Mr. YouxG. I think there were three or four smacks off there last year. I don't know just how many. Chief Justice Hazen. Do yon know how close they come up to the Canadian territorial waters? Mr. Young. That I don't know. The captain and crew know more about that. I think they go pretty close. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you favor that practice? Mr. Young. I do not. Chief Justice Hazen. You are opposed to it? ^ Mr. Young. I am opposed to it. Chief Justice Hazen. You don't think it is a proper practice when there is a closed season in Canada for others to come there and lie outside the 3-mile limit? Mr. Young. It is not right ; it is not fair. As I say, it is the captain and the cre^^ s that did it. Chief Justice Hazen. You tried it for experimental purposes, as far as I can find out. Mr. Young. My intention was to go out onto the banks in the sea, such as Cashes Bank, and there must be a lot of territory out on the fishing banks where there is a hard bottom Avith kelp on it. with feeding ground, where there uuist be lobsters. But there is no way of getting them. Chief Justice Hazen. Would you favor enacting a law to make illegal the practice of well smacks going there and fishing outside the territorial waters, or opposite to them, in Canada, at a time that the Canadian laws make it illegal to fish in the territorial waters ? Mr. Young. I certainly would. I w^ould favor a law of that character. I say it is not fair. Mr. Found. I would merely like to ask Mr. Young if he has ever considered, in connection with the double standard which was sug- gested, a possible effect on the larger standard of fixing the size of the ring of the trap. Mr. Young. AVell, I don't believe that would be effective. You would find some pretty good sized lobsters in the fishermen's dory — they will get caught. Mr. Found. It would not be perfect, but wouldn't it result very largely in controlling — — Mr. Young. I never thought so. The practical men. the lobster fishermen, coidd tell you better than I. Chief Justice Hazen". Could you, in your opinion. Mi-. Young, by prescribing the Avidth betAveen the slats of the traps — could you by that means regulate the size ? Mr. YouxG. I don't think so. Chief Justice Hazex. That is, you Avould have it Avide enough to let the small ones crawl out? Mr. YouxG. That has been exploited. I think they have a laAv in Connecticut uoav that the bars shall be 2 inches apart. I don't think it is practical. Chief Justice Hazex. The lob>^ter refuses to escape ? AMEEICAN-CAXADIAX FISHEEIES COXFEKEXCE. 137 Mr. Young. When the lobster gets into the trap he stays there. Chief Justice Hazex. And he doesn't crawl out through the aper- tures in the trap? Mr. YoTJXG. He won't crawl out. If the fishermen jerk the trap he goes over sideways and he comes into the dory. Chief Justice Hazex. You don't think that would be effective, then, as a practical measure? Mr. Young. I think nothing but a 10-|-inch law^ would be effective. Mr. Sweet. I think you rather intimated that you thought there was some better method of measuring. Did joii not ? Mr. YouxG. Oh, I was going to say that the State of Rhode Island — il saw a measure down there that seemed to me as though it would be good. That was a measure from the eye socket of the lob- ster to the end of the bone on the body shell. Now. the eye socket is so placed that it can't be changed, and I don't see how they could shrink very much. You know the bone on the end of the body shell will shrink some, but that eye-socket measurement is better than any thing which you have got now. Mr. Sweet. What would the length be in that form of measure- ment to correspond to the 104 inches ? Mr. YouxG. Well, it would be considerably smaller than the block measure which is used now. Just what it is I don't know. Perhaps somebody here can tell. Dr. Smith. Mr. Young, coming for a moment to the double- standard measurement, I would like to ask you what, in your opin- ion, would be the effect on the lobster trade — say, in Boston — of a prohibition on the sale of lobsters below 9 inches and over 104 inches ? Mr. YouxG. Well, what the people demand for lobsters, what they want more than anything, is a lobster that will average from a pound to a pound and three-quarters. Dr. Smith. What will be the length of a 1^-pound lobster? Mr. YouxG. A lobster weighing If pounds would be somewhere near 11 inches, I should say. We used to figure that a 104-inch lob- ster weighed about a pound and a half. And a 9-inch lobster will weigh not quite a pound — perhaps average a little less than a pound. The double-standard law from 10| to 13, I should say, would be as small as I should want to see it. Dr. Smith. Let me ask, Avhat proportion of the lobsters handled in the trade in Boston run over 12 inches in length ? Mr. YouxG. Why, at certain seasons of the year we have more than others. The earlv summer — -in eTune — our lobsters from certain places, run pretty large. We have what we call a lot of jumbo lob- sters. We have certain places in New Brunswick where we get jumbo lobsters at certain times of the year. But they are not a popular lobster to-day on the market. I think the average lobster, as I say. will weigh somewhere about a pound and a half to 2 pounds. Dr. Smith. Would there be great harm done to the lobster trade of Boston if there were a prohibition on the sale of lobsters over 12 inches in length? Would a great shortage result from such a prohibition ? Mr. YouxG. There would not be any more shortage than is coming along now. But it would be very hard pulling just the same. It is 188 AMERICAN-CANADTAN FISllHRIES CONFERENCE. t>vtliii time lobsters are a luxury. Dr. Smith, lii \ iew of the fact that these \ery larii'e lobsters are not in such dc'niand in the trade, and in view of the fact \Yhich the Chief Justice has brouoht out that these laroe lobsters pro- duce an infinitely greater number of eg"gs than the lobsters of smaller size — the increase beino- in i>eometrical progressicm, as a mat- ter of fact — it has been sugo-ested that it would be proper, in order to conserxe the present diminishing supply and to attempt to restore the former abundance of the lobster, to prohibit the catching and selling of lobsters, say over 12 inches in length. "What would be your own judgment as to the wisdom of such a measure? Mv. ^'oiiN(;. AVell, 1 personally think that a 10]-incli hiAv would be enough. Of course, if we stop catching lobsters altogether for a period of 5 or 10 years we would have more lobsters. If Ave did not catch lobsters over 11 inches long, we would have more, to be sure. But from a practical standpoint, I think a 10|-inch law, properly en- forced, would be enough. That, I think, has been illustrated in the State of Maine. In spite of the fact that there have been hundreds of thousands of lobsters taken out of that State the last few- years, the lobster Kshing is good in the State of Maine during the season. Dr. S^iiTFT. It is, however, a fact, I believe, that the present catch of lobstei's in Maine is about one-fourth what it was -20 yeai's ago^ Mr. YouN(^. I think likely. I think very likely. Dr. Sivirrii. And the only reason the fishing is possible is that the fishermen are getting thi-ee. four, or five times as much per pound as they did 20 years ago. Mr. YoiTNO. But, as a matter of fact, they ha^e been taking chicken lobsters out of the State of Maine for 20 years, anyhow. They have been taking lots of them every year. Xot people foreign to the Stato I don't mean, but people in business right in the State have shipped them through. Shipped them through into New York before we ever had a 0-inch law in Massachusetts, and made a business of it. Dr. SMrrn. We do not know whether the general lobster fishery as t'onducted on the coasts of the various States can be regulated through Federal enactment; but it has been suggested as on.e of the numerous measures that have been reconnnended to save the sitna- tion that there be established on the coast of each of the lobster- producing States a zone or area in Avhich all lobster fishing should be ])rohibited for a term of yeai-s. What, in your ojiinion. would be the etfect of such legislation as that? Mr. YoFNG. Well, I think if yon w'ere going to do it, stop it altogether: not any particular place, not any particular locality. I think the lobster conies inshore and goes offshore — craAvls oifshore. Dr. SMrrii. It was for that very reason that it was suggested that areas be established on the coasts of the \arious States, be- cause any prohibition of fishing in those areas would aifect the al)uiulance of lobsters there and not have any infinence on the con- tiguous parts of the coast. So that if you found an area where the lobsters had been so much depleted that fishing was scarcely profit- able and established therein a close season of, say, three or five years. >ou mioht be able to do something to restore the industry. AMERICAI^-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEEjSTCE. 139 Mr. Young. AXeW, that might be so. But they have zones in Maine where they do practically that same thing, only it is for certain months of "^the year — in the eastern part of Maine. Dr. Smith. Your own statement has shown that the short season or closed time does not have much effect, because immediately on its expiration the fishermen resume operations on a much larger scale and negative the results of the close time. Mr. Young. That is my idea of it. I think if you are going to make a zone in Massachusetts you had better cut Massachusetts right out altogether. But it would not be hardly fair to the people, per- haps, to" allow other States to do lobster business and not allow Massachusetts to do it. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Young, are you sure that the number of vessels engaged in this offshore well smack fishery is not over four? Mr. Young. I am not absolutely sure; no; but I don't think there were over four there last year — or five. Secretary Redfield. Do you know whether those vessels which en- gaged in it last year found it profitable or not? Mr. Young. I don't think they did, because I have had the owners of those vessels tell me they wouldn't send them there again — some of them. Secretary Redfield. Do vou regard, then, that offshore lobster fishing is practically a dying industry? Mr. Young. Why, I think so; but there may be somebody come along who wants to exploit this, probably. Some lobster fisherman may want to try it. Secretary Redfield. Is it, in your judgment, of sufficiently serious volume to have any marked weight upon the supply of the industry? Mr. Young. I don't think so. What few they catch are way outside the o-mile limit. It looks big to the fishermen in shore who can't get out, and it makes them feel bad. I don't blame them; it is a hard proposition. I should like to see it stopped, reall}^ Secretary Redfield. Mr. Young, is it or is it not the fact that the difficulty with the business is not only the difference in the laws of which you speak, but in the fact that such laws as there are are not strictly enforced? Mr. Young. Certainly. Secretary Redfield. It has been suggested that a Federal statute, for which there is precedent in existing law, be passed which would prohibit the entrance into any port of the United States or the trans- mission in interstate commerce within the United States of any lobster caught in contravention of any State lav/ or of any law of another country. Would or would not such a law as that be, in yoTU' judgment, effective? Mr. Young.' Why, I think it Avould provided we had a law here — for instance, if we had a 10^-inch law in this country and Ave could stop the importation of lobsters of less than 10,^ inches into the coun- try I think it would be a good thing. Secretary Redfield. Well, the lack of enforcement of the law means, does it not, that Avhatever the length permitted by law, lob- sters shorter than that are caught and sold ? Mr. Young. Yes. Secretary Redfield. So that the law which I speak of — its effect would be, first, for example, to prohibit their entrance to this port; 140 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. iiiul second, if they got into the port woukl prohibit their being shipi)e(l out of Massachusetts, and woidd stop such viohitioii, would it not? Mr. Young. Certainly. Secretary Kkdimklo. lint as you think of it, does it seem to you an effective measure? jVIr. YouNo. AVhy, yes; it Avould be right along those lines. But don't you know that a lot of these short lobsters that are used are used at the seashore? They are caught right there and held right there. Any of you gentlemen who go to the State of Maine in the summer time know that. You go down there and eat short lobsters. Secretary Ivkdfieu). Of coui'se, the Federal statute can not oper- ate within tlie State, but it could prohibit the entrance of short lobsters into any port and their transmission out of that port. So that, for examide, it would stop the shii)]nng to New York from this locality, or woidd stop the entrance into the ])ort of New York of any vessel cariwing those. I Avill :ask Dr. Smith if there is not a precedent for such a law already existing in connection with the sponges from Florida. Dr. SiviTTH. That seems to be a similar case, where it has been foimd necessary, in order to save the supply of commercial sponges on the coast of Florida, to i^rohilnt the destruction of sponges less than a certain number of inches in diameter, and the law reaches such otfen(]ers by proliibiting the landing at any point in the United States of any sponges less than a certain size. INIr. Yot'NG. Well, the greater part of the lobsters coming into Boston go out of the State — that is, a good proportion of tliem — and that would be effective and it would stop tlie inclination to bring them in if they couldn't ship them out. Secretai'y Redfiei.d. Have you any idea, Mr. ^'oung, of the aver- age earnings of the Maine coast lobster fishermen, or on the Massa- chusetts coast? Mr, Young. Why, I haven't an accurate idea. I had a fisherman in the sho]3 the other day from Maine, and he is as good a fisherman as any nuin, I suppose, and he told me he stocked $2,400 — $2,200— the year before last. Then he goes on to tell me that considering the expense of his gear and lobster traps, and his boat, I would be sur- prised to know how little he had left for himself when he got (lirough. But T think he is above the average. vSocretary Ivkukikij). Did he tell you wliat he liad left? Mr. Young. No; he didn't tell me. Chief fJustice ITazrn. Hoav niany months in the year would he engage in fishing? Mr. YoiTNG, Probably start in the 1st of May and fish up to Thanksgiving time. Perhaps the middle of December Chief Justice TTazen. That is November. Mr. Young. The last of November or the first of December. Per- hajis the middle or the last of November, if the weather kept good. C'hief flustice Hazkx. Engaging in fishing a little over seven months, then? Mr. Young. Seven months. Secretary 1vei>kiei.i). Would you favor a re(|uest on the part of the Food Vdministration, backed up by the Bureau of Fisheries and operating through the State committees of defense in every State AMERICAlSr-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 141 and the food administrator in every State, appealing to the people of the country to cease buying lobsters for a period ? Mr. Young. I should not favor that, because I am in the lobster business. Secretary Redfield. Thank you. Mr. Young. I don't know Avhy that would be necessary. If a num will eat a lobster, he won't eat a piece of beefsteak. Perhaps it costs him more mone}^ But if he eats lobster, he is conserving some- thing else that is a luxury. And if he can afford to buy lobster and pay for it, why let him buy and pay for it. He is saving something else which is really necessary. Chief Justice Hazen. Saving beef or bacon. Secretary Redeield. Saving beef or bacon ; yes. Mr. Young. Saving beef or bacon. Secretary Redfield. I only mentioned it to get your idea as to what was possible. Mr. Young. It is possible. It is a luxury which can be gotten along without. Secretary Redfield. But isn't it a fact that the country ought not to get along without any productive industry which can be saved? Mr. Young. That is true. Secretary Redfield. And the point of view ought to be, should it not, putting the industry upon a permanent basis? Mr. Young. If we can do it. Secretary Redfield. If it can be done. Mr. Young. I would like to see it done that way. Secretary Redfield. I can remember very well. Mr. Young. v,dien, at my house in Maine 15 years ago, I could get all the lobsters I Avanted at 25 cents apiece ; I can't do it now. Chief Justice Hazen. Down in the maritime provinces all 3^011 had to do when the tide was out w^as to go around with a hook and pull them out from under the rocks. Mr. Young. I know 15 years ago you could go down in Maine and buy them for 50 cents a dozen. Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Young. STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN G. COX, OF THE CONSOLIDATEB LOBSTER CO. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Cox, what is your business ? Mr. Cox. Connected with the Consolidated Lobster Co. Secretary Redfield. How are your operations conducted, Mr. Cox? ■ Mr. Cox. Our operations are conducted mostly by smacks. We send out after lobsters. Secretary Redfield. Are you sending out some of these well smacks to the Nova Scotia coast, Mr. Cox? Mr. Cox. Yes. Secretary Redfield. How many are you sending ? Mr. Cox. What do you mean? By fishing on the outside? Secretary Redfield. Yes. Mr. Cox. We had tw^o in that operation last year. Secretary Redfield. Are you going to do it again this next summer ? 142 AMKUK'AN-CANADIAN FISIIKRIKS CONFERENCE. Mr. Cox. No, sir; wo are out of the business, ^^'e are out of il. No more. Secretary Rkdkield. Why? Mr. Cox. AVell. Ave didii't find it profitable hist year, so that we liave (juit. I can tell yon faithfully we are all through ou that line. Secretary Kkdkikld. Who else is in the l)usiness. if you don't mind saying'? If you do, don't saj. Mr. Cox. In this same line you s[ioke about ? Secretary llEninELD. Yes. Mr. Cox. I believe there is only one more. The Boston Lobster Co., 1 think, o})erated one smack there last year besides ours. Seci'etary Ivkdkiklo. Am 1 correct, then, in understanding from yon and from Mr. Young together, that you had tw'o, and the Boston Lobster Co. had one, and Mr. Young had one, and that was all last year ? Mr. Young. Excuse me: I had none last year. I haven't had any for a number of years. Secretary Ivkhkikld. I beg your pardon; I didn't mean to misrep- resent you. Then there Avere only three last year? Mr. Cox. Only three, I guess, last year. Secretary Ivkdi'iklu. Now, search your memory, Mr. Cox. We want to get the facts — that is all we want. Three was the limit, was it. last year, so far as you know? Mr. Cox. So far as I kno>>'. Secretary Ivkdfieu). And are the geutliMuen of ihc l>oston Lobster Co. here to-day to speak for themselves? Mr. Cox. I don't know, sir. Sei'retary Rkdfiki-d. Is there anybody here representing the Bos- ton Lobster Co. ? A Voice. I can get them here if you want them here. Secretary Kkoimku). I think it might be vei-y desirable, iuasnuich as this subject has taken this comparatively new phase that has been explained by Mr. Young and Mr. Cox. I think it would be as Avell to get the whole thing. Chief Justire IIazen. It is well to get the whole business. Secretary IvKDKiKi.n. It atl'ects the situation in- certain particu- lars and makes it clearer than before. I Avant to say that Ave appre- ciate your testimony and INIr. Young's very highly. You did not find the business profitable. What is the reason for that, IVEr. Cox? Mr. Cox. "Well, on account of the si/e of the lobsters, for one thing. The Aery large lobsters Ave got np there in that locality — they are great big lobsters and hard to sell, for one thing; and another thing, the crew don't get enough to make it pay. Dr. SAirrii. ^'ou mean the native fishei-meu did not get enough to make it i^av or the men you sent on the \essel from Boston ? Mr. Cox. Well, I Avonld say that those are all native fishermen that Ave had in these vessels. They all came from the Provinces. Secretary Bkukikko. Did you have American ollicers ou your A^essel ? Mr. Cox. Yes. sir. They Avere naturalized; yes. sir. But they are all. practically, from their oAvn country, or from the British Provinces, and from that localitA' near Avhere theA^ fish. They leave AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEKENCE. 143 their traps there and after the close season, in June, go down and start in witli their own gear. Secretary Redfield. Is tlie capital invested in your business American capital? Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. And are the active oAvners of 3'our business native-born Americans ? Mr. Cox. AYell, I wouldn't sa}- that they are all native born. Secretary Redfield. What I want to get at is, whether it is in am' degree a fact that natives of Canada have come here and are op- erating this business, using their fellow countrymen there in the way I speak of, hj taking possible advantage of American citizenship as masters of vessels^ Mr. Cox. Well, they are all naturalized. Secretary Redfield. The captains, of course, have to be. Mr. Cox. Yes; but the other crew were not. Secretary Redfield. Are you a native-born American? ]Vli'. Cox. Xo, sir ; I was born in Xova Scotia myself, in 1859. Seci-etary Redfield. I congratulate you on being a 3'ear younger rhan I. What is your outlook at the lobster business, as you see it now, Mr. Cox I Mr. Cox. Well, my views ai'e practicall}' the same as Mr. Young's, who just preceded me. I think we ought to have a Federal law. Secretary Redfield. Would you favor a laAv which Avould pro- hibit the entrance into an American port of lobsters caught contrary to the hnv of any State or country, and also which would prohibit their transportation in interstate commerce ( Mr. Cox. Is that just coming in from Xova Scotia? Secretary Redfield. Xo ; I mean this, to explain it : Let us sup- pose a man catches an 8-inch lobster, or any lobster which is contrary to the laAv of the place where he gets it and then goes offishore for several days and meets accidentally a vessel offshore, and brings it into the port of Boston, or the port of Gloucester, or any other port. The suggestion is to enact a law which would prohibit those goods thus caught contrary to the law of the place where they were taken from entering the port in the first place; and if by any acci- dent they got in would prohibit their being shipped out of that port in inerstate commerce beyond the confines of the State. Mr. YouxG. Well, if the Federal law was passed so that the meas- ure was the same in each and every State it would cure the whole thing, wouldn't it? Secretary Redfield. That is exactly Avhat the object of it Avould be, Mr. Cox. To provide a laAv which would have the same bearing precisely everywhere, which would be 'enforced by an entirely inv partial authority from without, and which would have the double bearing of prohibiting, first, and preventing so far as humanly possi- ble, the entrance into any port of the goods unlawfully captured: and secondly, if they should have entered, would prohibit their move- ment in the commerce of the country outside of the confines of any State. That would be the purpose. Such a laAv, if enforced, you would regard as effective? Mr. Cox. Yes; I think it would be. Mr. Sweet. And you Avould favor it, Avould you? Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. 144 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Dr. Smith. Mr. Cox, Avhai would be your idea of the ualuro aud scope of a Federal lobster law ^ Mr. Cox. AVell, I think the measure should be the same in each and every State. That would be better for all concerned. Dr. SAirrii, Are vou pre})ared to su^'uest what that measure ono-ht tobe^ ■ ^^ - Mr. Cox. Well, I think a lOl-inch lobster— I think they ought to come to that. Dr. S^EiTi-i, And you would have that apply to the States to the westward where a 9-inch law has always prevailed? Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweet. Have you ever considered the matter of a uiaxiuuun size, Mr. Cox? Mr. Cox. No; I have not. Chief Jnstice Hazkn. Have yon had any experience in connection Avitli artificial propagation of lobsters? Mr. Cox. No; I have not; no, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. What w^ould be your opinion as to the efficacy of a measure which would require the ring through which the. lobster goes into the trap to be not less than a certain size, and that would provide a space between the slats large enough to enable a lobster not 9 inches or 10| inches to escape. Mr. Cox. I don't think it would be practicable. Chief Justice Hazen. Why? Mr. Cox. Well, on account of — as far as iNIr. Young said, they pnll them up there; they get them anywhere; they hang on the sides or someAvhere. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, if you ha\'e the ring of proper size at the entrance to the trap, how could a larger lobster get in? Mr. Cox. Well, they don't get in now, I suppose. Yon would catch about the same size they do now\ I suppose. Chief Justice Hazex. Xo; but you have the ring made so that the lobster larger than 10^1 inches can't get through the ring. How^ could any larger lobster get through? Mr. Cox. That is a pretty hard question to answer. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, I suppose a lobster goes through head first, doesn't he? Mr. Cox. He goes through either way. Chief Justice Hazex. Wouldn't it be possible to regulate the size so that a lobster over that size wouldn't get through? Mr. Cox. T don't think so. Chief Justice Hazex. You d(m't think it would be possible? Mr. Cox. No, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. I doM't understand the reason. You are a practical man in the business and I am not. But what is the reason it would not be? Mr. Cox. I think a lobster that would go into that ring would go in there anyway. I don't see where the ring w ould cut a great deal of figure. Of course it would in a certain w^ay ; but a 12-inch lobster would go in there if the ring was as thick as a 7 or 8-inch lobster. Chief Justice Hazex. Wouldn't it entirely depend upon the size of the ring? AMEBICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 145 Mr. Cox. Yes; it would. Chief Justice Hazex. A 7 or 8 inch lobster could go through a ring that a 12-inch lobster couldn't go through, couldn't it I Mr. Cox. Yes: I think so. Chief Justice Hazex. I am trying to get some information on this subject, because it is said that is a way you can regulate the size. Mr. Cox. I don't believe it could be regulated that way. Chief Justice Hazex. You don't believe it could, from your ex- perience ? Xow. do you think it is possible Mr. YouxG. I would like to answer that question myself. Mr. Chair- man. Lobsters are like men — some are long and lanky and some are stout. Xow. you must consider that. Chief Justice Hazex. There is a general average, though. I sup- pose. Mr. YouxG. There is a general average: yes; to be sure. But you will catch a lot of lobsters you don't want to catch, and you won't catch those that you do want to catch. But as long as there is any bait in the trap he will get his claw in that ring and will get his claw in the trap and come to the surface — as long as there is any bait in that trap. It is pretty hard to regulate it by the ring or the width of the slats. Another thing on the width of the slats — if the fishermen are honest and put the slats on dry and then put the traps in the water they will swell. It is pretty hard to judge by that. It would be awful hard to regulate the width between the slats on those lobster traps. Chief Justice Hazex. Do 3"ou agree to that. Captain? Capt. Carl C. Yottxg. Yes, sir. Dr. Smith. Mr. Young, may I ask you a question? Assuming a hungry lobster desires to get into a trap for the bait, the ring of which is not much greater in diameter than his own diameter, is there a po:^sibilitv that such a lobster would become jammed and would prevent the trap from fishing? Mr. Alfred L. Youxg. Why, I suppose that is a possibility, but not a p^obabilit3^ Dr. Smith. Xot a probability ? Secretary Redfield. Well, isn't it a fact Mr. Young, you say that when there is bait in the trap the lobster will try to get in any way. If he can't get in the ring he will get in the side or he will hang on to the trap and be pulled out of the water. Mr. YorxG. It is a fact ; we know it. Secretary Redfield. It is a fact, isn't it ? Mr. YoTTXG. You catch the best lobsters on the outside of the trap, sometimes. Secretary Redfield. I have seen it 50 times. Mr. YoirxG. Certainly. Pull them up with the trap and take them off in the boat. Mr. ForxD. It may be of some interest to merely state some ex- periments that were carried on up on the coast of Xova Scotia in regard to the efficacy of regulating the space between the two lower laths on either side. We set some traps so arranged, baited, and put others with no bait in them : put lobsters in them and put them out. We found in the instances in which the traps were not baited that all the lobsters that were small enough went out. And so in the trap where the bait was out the lobsters went out. And it may also be 51950—18 10 14(^ AMKETCAN-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. stated that following tliat experiment — thouiih it was not adi)pted in Canada and has not been vet — that NeAvi'oundland took it np two Years ag"o, and Newfoundland is following it to the present time and using it as of very material advantage as controlling the minimum size of lobsters that may be taken. That is the existino- law in Newfound- land. Secretarv l\KnFiF.i.i>. There was Due interesting uuitter brought out m the testiuumy of ]Mr. Yomig and ^Ir. Cox which 1 want to be sure and miderstand correctly, and that is that when the lobster passes a certain size he is not as marketable. That. T think, is the fact. Mr. Young. Yes. sir. Secretary Redfield. And about what size would you put that'^ Mr. Yoi'NG. AVhen a lobster is ;> pounds or over we do not want him — do not like to take him. Secretary Kkufiei.!). I would like to ask Dr. Smith if lobsters larger than that are not the most productive^ Dr. Smith. A lobster weighing 8 pounds is two ov three times as productive of eggs as one weighing a pound and a half. Secretarv Redfield. What does that mean in figures, approxi- mately? Go outside the facts — imagine a 4-pound lobster. What Avill that produce in eo'as as compared with a pound and a half lob- ster I Dr. S:\trru. I can work it out for you in tabular form very quickly. For every increase of '2 inches in size there is double the uiunber of eggs produced. Secretary Redfiejld. So that you mean by that Dr. Smith. Say, starting with a 10-inch lobster, which we will assume produces 10.000 eggs, a li*-inch lobster will produce 20,000 eggs and a 14-inch lobster will produce 40.000 eggs, until you get the maximum, Avhich is something over 100,000 egg-s. Secretary Kedfieid. The interesting part of that, it seems to me, is to be found in the fact that the lobsters which are of the least conmiercial value are of the largest value for reproduction. Dr. Smith. For keeping np the supply. Secretary- Redfield. That is a very important fact, if it is a fact, ]Mr. Y'oung. Mr. Y'orNG. ]\Iay 1 ask the doctor a qtu^stion? Wouhl it be more valuable to liberate the lobsters u.p to lOA inches than it would to save those over 15 from a propagation standpoint? Dr. S:NriTu. Well, at th.e present tinu^ the productive capacity of the lobster scales is much greater for the smaller lobsters, be- cause those lobsters are much more numerous. In normal times, before man had begun to make his depredations, it was the larger lobsters on which the future supply depended. So that if Ave could secure anything like a reestablishment of the normal by any protec- tive legislation which Avas feasible, then the future lobster supply, in mv opinion, ought to be safeguarded by the protection of these older lobsters, Avhich have the least market value. Does that answer your question ? Mr. Young. Yes. AVhat I have always thought was that a lob- ster — if you allow a lobster to get to lOi inches, he has had time enough after maturity to produce his kind once or twice, and it would be more ett'ective, considering the large number that would re- Di'oduce, than to save those over lo inches. I can't help but think AMERICAN-CANADIAISr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 147 that if you kill all your chickens you can't get any old hens some day or other. If you catch all your small lobsters, you will not get any old lobsters over 13 inches a little later. That is my point. Secretary Redfield. That is a good point. Has the gentleman come from the Boston Lobster Co.? [No response.] Pending his coming I want to raise another phase of the subject having to do with the general proposition which we are studying on the matter of the mutual relations of the Canadian and American vessels. I am a little bit surprised and very much interested not to hear any- one raise the matter of the Canadian bounty upon fishing. I would like to ask Capt. Young whether that is, in his mind, an important factor. Capt. Carl C. Young. I Avill take that up in Gloucester to-mor- row. To my mind it is not such a great factor. Secretary Redfield. It is not such an important factor? Capt. Young. No. I do not really think so. I do not really konw how large it would amount to to-day, but I was talking in regard to that the other day, and I thought it amounted to pretty nearly $10 a ton per vessel. Secretary Redfield. That is the reason why I am bringing the matter up. Chief Justice Hazen. After the abrogation of the treaty of Wash- ington there was an arbitration for injury done to the fishing, and the result of that arbitration was an award of $5,-500,000. Of that amount $1,500,000 went to Newfoundland and $4,000,000 came to the Dominion of Canada. The Parliament of Canada decided to make a fund of that, and it was invested at 4 per cent, and the in- terest was to be paid every year for the encouragement of deep-sea fishing and the encouragement of construction of fishing vassels. And it amounts to this: $100,000 is divided every year among all those people engaged in our fisheries. No fishing vessel can get over $80 — the most it can get is $1 a ton up to $80. The men on the fishing vessel — the most they have ever got — it varies — the most they have ever got is $6,15. The boats get $1 apiece. Those engaged in the boat fishing get $1 apiece for each boat and the men engaged in the boats something like $4.25. Sometimes it runs down as low as $3 something. It varies with the number of men engaged in the business. I have heard this matter discussed as being a large bounty. I have heard it discussed that a bounty was paid on the catch of the fish, as is the case with France. The men go out from France and get a bounty from the French Government. But the Canadian bounty is what I have told you. There is no $10 a ton; the most is $1 a ton, and that is limited to vessels of 80 tons. Capt. Young. I beg your pardon ; I know better, because I know there is no vessel that gets over $100. I meant when I said that, $1 a ton. Did I say $10 a ton? That is where I made a mistake, because I know it was $1 a ton. It is from $8 to $12 for the boat. Chief Justice Hazen. No ; each boat owner gets $1. Capt. Young. From $8 to $10. Chief Justice Hazen. No: it doesn't amount to that. Each mar. on a boat gets from $3 odd to $4 odd, each man on a vessel gets from $5 odd to $6 odd, depending on the number engaged in the industry. Of course, the total amount can never exceed $160,000, or 4 per cent of the $4,000,000, which was Canada's share paid by 148 AMEBIC AN-CANAD1.\K FISHERIES COXFEEENCE. the United States, you understand, under the arbitration which fol- lowed the treaty of Washington. Capt. Young. Well, I meant all right. Chief Justice Hazex. There is no doubt about that ; you always mean right, Captain. You have convinced us of that. Secretary Eedfield. Now, there are certain other suggestions: which I should like to make for your consideration and for the in- formation of the commission, asking you to advise us of the facts, either now or later at the session of this afternoon, if you have any facts or know of anyone who has any facts which bear upon the matters wdiich are before us. It is the information of the commis- sion in a very general way that the food supply of Great Britain from fishing has been cut in half by the war, or more than cut in half by the w^ar. Chief Justice Hazex. It is not a third. Secretary Eedfield. The chief justice corrects me and says it is only about a tliird of what it was; that substantially^ the entire trawler fleet of Great Britain, with such additions as they have been able to make to it, is occupied in the war ; that there have been very serious losses to that fleet of vessels destroyed by mines, torpedoes, and by naval operations generally; that in addition to that the fleet has been under wear and tear and the war has made impossible the up- keep to any normal degree for a period of nearly or quite three years past, and that that condition still continues; that the shipbuilding capacity of Great Britain is overtaxed with the demands of the navy and of the merchant fleet ; that for a considerable period after the v\^ar the shipbuilding industr}^ of Great Britain will necessarily be severely taxed in order to restore the merchant fleet to its former di- mensions. Incidental to that j^ou, of course, know that so great has been the demand for shipbuilding in Great Britain that, although the war has been in progress and her navy in active use during the war, it is officially, I believe, published that the navy of Great Britain is to-day double the size it was three and one-half years ago. Conse- OjUently, the commission have this general information : That the fish- ing fleet — the steam trawler fleet I am speaking of now^ — of Great Britain is in a condition where it is quite unequal to the demands made upon it for food, and that the close of the war seems likelj^ to find it, if the w^ar shall long continue, even less equal to meeting those demands. The people of Great Britain have made great sacrifices in the way of their food — greater than we have jet dreamed of mak- ing — and they must look forward to a considerable time following*^ the war in which it Avill be necessary to restore this fleet to its normal dimensions, which will take a considerable time, if you remember the demands, to build some millions of tons of merchant shipping at that time. I am not telling you all these things to inform you ; I am speaking of them as the information which in a very general way is before us. I am not making an official statement of fact, but simply summarizing briefly the information we have, in the thought that there will be those among you wdio, having knowdedge of the matter, }nay yourselves inform us later as to whether in any degree these things are right or wrong, incorrect or correct. The apparent situation that is brought before the commission, then, is one in wdiich it does not seem to be physically possible to have any very rapid or any very large entry from the other side of AMEEICAISr-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 149 an}' new element in the fishing competition of the North Althintic from the source that I have suggested. If that is true, to the extent it is true it is a very important factor in the matter that we are dis- cussing. And I think perhaps it would only be fair to say, in behalf of the general fishing fraternity at large, that there perhaps is no more wonderful story, full of romance, of heroism, of self-sacrifice, than that same story of the English trawlers in the North Sea during the three winters and summers that have gone by, when, without re- gard to their own safety or comfort, they have fought the fight in which you and I are just as much interested as they, at a fearful cost to themselves, and v/ithout thought of life or anything of the kind. It is one of the most heroic stories in the world — that of these merchant fishermen called into this very terrible service. They are becoming more familiar Avith German mines than they were with the fish which it was their habit to catch. But it has a bearing upon the general economic situation of the world. I want to ask if there is anybody here who is able to inform the commission as to the extent to which fresh fish are brought into Boston or Gloucester from other countries than Canada. Is there brought in here any quantity of fish from Newfoundland? Mr. Geogre E. Willey. I think thi-ough the bureau we could give you the figures of the imports from Novo Scotia — in fact, all points — of fi'esh fish for any period you might like. Secretary Redfield. I think we can get the customs records, and have asked for them. But what I want to get at very candidly is the extent to which this proposition we are discussing, of allowing Canadian vessels to come from the banks direct into Boston or else- Avhere and to go back direct to the banks — the extent to which that really comes as a factor in the normal operation of the business. Now, if we have got plants enough — American plants enough— to supply all the demands of this country, that is one thing; if we have not, that is a very different thing. If we need for our own food supply to call upon other countries for supplies of fresh fish, and are doing it, then the question whether we will facilitate in a small degree the movement of that supply is very different from what it would be if we had an abundant oversupply and were simply adding to the facilities in the way I speak of. Now, is it not a fact that fresh fish, or fish of some kind, is imported not only from Newfoundland but even from across the sea? Is it not a fact that fresh fish is imported — or fish — either fresh fish or salted fish, is imported from the Irish coast into New England? Isn't that a fact? It is, is it not, sir? Mr. C. F. WoNSON. Yes, sir. STATEMENT BY MR. C. F. WONSON, REPRESENTING GLOUCESTER SALT FISH CO. Mr. WoNSON. I was waiting for the commission to come to Gloucester; I was simply a spectator, and I would rather be a lis- tener than to talk. But your remarks give me an idea, and I think I can, from my standpoint at least, furnish a little light. We in Gloucester have conveniences as a very large distributor of fish food, particular salt-fish foods, but we have not, and have not had for some little time — and from the indications now under the new demand 150 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. which has been created by the Government piiblicit}^ — Ave have not the facilities for supplying the material. There is no question about that; and I think that when you come to Gloucester to-morrow, you gentlemen, jou will get unanimous testimony to that effect. That must be the honest presentation. We have not the material; we have not the conveniences for securing the material from our own American vessels. The raw material must come from outside, both fresh and salt. As a distributing center I think we have the plant sufficient. We can do a very much larger business than we are doing at the present time. The unprecedented demand which has been created from one cause and another — principally, I think, from the publicity work of the Government — has been such this year that none of the plants in Gloucester, even the largest, have been able to supply anywhere near the demand. My own plant, which supplies wholesale a half million dollars worth of fish products, has turned down this present year more business than ever, and that business in itself is twice as much as the business lias ever developed in any jeixr previous in the last 18 years. It has been a peculiar situation. The demand for the product has been such, and so in- sistent, that jobbing houses have been apparently willing to pay almost any price — any asking price. The ordinary demand from regular customers has given each house so much business that few, if any, of us have been desirous of any new business. And time after time, in replying to a request for quotations, prices have been named to customers that were extortionate, and, I will tell you frankly, simply because we did not want the business. But we couldn't refuse them — the order came back. Now, that is the condition generally, and it is a condition that is not going to be materially affected after this war is over. The country is being educated, thanks to the United States Government, that fish is a pretty good thing to eat. We people in the fish busi- ness — and I, like my friend here, have been in it all my life, and my father and grandfather before me, and we have not had the business brains enough to educate the people of this country in re- gard to fish. Right in my own town of Gloucester, a fishing town, you would think that everybody there would eat fish even out of patriotic feeling for the business of the city. On account of the present condition and high price of other food products very many of my personal friends have asked me to send them over a box of fish, and I do so readily. This is something that happened only two nights ago. The cashier of one the banks, sitting in the board of trade rooms, said, " Have you got any more of that fish? " And I said, " Yes; but you haven't used up all I sent you last week? " "Yes," he said, "it is all gone; everybody that comes in, my wife serves this fish to them, and they say, ' Where did you get that nice fish; never had anything like that before'; send me over twice as much." He said, "Prior to that box of fish I got from you — and I got it because ever^^body was talking fish and I thought it was about time for us to help out the situation by eating some fish — but," he said, " prior to that box of fish I got from you we hadn't had any fish in our house and had not served any on our table for three or four years." Now, what do you think of that, gentlemen? And that was "not fresh fish, it was cured fish. And that is being done all over the country. AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEEjSTCE. 151 Chief Justice IIazek. I think the people throughout the country have forgotten how to cook salt fish. There is nothing more de- licious. Mr. WoNsox. True. Tliat is one thing we have failed to do in the salt-fish business. The fresh-fish people haA'e been wiser, and they are distributing all over the country pamphlets, recipes, ways of cooking fresh fish. We, the salt-fish people, have done it in a small way, but not generally. We haven't made it large enough. That is the trouble now. Most people don't know how to cook it. It is a little more trouble, I will admit, to cook a piece of salt fish pal- atably — not only in the cooking but in the preparation and the serv- ings — than it is to take a nice sirloin steak and throw it on the griddle : but if it is done right, gentlemen, you have one of the most delicious dishes you can find anywhere. Chief Justice Hazex. I entireb/ agree with 3^011. Mr. WoNSON. Now, gentlemen, from a personal standpoint in my own particular business, I want material. I do not care where it comes from: give me material. And I will put out the goods, sell the goods. It is a selfish standpoint. But in the larger aspect of it I believe it is for the benefit of the country as a whole, and that is what I am working for. I will sacrifice my personal ambition or any personal monetary gain for nn^self if any man can show me that it is for the good of the country. And this is. And if there was any- thing that pleased me last night at the bano.uet it was to hear an official of the United States Government put the thing right down on a good, square, solid basis. That is the way I like to hear a man talk. And, Mr. Secretary, you can reh^ upon me every time; and there are a lot of us that vrill back you right up. Now, get the facts — and that is exactly what ycu are doing. You are getting the facts, the way you are proceeding, to settle the thing. If it hurts me, I will stand for it — and ever^^body else will. We have to get over this idea that because we are interested in a particular line it has got to be ]jrotected to the exclusion of every other citizen of the United States. That has been done too long, and it has been bad for our country. I thank you, gentlemen. By the waj^, I have not given you a chance to ask any questions. I will answer any question you ask, if I can. Dr. Smith. Mr. Wonson. are you the owner of any fishins' vessels? Mr. WoNSON. No, sir. I am a curer and a distributor. Dr. Smith. You have been the owner of fishing vessels ? Mr. Woxsoi>. Only of small boats, and never remunerative. I have always gotten out of it just asquickh' aslcould. But properly handled vessel ownership is very remunerative. The fact that it was not so in our case was our own fault. We sent vessels for years out of Gloucester — a large fleet, as you knoAv. Mr. Smith. I guess we had not educated the trade up to eating fish: we gutted the market on our own salt fish; paid the vessels nothing. The crews on the co- operative plan made very little ; they couldn't maintain themselves and families. Yie turned around because we hadn't developed the trade. We sold the goods without any profit — hardly enough to pay overhead expenses. And it Avas one of the most pitiable things that ever happened. Gloucester, which was an old fishing toAvn, having developed 15, 20, or 25 individual firms, all vessel OAvners — those fel- loAvs Avorked from daAdiglil to dark — economical livers — and thov 152 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 1 Mil those vessels t'oi- years and years and at the end went bankrupt AA-ith an investment of anvAvhere 'from $50,000 to $l>0(),()00 or $800,000, and Avent bankru])t simply because we didn't know enouoh about the business to develoj) the demand so that i)eoi)le Avere Avillino- to l)ay a fair price for a first-class food product. Secretary REOKiELn. Mr. Wonson, are you familiar with the city of St. Louis? jMr. Won SON. I don't knoAv but very little about Avestern cities. Secretary Redfield. Do you know hoAV fish is sold in St. Louis? Mr. WoNSON. Salt fish, you mean? Secretary Redfield. Any kind. Mr. WoNSON. No; I can't say that I do. Secretary Redfield. I am not making' a special point about St. Louis, but I am simply si)eakino- of it as a typical inland city. Has there ever been, to your knoAvledge, since you have been in the fish business, any definite attempt on the ])art of the business at lari^e to cidtivate continuously a market for fish in a city like St. Louis ^ Mr. WoNSON. None Avhatever in my whole recollection. Secretary Redfield. Well, now, do you suppose that the cotton merchants send their traveling salesmen to sell cotton goods? They do. don't they? Mr. WoNSON. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Don't you suppose that the steel mills send their traveling salesmen to St. Louis to sell steel? JMr. Won SON. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Well, is it a fact, then, that there has not been an attempt on the part of the fishing interests that you repre- sent at large to take the same methods that have been used by other American industries to establish their products in these great central markets? Mr. WoNSON. Yes; I must have misunderstood your question. That has been done. We send out traveling men Secretary Redfield. Yes, I knoAV ; but are they sent out — and this is quite important, it seems to me — are they sent out for the purpose of training the community in the use of these goods, or are they sent out to indi\idual customers Avhom you want to get an order from ? Mr. WoNsoN. Yes. That is Avhat I thought a''OU meant. No, not to any degree; but if you will alloAv me a Avord I Avill say that Ave ha.ve one concern in (Tloucester Avhicli has done that to a more or less extent. The ]U'esent Gorton-PcAv Co. started in business — Slade (Norton Co. — introduced a specialty, and they did that successfully. They proved the efficacy of that method. They Avould send out mis- sionaries and Avorkmen and create a denuind from the consumer, from the householder, for their business. SecretaiT Redfield. Was it a successful enterprise? JNfr. Won SON. Very; indeed. Chief Justice LIazen. Have you sent out people Avho gave demon- strations of the methods of cooking salt fish? Mr. AVoNsoN. It has not been done to any extent. I think in a \ery small Avay through buyers by the Goiton-PeAv people. It has been done more by cooking schools in different sections of the country, and they have taken OA^er our product, samples, and have demon- strated Avhat could be done Avith them. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 153 Secretary Redfielo. It is possible, in your judgment, Mr. Wonson, to add to the demand for fish food on the part of the country's population ? Mr. WoNSON. Why, it has scarcely been touched, Mr. Secretary, I think. Secretary Kedfiei.]). You regard the opportunity as open there? Mr. WoNsoN. Oh, yes. Secretary Eedfield. Well, suppose that each family in the TJnited States were induced to use a pound a ^^eek more fish. Figuring on 20.000,000 families, you avouIcI have approximately 80,000,000 pounds a month more fish consumed. Are there facilities known to you to >exist to suppl}^ that demand ? Mr. WoNSON. Not in this countr}^ Secretary Eedfield. Or in Canada? Mr. Won SON, No, sir. Secretary Redfteld. Are the facilities availalile from any source? Mr. Won SON. Not anywhere; no. Secretary Redfield. And yet is it not the fact that such a state of affairs would still mean that we were eating about onl}^ one-third the amount of fish food that other nations eat? Mr. Won SON. Surely, Secretary Eedfield. That is the fact, is it not ? Mr. WoNSON. It is, undoubtedly. Secretary Eedfield. Then do the commission gather from what you say that there is an untouched opportunity available? Mr. WoNSON. Almost. Secretary Eedfield. Practically a virgin soil. Mr. WoNSON. Almost, sir. It just requires energy and efficient management. But as you made the statement, I think, yesterdaj'' or last night — while the Government was ]3erfectly ready to supply the men and the money to develop this demand, you wanted to be iissured of our power to produce the goods. Secretary Eedfield. Produce the goods. Mr. WoNsoN. You were just right. We can't do it to-day. Secretai'v Eedfield. We are ready to put on a man and get in behind the projjosition of adding to the fish-food demand, but Ave must be reasonably certain that now or in the near future there will be created the means of supplying that demand, otherwise we will be in a veiy peculiar position of creating a demand for which there Avas no supply. Noav, I Avas thinking something of my oAvn ■experience while on this question, and to my mind — I may be Avrong ; I Avant you to correct me if I am — this is a very much larger ques- tion, twenty times larger question, than the admission of all the A'essels of the av oriel to American ports. The one is by comparison trivial; the other is by comparison enormous. If we are right in thinking that there exists an unused possibility here, then the serious question is, Hoav and Avhere are Ave going to get the means for filling the demand? Noav, I can tell you that I knoAv that in the city of AYashington there are families that are, so to speak, specializing on rabbits to-day. They do not Avant to buy meat — the meat supply is scarce — the fish, Avhen you pay 40 cents or 50 cents a pound for hali- but, as is charged in the retail market, is expensive, and I Avas in a family a short time ago Avhere they soberly Avere buying canvas-back ducks, which are common on Chesapeake Bay, relatiA'ely, because they 154 AMEBIC AK-CAXADl AX ribHiilUES COInFEEENCE. Avei'e cheuper than lisli and cheaper than meat. Xoav, these are the big things. If it is possible, as we think it is — and we have had some experience introducing fish food ourselves — yon find no diffi- culty. Dr. Smith, in introducing fish food? Dr. Smith. None whatever. Secretary Eedfield. Has j^our propaganda in putting fresh fish on the farm — in the pond- — been taken up willingly? Dr. Smith. It has been taken up with avidity. Secretary Eedfield. There is an enormous demand. I speak of the ])lan which you may have heard of — of saying to the farmer, *" Make a little pond on your farm, dam any old brook you have got and get a pond; or if you have got a pond, clean it out; we will fm-nish fish to stock youi' pond, and all we will ask you to do is to tell us how the old thing works '■ — and that is seized upon. And we are taking fish from the Pacific and bringing them into the Plains States, and we can't begin to supply the demand. Trainloads won't supply it. There is a demand, so far as our experience goes for anything. We are running fifty-odd hatcheries in different l^arts of the country and there is an untouched field here. I will mention now something that New England people smile at, and that is the old, despised, New England dogfish, Avhich is now on the market as grayfish. I suppose the largest order for canned fish ever placed in the ITnited States was placed for an order of gray- fish — 43 carloads in one order. An entirely new project. And all we could fill, out of that order was 800,000 cans, because we couldn't get the tin cans. That shows what is possible to he done. To- day the steamers are coming into American ports bringing whale meat, which is absorbed at good prices by the Pacific coast, where it is served on the tables of all the leading hotels in Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, and San Diego. A Voice. What is it served as? Secretary Eedfield. Whale meat. And in my home, the cook that cooked and served whale meat on my table two weeks ago doesn't know to this day that she wasn't cooking beef. Now, if these things are true— and Mi-. Wonson confirms them in a meas- ure — tlien alL we have to do in this country is to get busy to find the means of meeting the demand. For I take it that no demand of the kind ever grows less, that the taste for fish food has never in history been known to go off when once established, and that if we can bring the American people up to one-third of the standard of Great Britain it must mean for the fishing ports of the countrj^ the most strenuous life they ever knew. So that instead of saying, " Thou shalt not." must they not in self-defense say to everyboch^ who can bring a fish in, be it in a canoe or what not. Avherever it may come from — South Africa, Canada, Ireland, Liberia — wherever it comes from, " For God's sake bring us every fish you can get, because we are going to need it all " ? But all we can get for years to come is not going to be suffi- cient. Now, candidly, I am afraid I am going to make good on my proposition if I can find the man. We have got the money. But I am afraid that in six months Ave Avill be up against it. We sent a man 1.000 cases of grayfish to Baltimore, thinking they Avould last all season. He sold them in a Aveek. It Avas gone. I am afraid that at the end of six months Ave Avill be right up against an eni- AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. ' 155 bargo because there are not physical means sufficient in Canada and the United States taken together to furnish the material that the country will call for. Now, I hope I am wrong, and I am not making a speech here. I want to get the truth, and you know it, probabl3^ better than I. We just see one end. FUETHER STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN BTJllNS, JR., REPRESENTING THE BAY STATE FISHING CO. Mr. Burns. Speaking of what this country requires, more par- ticularly on the fresh fish, it seems to me that we have not 20,000,000 families to draw upon. We are necessarily confined to certain ter- ritory^ in the shipment of fresh fish. We get some small shipments as far West as Chicago on fresh shipments. But most of our native codfish, so to speak, come in here in the olcl-fashionecl sailing ves- sels and our steam traAvlers, are landed at the port of Boston, and are distributed in this vicinity. They go at certain seasons of the year as far south as Baltimore and Washington in limited quantities, Xew York at the present time is a good-sized market, and Phila- delphia and through Pennsylvania and Connecticut and the New England States. That takes the bulk of our fish. Now, it is abso- lutely impossible to reach many points beyond that region. Therefore, naturall}^, we are confined in a smaller territory than the whole of the United States for the distribution of fresh fish. That, of course, does not appl}^ to Mr. AVonson, because he is in the salt-fish business. Thej^ can be landed as long as they have the facilities for handling them and can be sent to any distant point. But as far as concerns the fresli fish, which is the business of Boston, we have to be very careful on the overproduction. At the present time anything can be sold at good prices. Taking into consideration the fleet equipped to do any fishing, we have working out of Boston 10 trawlers — or \^•e will say 9^ trawlers, as one of them will not catch a full, share — and that has been about the average number of steam trawlers occupied in the business for several years since we have been doing business. In 1917 these nine vessels produced about 33,000,000 pounds of fish. Now, we have under construction steam trawlers that naturally would be occupied in fishing that are now taken by the Government, the Navj^ Department. We v\^ould have added within the next 12 months or thereabouts 29 new steam trawlers. That is calling those now taken. by the Government as new. In other vrords, .we haA^^e seven trawlers which the Navy is using as mine sweepers. We have under construction, which are about ready for launching, 22 steam trawlers, for the most part of a much larger type than the vessels we are now fishing, with the exception of the two Gorton-Pew vessels, which are of the full capacity. That is 29 against 10 that within the next 12 months I believe will be sailing out of the port of Boston. It is a tremendous increase, figuring that 10 vessels produce 33,000,000 pounds. Now, that is a very delicate, perishable article of food, and we simply can't reach distant points with it. It has got to be cured or otherwise taken care of before we can go much beyond the Missis- sippi Valley, and they will use very limited quantities. The southern fisheries, as you all know, have been practically destroyed for want of men and equipment. The past ^''ear or so Gloucester has sold out 156 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. its fleet because they couldn't man them successfully. It was not profitable for them to man their vessels, and therefore, as I under- stand it, they have sold some 120 vessels within a short period that might be producing fish to-day. And from an investment standpoint we certainly have got to be more or less careful that we don't over- produce and cause these vessels to fish without gain. We must have an independent production ; there is no question about that ; and an overproduction at a price that they couldn't fish successfully at would be the worst thing that could happen to the industry. It cer- tainly would not attract capital to the extent of the construction of 22 new trawlers. The business has got to be made attractive for people to invest their monej^ in it. The vessels that are being built to-day are costing approximately $150,000 to build. Secretary Eedfield. Before you leave, Mr. Burns, there is one thing I want to ask. You can reach with fresh fish as far as the Mississippi River? Mr. Burns. In limited quantities. Secretary Eedfield. And how far south? Mr. Burns. We have gone as far as Xew Orleans this past winter, but very unsuccessfully. The fish are now in cold storage in Xew Orleans and in one or t^vo other States in the South. The fish that we shipped in the green state did not meet with mij satisfaction. Secretary Eedfield. Now, this seems to be, then, the fact : That Great Britain uses in normal times, with a population of about 45,000,000, 4,000,000,000 pounds of fish purchased on the fresh fish basis. We use, with a population of 100.000,000, rather less than half that amount— 2,000,000.000 pounds of fish. Now. in this area that you can reach b}^ your own statement, you have seven-tenths of the entire population of the United States. You have 70,000,000 of people. Consequently, it would seem possible to increase the sale if we have the goods to sell veiT largely before we reach any- thing like the proportions that Great Britain uses. Great Britain, with" 45,000,000 people, uses 4,000,000.000 pounds : in the area you can reach you have 70,000,000 people, and yet in the whole country w^e use but 2,000,000,000 pounds. It would seem as if. should we reach the same level of consumption that Great Britain reaches — I don't know that we can — if we did, however, you would have three times, within the territory you speak of. the sale of fish that now exists in the whole United States. Now, why is it not feasible to make some marked attempt in that direction? Oh. Mr. Burns, your 29 vessels, and 29 more, and a third 29 more, would be swamped out of sight by the demand of 70,000,000 of people if the demand among those 70,000,000 rose to half that which it is per capita in Great Britain. And you would have to count as Grimsby counts trawders — not by the dozen, but by the hundred — in order to meet that demand. That is what seems to me to be the sober truth : now, if it is not the truth I want to know it. Now, isn't this also the truth? That a fresh fish store, adequately equipped and given six days in the week for the sale of fresh fish and sea food generally, is most uncommon beyond the Allegheny Momi- tains. How many of us know of the existence of one? Now, I am in the center of the fishing industry of the country and I am speak- ing to experts in this line. How many of you know of the existence of such a store? There mav be many, but I never saw any. How AMERICAN-CAlirADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 157 many know of the existence of a fresh fish store, adequately equipped with storage facilities, anywhere west of Pittsburgh? Isn't it a fact, or is it a fact, that the fish business is done on Friday morning by the butcher? Isn't that the fact throughout that west- ern country ? It may not be so, but I ask for information. Isn't it feasible to put in the mouths of the miners of Pittsburgh the same kind of fish food that they Avere accustom.ed to eat before they left Europe? It is not done. Isn't it feasible to do it? Now, these are questions which affect the Department of Commerce. I am ready to get in and help to do those things, and put men on the road to meet that situation. STATEMENT BY MR. GEORGE C. FITZPATRICK, OF BOSTON. Mr. FiTZPATRicK. I would like to ask you a few questions in re- gard to your statement. Secretar}^ Redfield. I am not making statements; I am asking- questions. Mr. FiTZPATKiCK. I would like to ask, in view of the fact that this statement has been made, two or three things. What are those 29 traAvlers going to do in the meantime? What does the bureau stand ready to do? Are they ready to lun a train of refrigerator cars doATn on the pier Secretary Redfield. One at a time. Will you have them answered ? Mr. FiTZPATRicK. For instance, when 10 big trawlers come in, would it be possible to have a train of refrigerator cars come doAvn on the Avharf ? Secretary Redfield. I told Mr. Burns last night that if he would agree — that if this thing were taken up on a large scale I would personally go to the Director of Railroads and do my best with him, and I thought I could say trains would be put in position to run from Boston to Chicago as Avere needed. But I can't do it unless I am go- ing to be assurecl that the traffic is to be obtained. Mr. FITZPATRICK. For instance, here is the men that enter into the consideration for the working out of that problem. If those vessels bring in that fish, and it is not used on the profitable days, these men can't get compensated. Would the authorities at Washington stand ready to advocate a pension to the fishermen that have fished for 25, 30, or 35 years, so that they Avould feel that at a certain time in their life they Avould be provided for, the men that take the chances? I put ill a good deal of time at the fish pier, and I observe things Avhere improvements could be made. But the conditions surround- ing the fishing industry — the men engaged in the business have not had the opportunity. 'They are there from daylight until dark at night trying to economize, and the business has been carried on for 25, 30, or 35 years, and I never heard of a man retiring yet Avith a dollar, hardly, from the business. Plug day after day. Now, you want to have "those fishermen go out and give their youth, vitality, intelligence — such as it is — and then Avhen they get to be 45, 50,' or 55 years old they are thrown into the scrap. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Fitzpatrick, pardon me. Mr. PoAA^ell, of the Boston Lobster Co., has very kindly come and has Avaited some minutes, and I feel it is my duty to let him speak now. I will say that I Avas not making any suggestion of throAving anybody into the scrap. All that is being done is, as business men, to see if there 158 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, is a business opportunity, and if so, we are ready to spend the Gov- 3rninent's money in helping to develop it. That is all. Is Mr. ei Powell in the room? STATEMENT BY MR. AVERY L. POWELL, PRESIDENT OF THE BOSTON LOBSTER CO. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Powell, we are interested to inquire what your experience has been in fishing for lobsters olf the Nova Scotia coast with the well smacks. Did you have a number of smacks run- ning down there last year? Mr. Powell, No, sir; we did not. I had one four years ago — three or four years ago — and I took her oif. Last year I didn't send her. In fact, I don't have any intention of sending her any more. Secretary Kedi'Miolo. AVhy not'^ Mr. PowKLL. Well, there is nothing in it. The lishernien couldn't make money enough to make it pay. Secretary Kedfikld. AVhy Avas that, Mr. Powell? Mr. Powell. Well, it took too long for a trip, and the lobsters they caught were undesirable — the}'' were large; they were either large or small, and not ver^^ desirable to handle — and they were so long on the trip a lot of them died, and linally we gave it up. And, in fact, my smack was lost, anyway, last year. I took her off before she was lost, anyway. Secretary Ivedfii^ld. To what extent has that business been done, to your knowledge, Mr. Powell? Mr. PoAVELL. Well, it has been for three or four years. Secretary Kedi'ield. IIoav many vessels have been engaged in it? Mr. PoAVELL. Well, I Ihink the first year there Avere three or four. Three. And the next year I think there Avere four, and then three. I think last year that Mr. Cox Avas the only one that had a smack doAvn there, as far as I knoAV. Secretary Ivkdeikld, You regard it as a dead industry? Mr. l*owKLL. It is. I don't think anyone Avould care to go doAvn there for lobsters. Secretary 1vedetei,d, Mr. PoAvell, Avonld you favor a laAv Avhich Avould prohibit the entrance into any American port of fish caught contrary to the Uxav of any State or country, and Avhich Avould further prohibit the moNcment of those lobsters thus unlaAvfully caught in interstate commerce? Mv. PoAVKiiii. AVhy, yes; T think I Avould. Yes, sir. Secretary Kedfielu. Do you think that such a Federal laAv is nec- essary to the protection of the industry? Mr. PoAVELL. I think that there should be a Federal hiAv or some uniform laAv betAveen all the States so that there avouUI be no infring- ing on any of the States. Secretary REOFiELn. I am very nuich obliged to you, Mv. PoAvell. STATEMENT BY MR. E. J. O'HARE, FISH MERCHANT. Mr. O'Hake. My business is to represent all the fresh-fish business in Boston, and my experience has been for 55 years catching and sell- ing fish. 1 think that the sooner avc open the doors Avide oi)en to all countries the better for the United States. I believe that the Presi- dent's declaration for a democratic Avorld is the right thing — not 1 corporation or 10 corporations or 50 corporations. Let the people AMEKICAN-CAISrADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 159 get out and rule all the countries. That is what it is coming to, in my opinion; and the sooner it gets to that the better. I remember when we had free trade with Canada before on herring and other fish. We were buying stock in there then for less than they could buy it. You ask me why — why it was ? We put down cash there to pay for the goods, and we sent our vessels in there and we bought herring anywhere from 25 cents to 50 cents a barrel less than the people down there could buy it, for the reason that we went down with cash and we paid the fishermen cash. Down there they w^ere taking the fish and putting it on the books and paying them in food. Now, I have been in favor of free trade, gentlemen, ever since I went fishing at IG. I went into the United States Navy very shortly after the Civil War, and I have been in every country of the world except India. I have been in Melbourne, and have made some in- quiries there about the fishing industry there, and I found there that they have prohibitory taxes on their books which stop any American vessel or American corporation going there. I found out they prob- ably would give me a permit for one or two years, not longer than that, but after that they charged me 30 per cent. I said, " That is prohibitive." They wanted a fishing industry there. One company went from London there, and one went from Scotland, and each one failed for the reason that thej'^ couldn't do the business there. But they are singing out all the time about fish — fish being so high. They can't get fish. They have been trying to get them. The Gov- ernment over there has spent over $500,000,000 or more. They found the banks and the fish, but couldn't get any company to go there and do the fishing. You spoke about rabbits a while ago. There they destroy the rabbits all they can. Every day probably there are 50 rabbits destroyed in the city of Melbourne. I have been there and know all about it. Secretary Eedfield. I am afraid that I erred, Mr. O'TIare, in in- troducing the subject of rabbits. Mr. O'Hare. You spoke about increasing them here ; they are very good food ; they are all right. You can live cheap down there on rabbits. And there are some very good lambs down there — the best I ever ate. The beef wasn't so good. And talking about this coun- try, Mr. Burns makes the statement about 29 trawlers. In Grimsby I think there are over 150, I have been in all of those countries. I am the youngest man here, but the oldest in experience. I am only 70, but expect to live some years yet. I hope you will look at this in a broad spirit, not in a mean spirit. This country has grown large enough in my time to go out and defend itself against any country in all business propositions of any kind. And I am much surprised that the young men here should get up and talk about the difficulties of this thing and that thing. I went fishing 15 years, and I will defy anybody to put me down. And I am selling fish 37 years or more. And I am not all in yet. And yet there were some of the men when I started in business — there were then about 15 dealers, and some loved me so much they wouldn't sell me any goods unless they charged me 2 cents a pound extra. And tAvo or three years afterwards they were glad to call me off. And I am just the same to-day as I was then. I am not afraid to fight everybody and everything. I believe the sooner we throw down the bars and open the doors and do business with the world the better it will be for us. IGO AMKIMClAN-CANADIAN KISI I Kl{l KS (U)N KKKKNOE. S('ci'('(;ii'y Kiu)I''i1';m). I think we nwc Mr. liiii'iis nn !i|)()l()i>"y lor li:i\'m<4" iril('rni|)((M| him. Ml'. Hi'itN's. Since i iuu inti'rruplcd, I will slop ri least. l>ut simply IJiis: To oU'er a suggestion for what it may be worth. It may l)e worthless; let it be so shown. That is llu> way we learn. But merely to oti'er a suggestion as to what seems a ])Ossibility, and a ])ossibility more or less eonfirmed by the (^xpei'ls, the genllemen who are here. We are here, not to urge any cause, not to promote any pi'opaganda, W(> are here to .study a subject in all its phases, little and large, and to listen and to think and to l(>arn. I do not know whethei- there are (luite as many \(\ssels sold from (iloueester as Mr. l>urns speaks of. We ha\e the recoi'd of all the sales and they show from (iloueester, each yv.w singularly tMiough, II ships for ih(> last fo.ur years. That is all. And the total number of Aessels sold of all kinds is not quite as large as Mr. Burns fears. Does (\)ngressman Lufkin care to say a woi'd? STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN WILLFRED W. LUFKIN. OF ESSEX, MASS. Ml'. Li I'KiN. Mr. SiH'retai'y and ConunissioncM's: 1 \\:\\o come on here from ^^^^shinglon to recei\e infoi'uiation rather than to gi\e it. I suppose that whateNer your eonnnission reconniiends will re(|uire legislation by the Canadian rai'lianient and by the American Con- gress, and 1 wanted to hear wind the eonnnission had to offer; and also which is rathei' important with men holding eUn'tive posi- tions — what my t'oustit uents have to oll'er. So that I think for to- day T will simply sit still and listen, and 1 undiMstand you are going to (iloueester to-nun'row and I shall probably listen a great deal lluM'e also, and perhaps with a kiHMUM' ear. S(H'retary Kkdimkm). State Senator r>row ii is lu>re. and if h(> d(>- sii'(>s .V \'(M('i';. 1 le has i>(»n(>. Secretary Hkdkikm). I am sorry not to ha\i' gi\(M> him an oppor- tunity earlier, but 1 think he will be with us to-morrow at (Gloucester. (^hief Justict^ IIazkn. Yin\ sjjolve about being in the lish curing business and distributing business, Mr. ))'onson. T^o yon export any cur(Ml (ish to points outside the United States^ Mr. A)'oNsoN. Not diivctly, but some others exi)ort cured lish to South and Central America — Porto Kii-o. Chief flnstice IIa/.kn. Ts that any consideral)le portion of your business'^ Mr. A^^)^isoN. (^iiite t-onsiderable, partictdarly this year. SecuMarv Kkdkiklu. AVhal is the stvle of vour business? ;Mi'. AVonson. The (^doncester Salt Fish Co. ameeican-canadiajST fisheeies conference. 161 Chief Justice Hazen. What are tlie fish you export, chiefly? Alewives ? Mr. WoNsoN. Oh, no, sir; dry fish. Chief Justice Hazen. But don't you cure alewives and sell them? Mr, WoNSON. Yes, sir. We do not get alewives in Gloucester. They come from the surrounding districts in the rivers and are handled and put up and sold for export through New York exporting companies. Chief Justice Hazen. What are the fish that are exported from Gloucester down to the West Indies and South America ? Mr. Won SON. Haddock, pollock; more or less codfish; but the larger proportion is what we call the scale fish — the haddock and hake and pollock. Chief Justice Hazen. Would there be any demand for that class of ground fish in the American market ? Mr. WoNSON. Yes, sir; differently cured. Mr. Sweet. It might interest some of us, Mr. Wonson, to know what kind of fish you introduced to your banker friend. Mr. WoNSON. The very best codfish. No; I will tell you about that. It was not. I will tell you a little story about that if you will listen for a minute. The first lot that he bought was a slack salt cod- fish. It is rather a tough-fiber fish, but a very excellent flavored fish, and anyone who has ever eaten one, if he can procure one of those again that is properly cured, he will prefer it to anything else. But the kind of fish that he s]Doke of so highly was the Georges codfish, which to-day means a high-grade codfish. Secretar}^ Bedfield. The conference Avill now adjourn, to meet at 2.30 at this place. AFTERNOON SESSION. The conference was resumed at 2.30 p. m.. Chairman Kedfield pre- siding. STATEMENT BY MR. W. MUNROE HILL, REPRESENTING THE SHATTUCK & JONES CO. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Hill, will you be kind enough to give your full name and address? Mr. Hill. W. Munroe Hill, of Shattuck & Jones, Faneuil Hall Market, fish business. Secretary Redfield. What is your specialty? Mr. Hill. We are distributors of fish to Avhat we call wholesale consumers — institutions, clubs, and hotels, and families. Secretary Redfield. Fresh fish? Mr. Hill. Fresh fish; yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. How far do your operations extend, geo- graphically ? Mr. Hill. Our farthest shipment to-day is Denver. We ship fresh fish to Denver. Secretary Redfield. Is that a regular matter with you? 51950—18 11 162 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. ' Mr. Hill. We have a standing order for two shipments a week — less than 100 pounds each shipment — perhaps 50 or 60 pounds each shipment. Secretary Eedfield. And southAvard? How far do you reach there? Mr. Hill. AVe do not reach verj^ far south ; no, sir. We send some sah fish, though, into Georgia to the winter resorts. Secretary Eedfield. Is the tendency of the market toward an in- creasing demand for fish food, Mr. Hill ? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir; very much so. Secretary Eedfield. What general statement can 3^011 give the com- mission that will indicate the drift of the business? Mr. Hill. Why, I should think — speaking roughly — that our de- mand was perhaps 50 per cent increased. Secretary Eedfield. In ho\A' long has that growth taken place? Mr. Hill. Well, that particular percentage since the meatless day. Secretary Eedfield. Is it your judgment that the growth of the consumption of fish is of a permanent character? Mr. Hill. In my opinion it is: yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. Has there been any indication, to your knowl- edge, of any tendency to abandon the use of fish food after adopt- ing it ? Mr. Hill. No, sir. I feel that the education that they receive in the use of fish an extra clay, and in using more of it, that they will keep using it. they will know more about it than they have before and see the value of it. Secretar}^ Eedfield. Well, as you operate your business, are you proceeding on the basis of a probable increase in the demand ? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. Do you have any difficulty in obtaining a supply ? Mr. Hill. Well, just noAv, of course, is our rough weather. That is the only handicap that we have. Secretary Eedfield. Are you familiar, from personal knowledge, with the consumption of fish in Great Britain, Mr. Hill ? Mr. Hill. Well, only in a general way — that I have read that they use a great deal of it there. Secretar}^ Eedfield. Do you know why they do? Mr. Hillu Well, in my opinion, I suppose that possibly it was fairly easy for them to get it, and the}^ have been educated in a way to know the value of it ; that is, educated to like it and know about it. Secretary Eedfield. Has your attention ever been called to the organization of the fish business in Great Britain ? Mr. Hill. It has not ; no, sir. Secretary Eedfield. Do your know whether it is organized on a national basis or not ? Mr. Hill. I do not know, sir. ■ Secretary Eedfield. Is it your judgment — can you inform the commission whether, if the fish business in this country were pro- vided with an assurance of regular supply and ample and regular transportation, that a considerable increase in the volume of business is possible? Mr. Hill. I think so ; j^es. air. AMERICAN'-CAITADIAl^ FISHERIES COIsTFEEENCE. 163 Secretary Redfield. Is the matter of regular transportation vital to the business? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. At present are you embarrassed by transpoi^ tation? Mr. Hill. We are having a little trouble on western shipments; yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. Are you taking steps to increase your business in the interior ? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. We have even sent a man out there. Secretary Eedfield. Sent a traveling man ? Mr. Hill. Yes. And we within a year have had one or two brokers — something we have not done before — in large cities. Secretary Eedfield. Interior cities? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. Secretaiy Eedfield. Such as, for example? Mr. Hill. Cleveland. Secretary Eedfield. Have 3^011 undertaken any educational lines of work? Mr. Hill. I have lectured before colleges on the different ways of preparing fish. That is, not cooking it, but dressing it; showing the shrinkage that there was in dressing, and the seasons of the year that the fish are more plenty and in the best condition. And I have clone that once or twice with colleges; they have requested me to do it. I personally feel there is quite a field for that sort of work, in the waj^ of educating people as to how to handle fish, and the time of the year that certain kinds of fish are better than others. Secretary Eedfield. What college in Boston? Mr. Hill. Simons College. Secretary Eedfield. And where else? Mr. Hill. I am going to lecture next Friday at the Garland School on Chestnut Street, in Boston. Secretary Eedfield. Then do you regard work of that character — among the women's colleges, I take it, you mean? Mr. Hill. That is all I have done so far ; yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. Do you regard work of that character as promising from a business standpoint? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir ; I_ think it is very beneficial. Secretary Eedfield. Do you think that propaganda of that char- acter, conducted in connection with the schools of domestic econom}^ throughout the country, would be fruitful ? Mr. Hill. I do, sir; yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. I would like to ask Dr. Smith of the commis- sion if, in connection with the work of the Fisheries Service, there has been a spirit of cooperation shown by the teachers in household economics ? INIr. Smith. Some of the most effective work we have clone in putting before the consuming public these new and neglected fishery products has come from the schools of domestic science of Cornell University, the University of Illinois, and various other institutions of that kind. The women have rendered invaluable aid in that work. Secretary Eedfield. So far as your knowledge goes, Mr. Hill, do you know whether the large interior centers of the country are 164 AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. properly equipped for the handliiii^ of fresh fish on a considerable scale? Mr. Hill. Well, my opinion would be that they are not properly equipped to handle it, as you say, on a large scale; but I think — you are speaking on this matter of education — I think they would take it up very readily if they felt that they could get their supply somewhere nearly regular and uniform; for instance, if they were planning to have fish on Friday, that the}'' could feel that the goods would arrive at least a day or two beforehand, so that they could plan to have them. Secretary Redfield. So that, if I understand you correctly, the certainty of the supply and of the transportation of the supply are two necessary elements to that ver}^ large development? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. Secretai'y Redfield. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Hill. Is there anybody else who would like to ask Mr. Hill a question? [No response.] Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Hill; it is very kind of you to come. STATEMENT BY MR. GARDNER POOLE, PRESIDENT COMMON- WEALTH ICE & COLD STORAGE CO. Secretary Redfield. What is your business, Mr. Poole? Mr. Poole. President of the Commonwealth Ice & Cold Storage Co., in connection with the handling of frozen fish. Secretary Redfield. Of course, your business is very largel}'^, if not almost Avhollv, in connection with freezing fish and the storage offish? Mr. Poole. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield Are you connected with the Food Adminis- tration in any way, Mr. Poole? Mr. Poole. I have been since August of last year representing Mr. Fowler, who is Mr. Hoover's assistant in the fish division of the Food Administration. I have represented him wholly on the fish, representing this New England district. I have been called on sev- eral occasions to Washington on conferences. Secretary Redfiiold. Are you able to say whether there has been a gradual increased demand for fish food within recent months? Mr. PooLE. Yes; a very material increase in demand. Secretary Redfield. Can you give us any idea as to what the in- crease has been ? Mr. PooLE. In this district, the State of Massachusetts, Ave learn from our local food administrator — I believe those figures were com- piled by his department — the hotels during the month of Novem- ber, taken as an example, were able to conserve 3,000,000 pounds of beef in this section, substituting to a large extent fish. The hotel men report that their increase in the consumption of fish during that period was about 50 per cent over the previous year. I do not be- lieve those figures will bear out for the entire district in the matter of consumption and distribution, because, unfortunateiy, we have had a very severe winter, and with the shortage of fish, generally, speaking— fresh fish in this section — we have been unable to supply the demands. HoAvever, we have had, fortunately, a fairly large supply of frozen fish. Those fish have been practically 80 per cent AMERICAN-CAlSrADIAN" FISHERIES CO^STFERENCE. 165 distributed and have filled in the gap during this period of extreme scarcity of fresh fish. In Boston we freeze as public-warehouse men. That is to say, the company with which I am identified do no merchandising. We depend upon the disposition, the ability, of the men on the pier to freeze certain products during the producing sea- son. This year we have frozen — handled frozen — about 18,000,000 pounds, in our plant, of fish; about 10,000,000 pounds of that fish have been shipped over seas for the British Government and for, I believe, the allies. Some of that has gone into England, and a large amount into France. About five millions of that was sent over the line from Canada and mobilized in Boston to take advantage of our refrigeration space, sailing from here from time to time; the balance has been frozen here in this market on a contract which was placed here by a Cana- dian company who held a contract with the British Board of Trade, leaving 8.000,000 pounds which we have handled for domestic con- sumption. I think most of the freezers in Massachusetts — I might say New England — are operated on an entirely different basis from ours. On Cape Cod, for instance, the freezers are owned and op- erated by merchandising companies. They have frozen on Cape Cod this year in the vicinity of 12,000,000 pounds of whiting. I think this is the largest amount of fish frozen in this section of the United States. Strange to relate, only less than 100,000 pounds of these fish will be sold and distributed in the New England sec- tion during this year. The^^ are shipped entirely to the West and South. You can imagine, with our increased transportation difficul- ties, it has been some job to get these fish off the cape. I think at the present time perhaps three-fifths of them have been moved. It is very necessary to get these fish into the market during the con- suming season, as it is to get all of our frozen fish disposed of during the consuming season. It is no advantage to carry fish over the 12 months' period, as we have the 12 months' cold-storage law in this State. I believe we should have a Federal cold-storage law covering this matter. On Cape Cod this whiting business has developed in a very few years. It is a kind of fish known very little of or eaten very little. The nature of it is soft. It is not shipped in the fresh state. However, I believe that whiting, being frozen early from the water, direct out of the traps on Cape Cod, are perhaps as fresh as anj' other variety that can be put upon the table of the consumer in this country. Yet through lack of education, perhaps, our own peo- ple do not eat it here in New England. We have started a campaign recently, due to the effort of our local food administrator, in an attempt to bring this to the attention of our own people and educate them to eat it, principally because other varieties in the fresh-fish market have been so high that it was feared there was a class of people perhaps who w^ere not able to get fi.sh at times. We have visited some of our large industrial centers, some of us, and took whiting, and we have interested families, commit- tees — committees on public safetj^ — and so forth, to the extent that they have helped in advertising whiting, bringing it before the peo- ple; and during the last month a considerable increase in demand in New England has been noted from those centers, only illustrating that very little effort in the educational line will move these varieties. We have found also that people perhaps are more apt to complain 166 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. about high pi'ices of fish. In sifting clown theii- conii)hiints we find that they have been in the habit of demanding a hixury variety of fish — halibut, salmon, sea bass, and so forth. In nearly every case — I will say 90 per cent of the cases — I have investigated for our food administrator it has been shown conclusively that the peo]:)le are not educated in the use of or in the eating of the cheaper varieties. Pol- lock is not used very largely in this section; it is shij^ped largel.y to the South, to the Philadelphia market, to New York, and beyond. There is very little hake used here. People are not educated in these varieties. However, those people that do know of pollock sometimes Avon't eat it because they have a prejudice against it. They have heard something about it. I have an instance in" mind I can cite of a local market during the season that pollock is very plentiful, putting on a special on a certain clay and advertising pollock at very cheap prices. I think it Avas 4 or 5 cents a pound, possibly G cents. They were unable to sell an}^ The next day they tagged it up as Boston bluefish and charged 12 cents for it, and they cleaned it out almost immediately. Now, we have made an attempt through our local food administration to educate the people in the use of these cheaper varie- ties. We have had a great many criticisms — have had criticisms through some of our neAvspapers for our high prices. That again was due to lack of education. We are perfectly Avilling at all times to take the newspaper men under our wing, take them on the fish pier and give them a feed of the various varieties of fish and educate them. Secretary Redfield (addressing ncAvspaper men). You had better go, gentlemen. Chief Justice Hazen. We have been there and can recommend it. Mr. Poole. There is a great field for this line of Avork. I am myself particularly interested in it and have done a considerable amount of it, not only for our local food administrator, but for the United States Food Administration. HoAvever, I belieA^e that Ave are going to solve the ])roblem some time through the larger use of frozen fish. We Avere speaking this morning of the limited area over Avhich we can transport fresh fish with safety and keep it fresh under ice. That is very true. In these times it is very trying in shi])ping car- loads, perhaps, of fresh fish, or barrels oi- boxes of fresh fish in this section, even to nearby points. We are getting very serious delays. We are getting embargoes from time to time of necessity. We are even having our Fall River line, operating to New York, at times discontinuecl, AAdiich is a severe handicap to the fresh-fish question of Boston. We are having embargoes to Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington points, making it almost impossible at times to reach these sections Avith fresh fish. During these times it Avould take very little of an increased production and oversupply to make it very difficult to move in a given period the supply of fish that might arrive here in the summer months during our periods of plenty. Mackerel, for instance. Of course, during those times the men resort to the freezers. And it is Avell that they do. They put aAvay through the i)roducing season. I knoAV this particular year it has been most fortunate that Ave have had the supply of frozen fish. We have had agitation in this State; Ave have had a great deal of adverse criticism from various sources. In one particular case — I think there Avere several — some of the newspapers advocated throw- ing open the doors of the cold-storage plants and dumping this AMERICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE, 167 frozen fish out for the people. It is very apparent what would hap- pen if we did that. It is very apparent what would happen if we attempted to move this tremendous quantitv of fish during the pro- ducing season through fresh-fish channels. It would be impossible. If we were not fortified with this tremendous stock which we carry in the wintertime all varieties of fish foods would be in the luxury class. We have seen days — we have seen three days running this very Avinter when we have not had one arrival on the fish pier. Dur- ing those times our dealers have resorted to their stocks of frozen fish. Now, I believe the time is coming, and I know Dr. Smith will tell you of the work Dr. Pennington is doing along those lines, advo- cating the more general use of this means of handling fish, and espe- cially under the circumstances of the embargo handling frozen fish shipped in refrigerator cars. Frozen fish shipped in refrigerator cars Avill stand up at this season of the year for a great length of time; it can not be injured because it is packed in boxes and packed in refrigerator cars where the temperature is held at a very even point. It would be impossible to ship those fish and distribute them through these various centers throughout the United States — an un- limited area. Of course, that is being done largely on the Pacific coast Avith halibut and salmon. A great deal of that product comes from the East. I have been identified Avith the halibut industry for a great many years, having spent some eight years on the Pacific coast in that industry. During those years, in the early j^ears of my ex- perience, very little halibut Avas sold in the interior of the country, Chicago possibly would handle tAvo cars a week, and at times with difficulty. To-day Chicago is a distributing center for a tremendous amount of halibut, being shipped in from Canadian points — Prince Eupert — and from points in our OAvn country. They distribute that fish through the entire section of the Middle West. We haA^e heard at times that it Avould be impossible to distribute this fish in the summer, CA^en in cold-storage cars! I must confess I Avas of the opinion that it was not practicable. HoweA^er, this year has demonstrated that that can be done to a large extent, because of all this 5,000,000 pounds Avhich has been shipped in here from Canadian points, 90 per cent of it came through during the very hot weather of this past summer. I believe the development of this business will produce a better refrigerator car than that Avhich Ave have available for fish service to-day. I think it is a matter that Ave could well apply ourselves to in connection Avith your department. I believe Ave are not offered proper facilities at present for the movement of this product. I believe the frozen- fish business is going to groAv, and I believe it is going to solve a great many of our problems in the distribution of fish. Boston is a large distributing center for both fresh and frozen fish of the various ground fish varieties; Cape Cod is a freezing point for AAdiit- ing and mackerel. The State of Maine produces and freezes a large amount of herring. Boston produces a great deal of herring, but some years there is very little of it frozen. We have had some diffi- culty through State legislation restrictions Avhich made it impossible for some fishermen to supply our vessels with a supply of bait. Those restrictions noAv have largelj^ been removed through the efforts of the food administrator in this section, setting an example for our Avhole Atlantic coast section. Some of our States have restrictiA?e 168 AMERTOAN-OANADIAN KISl 1 i:i{| i:S t'ONKKKKNCK. laws on tlicir books whit'h inako \i impossiblo to produce certain varieties of tish dtirinii' the })eiMoil of most plenty. However, that situation I am not familiar with. TTnder the circumstances of this present period it is necessary that we have the restrictions removed, and they have been removed. I don't know that I can add anything further, Mr. Secretary. T will be very glad to answer any questions. Secretary IIkhfieu). Mr. Poole, what would be the effect u]^on the market in its present condition of diMuand if the supply of fresh lish from (\inada were cut oil". INIr. l*ooLK. At the [^resent time, couiing into the season yon might e\])ect shipments, our market wouUl be shoi'thanded on some varie- ties. IIowe\er, I tind if lish are scarce Avith us on account of the elements they are scarce with our brothers across the line. Secretary Kkokielo. Taking the statement that about 48,000,000 pounds of lish came hito the United States from Canada on the Allantii' coast in the last year, 1 take it we can agree that that fish <'anie in because it Avas needed^ Mr. l\)OLE. Yes. Secretary Ivkdfiki.i). It did not cou\e in for any other reason. Suppose that supply of 43,000,000 pounds a year were cut off. ^A^)uld the etl'ect be to enhance the price of tish in the American markets? Mr. l*ooT.K. T think our ])rice is governed by the law of supply and demand; naturally if you shorten the supply or increase the demand the price will rise. Secretary Kkofiklu. Do you think that the consumption of fish in the United States is t'apable of a considerable e\i)ansiou through education generally throughout the country? Mr. PooLK, 1 do; yes, sir. Secretary Ki'M)fteu). Assume for the moment that such education takes place and that there i^ no material increase in the supply. AVhat. then, in vonr juduinent. would be the etfect \\\Hn\ the price of lish i Mr. PooLK. I think weie we to increase our demand materially above oni- supply, naturally it would place most of our varieties in the luxury class. Secretary Kkukikij). Uhen is it not the necessary ci)nclusion from yonr experience and from Avhat you have told the commission, that the process of increasing the consnm])tion by education mnst go hand in hand Avith the [)rocess of increasing the supply^ Mr. PooLK. Yes. Sei-refary PKorvELn. From all sources. Mr. Pooi.K. The fish business is a peculiar (me. It is very hard to ivgulate either. We can't put our finger on the man that Avants to eat fish to-day; Ave don't knoAv — he may Avant to eat it to-day, or he nu\y not; he may want to save his appetite until a Aveek from to-day. On the other hand, we can't put our finger on our supply at any one time, ^^'e here ha\e million-pound days, Ave have days Avhen Ave have less than 100,000. It is very uneven. Tt makes it very diilicult at times to nu)ve the supply through our regidar chan- nels for those reasons. Secretary lvEnKua.n. Is it not a fact thai \ouv reser\e of fresh Hsh acts as a moderator of that verv condition '. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 169 Mr. Poole. It does after we educate the people against this preju- dice also. Secretary Redfield. Is there anything in the fisli business, to your knowledge, Mr. Poole, which corresponds to the distributing equipment possessed by the meat packers ? Mr. Poole. No; I can't say that we have an organization or the facilities for distributing fish, either fresh or frozen, that the meat packers have. Secretary Eedfield. It appears to be the fact — if I am not correct in this statement, I will be glad to be corrected — it appears to be the fact that when the packing and shipping of fresh fish became a great industry, or perhaps I would better say, in order that it might be- come a great industry, and at the time when it was sought to make it a great industry, the business was found to lack the equipment nec- essary for regular and safe transportation of a perishable product, and that out of that has grown the familiar refrigerator car which everybod}^ sees in every freight yard and the depots throughout the counti'v bearing the familiar names of the packers with which we are all familiar. Is it not singular that nothing corresponding to that system of distribution has taken place with fresh fish or frozen fish? Mr. Poole. AVe have one company. I think, operating in the United States on similar lines — the Booth Fisheries Co., with headquarters in Chicago, and they have some 50 branches throughout the United States. I think they have a line of refrigerator cars. I think their sj'^stem more nearly equals that of the meat packers. They can do that practically, having these branches. Their facilities are correct for distribution because of these branches, and they operate in all sections of the United States. Secretary Redfield. Has that, to your knowledge, resulted in an increase in the distribution of fresh fish by those methods ? Mr. PooLE. I think it has on fresh- water fish, not on salt. Secretary Eedfield. Do they make a specialty of fresh-water fish ? Mr. Poole. They do. Secretar}^ Eedfield. That has, then, so far as the nature of their product goes, resulted in an increase ? Mr. Poole. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. Are you sufficiently familiar with the general frozen-meat industry to be able to say or to express an opinion for the commission as to whether, in your judgment, the methods of dis- tribution which we have mentioned have been a considerable factor in the distribution of fish throughout the country ? Mr. Poole. Yes : I think they have. The pi-oduct is very different to handle from fish. Fish are shipped imder ice ; beef shipments are chilled. There is not the element of danger in transportation. Secretary Eedfield. I think I understood you to say — oi- perhaps I inferred from what joii said, Mr. Poole — that you thought it possi- ble that a better car could be devised for the purpose of handling either fresh or frozen fish ? Mr. Poole. Yes. Secretary Eedfield. Have any steps been taken toward devising an}^ such car? Mr. Poole. I think Dr. Pennington has made some suggestion — I think Dr. Smith might answer that question. 170 AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. Secretary Redfield. Dr. Smith? Dr. Smith. There have been experiments along that line, sir, but I am not sure they have been given practical effect yet. Secretary Redfield. I would like to say here that if anybody con- nected with the fish interests in Boston desires assistance along the line of designing such a car we should be very glad to put at their disposal, without expense, skilled refrigerating engineers of the Bureau of Standards of our department to conduct any series of ex- periments, at Government cost, in order to work out the result that might be satisfactory. We are cooperating very closely, as I think Mr. Poole probably knows, with the American Society of Refrigerat- ing Engineers. Nothing can give us more pleasure than undertaking to aid with our scientific staff in the design of an improved car, if that is thought necessary. Mr. John Burns, Jr. If I may add just a word. As Mr. Poole has said. Dr. Pennington has made an exhaustive study of the re- frigerator car. She is one of the best fishmen we have in this coun- try. She certainly knows all about refrigerator cars. You can count them up to 140,000, and when you get to 141.000 she will tell you it is of a certain design and will carry stuff with certain effi- ciency. Secretary Redfield. Where is Dr. Pennington? Mr. Burns. The last I heard she was in Pensacola. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Poole, I want to change the subject, if I may, for a moment, and ask if you know of any restrictions which are imposed upon American cold-storage concerns operating in British Columbia or Canada ; and if so, what ? Mr. Poole. I don't know of any, and I take it from testimony given by Mr. Arnold yesterday that his company, at least, was allowed to operate — in fact, I know was operating in Canada and Vancouver, freezing and shipping fish. Secretary Redfield. Is it not a fact that Mr. Arnold's companies, operating as you describe, are Canadian companies? Mr. PooLE. He has one Canadian company — ^the Canadian Fishing Co., and he also has the New England Fish Co., an American com- pany, both in Vancouver. I think that the American compaii}^ is operating fi'eezers. Secretary Redfield. Have you, yourself, visited the Canadian cities of the West, on the Pacific coast? Mr. PooLE. I have. Secretary Redfield. In connection with the cold-storage business in a,nj ^YSiJ ? Mr. PooLE. No. Secretary Redfield. Are you familiar with the conditions under which the plants there operate ? Mr. PooLE. Somewhat. Secretary Redfield. I ask these questions, Mr. Poole, to be quite candid, because the suggestion has been made to the commission — so far as we are able to find, made sincerely, but apparently in error — that there were some restrictions, some inequalities, imposed by Canadian law upon xVmerican concerns operating cold-storage plants in Canadian territory. I want to know very candidly if you know of any? AMEEICAN-CAN"ADIA]Sr FISHERIES CONFEBENCE. 171 Mr. Poole. I think that might apply, although I am not suffi- ciently informed, perhaps, to make a statement. I think that might apply to Prince Rupert. Secretary Redfield. Yes; that is where it is said to apply. What do you know about it, Mr. Poole ? Mr. Poole. I don't know that I am able to say much on that. I know very intimately people operating the cold-storage company at Prince Rupert, which is a Canadian concern. I understand they have a subsidy. Secretar}^ Redfield. Yes : it is subsidized. Mr. Poole. I know that the American boats, as was shown here yesterday, have been landing their fish, salting their fish, at Prince Rupert. Secretary Redfield. Do 3^ou know whether there is an American cold-storage plant there? Mr. Poole. There is not, I believe. I don't know of any. Secretary Redfield. I am veiy much obliged to you, Mr. Poole. Is Mr. Wheeler of the Booth Fisheries here ? A Voice. I think he had to go away this afternoon, Mr. Secretary; I heard him say so this noon. Secretary Redfield. Is there anybody representing the Booth Fisheries here this afternoon? [No response.] Is there anybody here who is connected in any ^vay wdiatever with the Lake Fisheries, or who is interested in any firm representing the interests ? [No re- sponse.] Is there any one here wdio represents the freezing plants upon Cape Cod — those connected with them in any way? STATEMENT BY MR. IRVING M. ATWOOD, REPRESENTING THE CONSOLIDATED WEIR CO. Secretary Redfield. What is the name of your business, Mr. Atwood ? Mr. Atwood. Connected with the Consolidated Weir Co. Secretary Redfield. Where is the plant located, Mr. Atwood? Mr. Atwood. Our plant is located at Provinceton, and fish at other places on the coast. Secretary Redfield. And w'hat class of product do you handle? Mr. Atwood. Wh}^, mostly the so-called seasonable fish, such as the herring or the mackerel and weakfish, and other kinds of what we call the seasonable fish. Secretary Redfield. Do you include whiting in that? Mr. ATv^"00D. Whiting, yes. Secretary Redfield. Where is the whiting sold? Mr. Atwood. The largest market for whiting up to two years ago Avas through Pennsylvania and a part of New York State, and Mary- land. About two years ago, as I remember it, Avhiting was sent farther West. Last winter, I understand, that whiting was sold in the western part of South Dakota. Then the market gradually has broadened. Secretary Redfield. How long since that market started? Mr. Atwood. We started freezing whiting somewhere about the year 1902, which was the first whiting, or practically the first whiting, that was frozen. 17'J AMKHK AX A'.VN APIAX F IS 1 1 KH I KS Tt) \ I'KK K N T K. Si\'ivt;irv Kkufikm). )\';is (Iumv nnv mnrkoi in Aiuorirn tl\on, i>r did you have to innko oiu> ^ Mr. ArAVtH)!). AVo had ti) dovoltip our niarkiM. whirli wo did in oon- iUH'>tion witli (.rrtiiin oouuuission houses in (lu- rily o[' Philadol{>lu!i. Tho whitiuii- lirst started, as 1 imdorstaud it. through tlio sales aiivnts throuiih the nunino' distriets of Pennsylvania, sollinii' it to the \ov- eiji'n people there — the LiU\uanians, (he l\)landers. ete. — it lu^ino- n lish somewhat similar to those they had been used to. 1 saw some AvhitiuiT in Scranton, Pa., in liH^T. 1 ean't say that they looked very aj^peti/ino- after iayiuii' out on the stand Avith the etial dust all over them, but ihey were all riiiht and retailino- at that time, 1 thiidv, at 5 I'ents [)er lish. Seeivtary pKOFirin. That reminds me o[' a younii' TelUtw that used to get Inneh with n\o in NeAV York when 1 was a ilerk at ^\0 a week, Avho bouiiht uiaekerel for 10 eents a tish. Chief flnstiee Hazrn. What is the weiuhi oi' a whitino-;' Mr. ATWoim. Our Avhitino; this year average scnnewhere jiround 14 onnees, jnst under a pound, althongh we do eateh a small portion of onr Avhiting up to a pound and a half. Seeretary pKOFrELn. And do I understand yon io say (hal the business has steadily grown, ]Mr. Atwood^ Mr. A'pwoon. Yes; in the last two years it has grown \ery rapidly. Seeretarv Redfiei^d. Until now, I reeall your saying that tho mar- ket reaehes as far as North Dakota. Mr. .Vtwooo. Yes. 1 don't remember just the eiiy. hut last No- vember Or. Peiinington was telling ute about a town, I think in the western part of South Dakota, that they had whiting last year. Seeretary Eei>fiki.d. .Vnd hoAv far Sonth ^ Mr. A'rwooi>. 1 have known of whiting been sent to Den\er and Norfolk. I don't knoAv how nuieh farther Sonth and West than that. Secretary REnriRLn. And that business has been created in 15 years in a product which up to that time was hardly used at all? Mr. A'rwoon. Yery little used, except in certain local fishing places. The total prtnluction of the Cape last year was estimated aroinid 14.000.000 ]H-»nnds. Secretary T\Ei'>Fii: yes. sir. Secretary REDFiEi.n. AA'hat T want io get at is. whether the thing we are talking about this u\oT"ning is a reality or a dream. If tner a continuous period intelligence aufl acticm is put upon the education of the pci^jde in fish foods generally, do \ on think it would slunv a marked inci"ease in the demand • Mr. Afwoon. 1 don't belie\e any of u- ■■an rcali/.e what increase can be shown. Secretary l\EnFiFi.n. AtMu- judgment is, then, that you wouhi hesi- tate, as an ex[)erienced man, to put a limit on the increase'' Mr. Atwood. T think T should; yes. T know we started in — take the situation of pollock, which is very small and has been little worked upon. 1 think anybody in the fish market in Poston has seen a marked increase in the use and demand for ]>ollock in the la&t tlii^ee veal's. AMEKICAX-CANADIAX FISIIEPJES COXFEREXCE. 173 Secretary KEoriELD. How long ago is it, geiitleinen, since the flounder was not a very generally sold article of food? Mr. Atwood. I think somewhere around 8 or 10 years ago they 5-tarted using the beam trawl for flounders down off the southern part of the Massachusetts coast in the so-called Vineyard Sound, and since that time they have de\'eloped, not so much in that territory, but in the markets of Xew York particularly, a very large demand, so that flounders to-day are bringing prices that a few years ago were un- heard of or unthought of. Secretary Redfield. Xow, I would like, if I might, to just have you hear from Dr. Smith, as bearing upon what you have just said, Mr. Atwood. Up to the time of which Mr. Atwood speaks, there Avas no established fishery for flounders; it was neglected; and we are now planting over 1,000,000,000 a year, and I think I can say that the continuance of the industry depends upon that planting. Dr. Smith. In the inshore waters of Massachusetts. Secretary Redfield. So far as^the inshore waters are concerned. jMr. Atavood. I might say, Mr.' Secretary, that I think for a year or two prior to that the Italian fishermen commenced fishing for flounders for the Boston market with a fair degree of success, about 12 or 15 3^ears ago the small boat fishermen going out with one or two men a few miles off shore. Secretarj^ Redfield. It would seem by putting these things to- gether — I think it impresses the commission so; if not, they will say so — that wherever intelligent activity has been put upon any branch of the fisheries business, where brains and character and loiowledge haA'e gotten in behind it, even where it had Ijeen totally neglected, the result has been rapid and immediate — almost immediate — and large. Is that substantially true, Mr. Atwood? Mr. Atavood. Yes, sir ; I think it is. Secretary Redfield. Do you regard that process as stopped? Mr. ArvvooD. No. I have had in our ow'n particular business, I might say — the Avholesale business in Boston that I am also con- nected with — have used the mails a good deal Avith the retail trade, and Ave \in\e really found surprising results as to Avhat Avas possible by simply intelligent Aveekly advertising through the mails, once you began to push any particular variety of fish. I think it was tAvo or three years ago we froze at Provincetown — I don't rememl;)er hoAv many, but I should sa}^ around 30,000 or 40,000 of the tuna fish. Most of them Avere fish from 50 to 75 pounds each. And we started in through the winter, and inside of a comparatiA^ely short space of two months sold the Avhole of them through Massachusetts, Xew York State, some in XeAv Hampshire and Vermont, to people I doubt ever used them before. As evidence of that, one man wrote back, after he had his first lot, "Why, they are red; I thought they were cream white, judging from the looks of the can from the Pacific coast." But we had sufficient repeat orders to show that that adA^ertising was successful. I think it was a success in that case. And from our experience on a number of other A^arieties little used that we have tried, I don't think there is much doubt about the success of the proposition. Secretary Redfield. Is that tuna fish the one that used to be described as the horse mackerel? 174 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Atavood. They used to call it the horse mackerel. Secretary Redfield. 1 can remember being carefully brought up to think it was carrion. Dr. Smith. Is it not a fact, Mr. AtAvood, that 15 or 20 years ago, when these same horse mackerel were running in the traps of Cape Cod, those fish were always thrown away? Mr. Atwood. "Well. I wouldn't say just exactly the number of years — I think perhaps you have a better knowledge of that than I do ; but there was a time when they were considered a nuisance and the}^ Avere glad to get rid of them in any wscy. And to-day, this last year, and even the year before, the price that our^ fishermen have got for these same fish compares A^ery favorably Avith most any fish Ave catch, simply by freezing them and establishing a market for them. Last 3'ear the first tuna fish that came into Boston, if I remember rightly, Avas sold at 15 cents a pound to a AAdiolesale jobber in the city of Boston. Dr. Smith. You perhaps knoAv tjiat the flat rate for the smaller fish of the California coast, used in canning, is $80 to $100 per ton to the fishermen. Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. AtAvood, have you had your attention directed to the manufacture of fish Avaste as a food for cattle and for poultry ? Mr. Atavood. No; I have not, directly. I have spent a A^ery limited amount of time on the subject of fish Avaste, but Avith the engineering- firms Avith Avhich I have talked, and Avith the amount of Avaste which Ave haA^e had at our Pro\dncetoAvn plant — I have not looked into this for over a year, but up to that time the engineers told me then they did not consider it a feasible plan, and so Ave AAaited until Ave could get a larger and more regular amount of Avaste to handle. You see, our fishing at Provincetown is very fluctuating. We Avill go for a Aveek and perhaps haA^e catches larger than Ave can handle, and then we may go for tAvo Aveeks and not have any Avhatevcr. So that on that account I never Avent deeply into the question of the manufac- ture of fish Avaste for any purpose Avhatever. Secretarj^ Redfield. Is there any place along the Atlantic sea- board of the United States Avhere the fish Avaste is so manufactured? Mr. Atavood. Not that I knoAv of. There are places Avhere it is man^ifactured into fertilizer, but not for food for cattle or poultry. Mr. George E. Willey. I think doAvn in Maine they are doing it to some extent. Secretary Redfield. Manufacturing it into fish meal, Mr. Willey? Mr. Willey. Into fish meal; yes. Chief Justice Hazen. That is manufactured into cattle food and poultry food? Mr. Willey. I think so. That has come in the last year or tAvo. Chief Justice Hazen. I Avonder if there is any gentleman in the room Avho can give us information on that subject. Secretary Redfield. I can say that the Director of Markets of the State of California, Mr. Weinstock, has recently placed in the hands of the Commissioner of Fisheries a letter to him from a prac- tical fish operator on the Pacific coast, Avho has for a considerable period — I should say, about the time Mr. Willey mentions — been making his fish offal and refuse into meal, Avhich he has sold to AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 175 poultry farms with entire success. He sells all lie can make. And the statement, as I recall it, in the letter was that the fish wastes of Alaska which could be thus utilized, now wasted, were worth at the market price of the meal to-day $8,000,000 per annum. STATEMENT BY MR. W. A- REED, SECRETARY GLOITCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. Mr. Reed. Mr. Secretary, I have experimented with clam meal merely for my own information. Chief Justice Hazen. ^Vhat has been the result of your experi- ment ? Mr. Eeed. The matter was called to my attention while in Alaska, and merelj^ for curiosity T secured about three or four buckets of the large clams and piit them behind the little stove in the shack for about three or four weeks and let them dry naturally, and then I secured a little coffee roaster which we had in the house and ground and ground and ground, and every day when I didn't have anything else to do I would grind a bit. I put them in an ordinary Royal bak- ing powder tin can without any preparation or without any adding anything to them, and I brought them on one trip with me, and brought them east with me. T kept that can under observation for a year and a half for the purpose of ascertaining if it would pick up moisture or decay, or whatever might happen, and approximately once in two or three weeks I Avoidd take a pinch of it and taste it. I forget what became of it finally, but it never spoiled, never de- teriorated so far as I could see. It was excellent flavor, and I be- lieve there is a great industry there waiting for somebody to come and take it. Chief Justice Hazen. Is that a soft-shell clam? Mr. Reed. Xo; harder than a brickbat. Chief Justice Hazen. Quahog? Mr. Reed. Quahog, rather. If I might add, Mr. Secretary — as I looked at the clam flats that are there — there is a virgin territory of thousands of square miles of clam flats, and I was invited to come up there and get a motorboat and get three or four of the Indians, and at low tide get a horse and plow and plow them up and let the Indians pick them up. And possibly the doctor may recall Mr. Charles Ingersoll. at Ketchikan. Dr. Smith. He was formerly in our service. Mr. Reed. He was the one that first suggested it to me before I tried the experiment. STATEMENT BY MR. A. L. PARKER, PRESIDENT OF THE BOSTON FISH PIER CO. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Parker, you have heard the statements kindly made by Mr. Atwood and by Mr. Poole. What is your view- point respecting the possibility of increasing the demand for fish in this country by the continuous and intelligent process of education ? Mr. Parker. Well, my opinion is, Mr. Secretary, that we have one of the best plants down there in the world, our capacity is unlimited, and what we want is fish to sell. A-NHiat little advertising we have 176 AMERICAN-CANADIAN nSHEEIES CONFEEENCE. done, we have met with great success. The only reason we have not done more is that we have not had the stock to give them. We believe that we can take care and distribute all of the fish that will come to our dock. Secretary Redfield. Do I gather correctly, Mr. Parker, from your thought that your plant, then, is not as yet fully used to its possible capacity? Mr. Parker. Nowhere near it. Secretary Eedfield. Then, coining back to my first question : Do you think an increased demand upon your facilities could be created by an intelligent process of education continued over a time through- out the country? Mr. Parker. Very much so. Secretary Redfield. Do I infer correctly that that would involve on the water end an increase of the supply ? Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Do you think of any reason why we should not eat as much fish in this country as Great Britain eats per capita ? Mr. Parker. Not a bit. If they all ate as much as I do they would come up to that quota. Secretary Redfield. Think for a moment, Mr. Parker, because that woulcl be wholly revolutionary. That would be wholly revolu- tionary in the business of this country. Chief Justice Hazen. A- revolution sometimes has a good effect. Secretar}^ Redfield. There is no question it has a good effect. But it would mean so much to the port of Boston in particular, and in- cidentally to the sister port of Gloucester, that to say that it could be done in time in the process of evolution woulcl mean that all that has ever been done in the fisheries of this country would be much less than half of what would then be normal. If we ate as much fish per capita as Great Britain does, we would be bringing our supply of fish food up from 2,000,000,000 pounds a year to something over 8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 pounds a year. "Yet, I understand, you feel that if that were intelligently gotten at it might in time be done. Mr. Parker. I think it would come gradually. Any campaign will come graduali}^ And if we can only get the stock to give them so that we can take care of that increased demand, why, we can take and distribute it. Secretary Redfield. Now, then, that is just the point. Assuming the demand were just as intelligently created — and I gather from what you gentlemen have said, it may almost be said to be in process; at least, there have been very intelligent, and in each case successful stabs at it — now, given that, and be given the transportation facili- ties — which I think you. as practical business men would say, must follow and has followed in every case where the business has been developed — then wiiat Avould remain is the question of an adequate supply; is it not? Mr. Parker. That has been our question. As you know, at the present time it is almost impossible to go out and get tonnage built, which we are trying to do to-day. We are doing everj'thing possible, and we are building, as has been said before, and building at war prices. But that is our aim and belief — that the business has just begun to develop. One reason for that, when I have heard the ques- tions that you have asked some of these men, is, why haven't these AMEBIC AX-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEEISrCE. 177 things been done? I think one of the reasons why it has not been done before is that there have been 30 or 40 separate concerns in Boston,. no one concern big enough to go out and do the things which you have suggested. But there has been a big change within the last year, there has been some consolidation, and in that waj a bigger and better organization has been created to go out and cater to this trade, and I believe we have made a big stride in the business. Secretary Eedfield. Suppose we assume, for the sake of a ques- tion, that Ave only go half that far, and that we develop our people as fish consumers to half the extent that Great Britain has developed hers. We should then need, instead of 2,000,000,000 pounds a year that we now get, something like four and one-half billion pounds. Is there existing floating equipment anywhere on this side of the water in sight sufficient to supph^ that demand '( Mr. Parker. I don't think there is. Secretary Eedfield. It would ]nean, Avould it not, a very large in- crease in the equipment of both countries — Canada and the United States — and a very large increase in the vrorking force in order to meet that demand f Is it not so ? Mr. Parker. I think that would be natural. I think with that in- creased production we would have to call on Dr. Smith to refurnish some of our grounds that we Avould fish from. Dr. Sjsiith. I would like to ask Mr. Parker if he thinks the facili- ties of Boston, as to the fish pier and as to the general market con- ditions, are such as to properly handle the prospective catch of this trawling fleet of 29 vessels of which Mr. Burns spoke this morning ? Mr. Parker. Why, I think our wharf there could handle 10 times the business that is being done there to-day. Dr. Smith, And you think you would be able to dispose of that greatly increased catch profitably through the usual channels in Boston ? Mr. Parker. I think so, if it came graduaHy. It must come gradu- Sillj. We could take care of that surplus as it arrived. If it should come all at once and throw a big surplus onto the market without proper foresight to knovi' Avhere 3^011 are going to put it, it might floor us. It is natural to suppose that this supplj^has got to come in gradually. I think we could take care of it. Secretary Eedfield. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Parker. Thank you very much. Is Mr. O'Brien, president of the Boston Fisli Market Corporation, here? A Voice. Pie Avent aAva}^ last night. I would state, Mr. Secretary, that Mr. Fulham might speak for the Boston Fish Market Cor- poration. STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN M. FTJLHAM, REPEESENTING THE BOSTON FISH MARKET CORPORATION. Secretary Eedfield. A A^ce president of the Boston Fish Market? Mr. Fulham. No, sir; just a director. Secretary Eedfield. Director of the Boston Fish Market? What is the nature of your business? Mr. Fulham. I am a director of the Boston Fish Market Corpora- tion, but my business is the fish business. Secretary Eedfield. In what form? 51950—18 12 178 AMEEICAN-CAXADIAlSr FISHEETES CONPEEENCE. Mr. FuLHAM. I am a member of the Boston Fish Pier Co. Secretary Redfield. Do you handle fresh fish ? Mr. FuLHAM. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. In what respect do your views differ from those expressed by Mr. AtAvood and Mr. Parker and Mr. Poole? Mr. FuLHAM. Ma' AdeAAs are exactly similar to theirs. Secretary Redfield. The fear has been expressed by a certain gen- tleman here, Mr. Fulham, and it is just mentioned to me by my colleague. Mr. Chief Justice Hazen, that if aa'c obtained an increased demand for fresh fish on a considerable scale by the process of educa- tion, AA'hich Ave have been talking about, it Avould be possible for countries Avhere shipbuilding may be less costly than it is in America to come in under the arrangement Avhich we have been discussing and practicalh^ take the business from the American ships and so supply the demand by the aid of foreign A'essels- and foreign labor and foreign capital. Has that subject cA'er been given thought by you? Mr. FuLiiAiM. Why, I have thought of it in a Avay, not to any great degree, but since yesterday morning I haA'e thought of it, ancl I also spoke of it on the pier, and I think that I am safe in saying that the sentiment of a hirge if not a majority of the fish dealers on the pier is that Ave are not only not afraid, but not cAen, as you said last night, suspicious of them. As a matter of fact. Ave Avelcome and are desirous of having all the fish brought into Boston that Ave can get. AVe ai-e not afraid of the foreigners coming here and driving us out of business or competing Avith us in any Avay. That is to say. Ave are not afraid of competing Avith them, provided, of course. Ave are })laced on an equal footing Avith them. Secretary Redfield. It Avould have an important bearing upon Ihat question. Avould it not — as to AA-hether there Avere an excessiA'e demand after the Avar for a continued period upon the product of the shipyards of Great Britain? Would it not be so? Mr. FrLiiA.Ai. Why. that is to say. if I understand your question correctl3\ they avouIcI be unable to build for aAvhile. having to attend to domestic Avork? Secretary Redfield. Precisely. The effect of the submarine in- iquity, to use a mild term, has been to destroy a very considerable proportion of the AvorkVs tonnage. It seems to be the accepted fact that the merchant tonnage of the Avorld to-day is insufficient, far from sufficient, to meet the normal demands of the Avorld in peace, and that therefore there must be a restoration of that tonnage in order to restore the normal balance of movement of freight around the Avorld, of all kinds, and that in these losses, by the very nature of the case, arising from her supremely large merchant marine. Great Britain has been the largest individual sufferer. It seems to be the fact that she is noAv doing so much as in her poAver lies by the build- ing of standardized ships to deal Avith that A-ery serious problem. With that state of affairs. Avith that predicament, is it. in your opin- ion, mistaken to suppose that that task of building some 6.000,000 tons of merchant shipping or more— I think perhaps I understood it, Mr. Robertson, did I not ? Mr. Robertson. Yes; you did. Secretary Redfield. I understand it Avhen I say 6,000,000 tons is a task which must have its effect upon her capacity to build trawlers or any other vessel of the kind : is it not so ? AMEEICAN-CAN"ADIA]Sr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 179 Ml'. FuLHAM. Why, it a\ oiild seem to me. from what you have said, that they would be very busy at home. Secretary Redfield. Very busy at home. Now. furthermore, it is, of course, the fact that the British fleet of trawlers has been at risk in this war. Mr. FuLHAM. Yes, sir. Secretary REDriELn. And a very considerable number of them have been destroyed, and that all of them substantially are at risk to-day. So that in addition to the problem which I have suggested to you there is the further problem before competition in the open markets of the world is possible — there is the further problem, I say, of restoring her own fish -food supply by restoring the fleet from which it comes. That vrould appear to be true, wouldn't it? Mr. FuLHAM. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. And with that general statement in mind, do I understand correctly that you feel that under those circumstances, given an equal opportunity, you have no fear of their competition? Mr. FuLHAM. Absolutely none. Secretary Redfield. I thank you very much. Mr. FuLHAM. I might add, Mr. Secretary, if you will allow me, that I was talking with Mr. O'Brien last evening, and he was sorry that he hadn't mentioned one fact, that in building the fish pier it was l)uilt with a view to a great extension of the fish business. So that I think we will be able with our facilities there to hike care of iihnost any increased production that may occur in the next few years, anyway. Mr. Atwood. There is one thing that must be of. interest to you and Dr. Smith, although it is a very small point, in connection with introducing new varieties, etc. I am also interested in a concern that handles quite a considerable number of fish from various shore plants along the coast, and one dealer on the wharf came to me within a very short space of time and asked me to get for him 20 shark of 200 pounds each. I said : " Do you know what they are worth?'' He said: "No: I haven't any idea.'" Well, I told him, " To-da3^ or yesterday, we had one shark that brought 8 cents a pound." That is what the fishermen get for it. I thought Mr. Smith might be interested to know that even a shark was selling pretty well now. Secretary Redfield. We are A'ery much interested in sharks. The shark has become a very respectable member of society. Mr. Burns. May I ask you to repeat what you said this forenoon in regard to the increase of the English Navy during the present war? Secretary Redfield. Yes. The statement has been made within a very few weeks that the English Navy has doubled during the war. Mr. Burns. That clone during the war time would lead us to be- lieve that their capacity for turning out ships is very great, and that at the close of the war, diverting their whole capacity into merchant ships and new fishing vessels, would immediately turn out an enor- mous amount of tonnage. I can't figure it out into millions or billions. But as a matter of fact, I have it on very good information that at one period in normal times before the war a shipbuilding concern in England in 60 days turned out, launched, 55 IraAvlers. 180 AMEBIC AN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONEEEENCE. Fifty-five trawlers in 60 days. If that is the case, diverting all their efforts into merchant vessels would give ns an enormous amount of tonnage. Perhaps, to support that statem^ent, which seems to be doubtful in the minds of some of my hearers, some of our large concerns in this coiuitry avIio have never entered into the shipbuild- ing business have stated to our (Jox eminent tliat every three days they wall turn out one of our destroyers. Secretary Redfield. No, Mr. Burns. Mr. Burns. Am I Avrong on the 120 again ? Secretary IIkdfikli). I think, Mr. Burns, Ave will have to not be afraid of the 55 trawlers in GO days. Mr. BuKNS. Well, I wish I had my friend, Mr. Eich, here. He nuule that statement, and I think he is a man who carries figures pretty readily. Chief Justice Hazen. How many days were they at Avork before they got to that stage ? Mr. Burns. They undoubtedly had their material all ready. But that seems to me as not so erroneous. Secretary IvEDFiELn. I am thoroughly familiar Avith some of the largest English shi])yards, I don't think there is any yard in Great Britain that has even half that number of Avays on Avhich ships could be built at the same time. And Avhile it is true that they build ships more readily than Ave do over there Mr. Robertson. T can give yon the figures of the last year, Avhat" Ave are building now. The absolute record of mercantile shipbuild- ing before the Avar — in fact, in 1913 we turned out just over 2,000,000 tons. Although that fell very heavily in the first and second years of the Avar. And they are noAv turning out in this fourth year of the war 2,500,000 tons of mercantile shii)]nng. The actual naval-ship- I)uilding program, I doubt if there is anybody that knoAvs; I cer- tainly do not. Secretary Redfield. Of course, that is the big yards. I might explain Avhat Mi'. Robertson says — I am not sure you could all hear. And I think Mr. Robertson could be said to speak somewhat officially on the subject for (rreat Britain. The largest annual output of ton- nage before the Avar in all the yards, the merchant yards, of Great Britain Avas 2.000,000 tons ; and at the present time, under very high pressure, the annual capacity is about 2,500,000 tons. At that rate it Avould take something over three years after the war to restore their nuirine Avhere it Avas Avhen Avar broke out, not counting any traAvlers at all. Noav, in addition to that, the great tonnage that has been added to their navy has been added in very large part, prob- ably in major part — nobody knoAVS— through the great dockyards of Great Britain, the great official navy yards in Avhich the construction of destroyers and battleships and cruisers has ahvays gone on at a nnich higher rate than Ave have ever done in this country. That does not ap])ly, hoAvever, to the building of merchant ships. Fur- thei-more, I think, Avhile Ave are on that subject — I think Mv. Robert- son Avill agree Avith me — the Avage question in Great Britain has shoAvn a very material advance, a very great adAance. Probably as great an advance as in this country. And there is not quite as marked an outlook looking toAvard its reduction after the war as the gentlemen managing the great English shipyards Avish there Avere. I used to be in a very modest Avay connected Avith a concern in Bel- AMEEICAl^-CANADIAN" FISHEEIES CONFEEElSrCE. ISl fast, Ireland, which was just across the street from the great ship- yard of Holland & Wolff, the yard which built the Olympic and Titanic^ and vessels of that kind. It is one of the largest yards, is it not? Mr. RoBEiJTsox. Yes, indeed. Secretary Redfield. One of the biggest Awards in Great Britain. And I can assure you that they are in no position to build '25 trawl- ers at once, large as they are. It is the biggest yard in the Kingdom. So that I think there is no need to worry on that ground. ]Mr. Atwood. If I might add a further word along similar lines — that is. taking up again the whiting and the industry on the cape — each year the number of cold-storage plants and fishing traps, and so forth, has increased. One would almost think increased faster than the demand, than the goods could be disposed of. But it really seeuis from our expei'ience down there, with every new plant, that not only can they sell their entire product but everybody else does and then there is always some one lacking. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. HENRY OTTE, MANAGER OF THE BAY STATE FISH CO. Secretary Redfield. Can you add. Mr. Otte. anything to what Mr. Parker, and Mr. Poole, and Mr. Atwood, and Mr. Fulham have said on the possibilities of education? ]Mr. Otte. I think not. sir. Secretary Redfield. Have you any reason to differ from them on their views on that matter? Mr. Otti:. Why, generally speaking, no. Secretary Redfield. And how, in particular? Mr. Otte. I would not particularize. Secretary Redfield. I didn't know but what you Avere trying- some camouflage upon the commission. ]Nfr. Otte. Seeing as I was born in Xew York I Avill leave that part out. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. W. A. REED, SECRETARY GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. Mr. Reed. Answering the inquiry of the chief justice in regard to the manufacture of hen food from waste, I am very glad to in- form you that we have such a concern successfully conducting busi- ness at Gloucester. P^rom the waste they manufacture glue, hen food, poultry food, and so forth. Chief Justice Hazex. Is the meal they manufacture there used for cattle food I ]Mr. Reed. I hardly think so. I have never seen their advertise- ment covering cattle food : they advertise quite largely for hen food. Plowever. I will endeavor to find that out. Secretarv Redfield. Have vou ever been to Prince Rupert, Mr. :Reed ? Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. Secretarv Redfield. Were vou connected with the fisheries there at all? Mr. Reed. Xot at all. Secretary Redfield. Do you happen to know whether there is a cold-storage plant there or not? 182 AMEKICAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. Mr. Keed. There was none there when I was there. Secretary Redfield. How long ago were yon there ^ Mr. Reed. 1908 Avas the last time I went throngh there. Secretary Redfteld. Are yon familiar with conditions on the Fraser River? Mr. Reed. Only by hearsa}'. Secretary Redfield. Not from personal knowledge? Mr. Reed. Not from personal knowledge. Secretary Redfteld. Did yon know of any complaint on the part of the American fisliermen on the Pacific coast as to the way in which they were treated in Prince Rupert ? Mr. Reed. I have never heard any complaint. Secretary Redfteld. Did yon ever hear any complaint as to the eli'ect upon the AiTierican fishing fleet of the requireiTTent of our cus- toms officers in Ketchikan that tliey sail direct from Ketchikan to the fishing grounds? Mr.IxFED. No, sir. I will endeavor to have you iiTeet the gentleman I spoke of to-morrow. Secretary Redfield. I will be very glad indeed if Mr. Reed can be present at the meeting. Now, gentlemen, as they say in the prayer meetings, the meeting is in your hands. We do not wish to close our hearings in Boston at this time without everybody having had a free chance to be heard. We appreciate your courtesy in coming. We ap- j3reciate the very thoughtful way in which youi' statements have been made ; they have been more than helpful. But noAV I Avant to say that if any of you have anything he woidd like to say, let it noAv be said. STATEMENT BY MR. GEORGE E. WILLEY, PRESIDENT BOSTON FISH MARKET ASSOCIATION. Mr. WiLLEY. For the past two days I have been very much inter- ested in the remarks from the various branches of the industry, not only from our own city, but representing the neighboidng toAvns and cities, and the principal topic has been on fresh and frozen fish. I think very little has been said about the salt or canned fish. And Avhile interested to a more or less extent in the fresh and frozen fish, the larger part of my interests are in the salt and canned fish. It has been the prevailing opinion up to a feAv years ago — that is for per- haps, Ave might say, 8 or 10 years past — that the salt-fish industry Avas sort of dying out, and in its place the fresh and frozen part of the industry Avas coming up, Avhich I think to a more or less extent Avas true for a period. But Avith the improved facilities for handling fresh and frozen fish, more especially frozen, Avhich, by the Avay. I believe is one of the most logical ways to distribute fish in the best condition to the large portion of the consuming trade — still there is a large section of the country, and in the remote or outstanding sections, Avhere it probably can not be done for a number of Aears anvAvay successfully, and these sections no doubt use large quantities of the fish salted or canned. And I think the figures Avill bear me out that instead of waning the salt and canned fish industry is gaining and has started again, in the last tAvo or three years especially. While Ave talk here of handling in a season, as some have said, or in certain times, 10,000,000, 1^^,000,000. or 13,000,000 pounds of fresh frozen fish their sales as a whole in salt AMERICAN -CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 183 and canned fish are very much heavier at the individual periods than of fresh or frozen fish. For instance within a very short time I know of one single sale of salt fish of 0,000.000 pounds that was made. Of course, that is quite a large, and I guess probably one of the largest, salt fish sales. And in connection with this increased supply, which I personally believe we should all welcome, we must bear in mind that irrespective of what my brethren say from the pier. I do not believe we are prepared to handle in any such quantities as has been out- lined might be made jjossible. In fact, there are a number of times occur, when the fishing season is on, especially, say, this past year, Avhen, if it Avere not for the fact that the salt fish men came in and handled large (}uantities of these products — referring especially to herring and mackerel, that the freezers were unable to take care of here, and even ship them from here down to Maine — anywhere they could get them in and put them in properly — that there would have been nothing left for those fish except to either dump them or send them to the glue factories. In fact, I think even so that some fish had to go to the glue factories. I have known, within a few years, of mackerel coming in in such large quantities that the freezers and the salt people couldn't handle them all, and they were sent to the glue factories. Xow. I believe there is room for all the fish we possibly can bring in here e\entually, but not until we are better prepared to han- dle them and on a more scientific and concerted scale than we are at present. And I believe, as was said in the opening of yoar hearing, that while no doubt there are certain classes and certain parts of this industry at the present time which would be more or less affected — or l^erhaps I might say that they think the}^ woidd be more or less af- fected — I believe if they should look ahead and go on to the broad scope, as outlined by your committee and yourself at the opening of this hearing, they would find that their fears are groundless. And in that respect I — speaking, as I think, gentlemen, for a large portion of the trade altogether in the various lines; not in any particular one branch — I believe the people of Xew England would welcome an}^ such plan as outlined when you started the hearing. vSecretary REoriELD. I thank you, Mr. Willey. It will be a pleasure to the conference to recei\e at any time during the next two or three months, and at the convenience of anyone who may wish to couniuinicate with it, an^' supplementary written statement or brief, or information in any form that it nu\y be the pleasure of your- self or anyone with whom you may come into communication to forward to us. Any such stateuient might be addressed to the Secretary of Commerce at Washington and would receive careful attention and be considered carefully by the conference in making- its final findings. In order to make it perfectly clear to you that there is no haste of any kind intended, it is probable that the con- ference will go in the spring, at a time not yet even discussed, to the Pacific coast and to British Columbia, and it would not make up its findings or conclusions until after that tri]D had been taken and the time had been sufficient to discuss yery candidly and fully the in- formation now being obtained and which is to be obtained. So that there will be ample time to consider any facts that anyone may desire to lay before the conference. Mr. Sweet. I would like to have Mr. Parker clear up one matter. I think you made a little intimation or suggestion that the supply 184 AMEEICAN^-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COISJ^FEEENCE. of fish might be exhausted if the market Avere very AAidelv extended by educational propaganda. Did you not? Mr. Paeivee. Yes, sir. Mr, Sweet, Just exphiin what you mean. Mr. Pabkeb. Well, if you had this very big increase, as was talked about, possibly they might catch up the fish — they would not be as plenty as they are now. Mr. Saveet. Have you reference to any particular kinds of fish? Mr. Paekee. Why, the common kinds that they are catching noAV. such as cod. haddock, hake, pollock, and so forth. I thought if that might happen in time Ave Avould have to put back into the sea some that Ave took out — that is. spaAvn. Dr. S:NriTH. Is it a fact, Mr. Parker, as I have heard intimated since I came to Boston, that there have been more ground fish on the banks off the Massachusetts coast this year than for many yi^ars? Mr. Paekee. Why, I think there have oft' farther, but right on what we call our shore grounds for a year or tAvo there they Avere very short, and the boys got very small catches, but by not fishing tliem they seem to come back again. And then last year they fished there moi'e and got better catches. I had reference more than any- thing else to the steamers. The steamers a fcAv years ago were get- ting very large catches on Georges, and then there Avas a time Avhen they didn't get as good catches. Xoav they get on again this year and seem to liaA'e found the fish more plentiful. Dr. S:mitii. Speaking of the shore fishes, I Avould like to ask ^Ir. AtAvood, Avho has had considerable experience around Cape Cod, Avhere the tra]) fishing is more extensive than anvAvhere else on the Massachusetts coast, Avhether he has observed Siuj general or special decrease in the fishes that are caught in those Aveirs. Mr. Atavood. My belief on the question of our shore fishes, as I stated at the beginning — Ave catch Avhat Ave call seasonable varieties, and certain varieties have shoAvn a decrease and other varieties have shoAvn some increase. It seems to vary and it is pretty hard to tell accurately Avhether, taking the situation as a Avhole, there has been any decrease or am^ increase. This last year there Avere plenty of mackerel in the bay. Last year and the year before Ave caught fairly hii'ge quantities of tuna fish — larger than Ave liaA'e caught for a number of years previous. Whiting seems to be plentiful at all times. alMiough this year, as I recall it, as it is told me, they usuallv have a fairly good fall on Avhiting. but this fall tlie Avhiting Avas A'ery liglit. Three or four years ago Ave had a A'ery heavy run of herring in September: since then the run has been nmch smaller. They have gone in April and INIay. In some years Ave Avill have large runs of herring and other years we have not. The Aveak fish and the blue fish both seem to have practically disappeared from our coast. T don't think that that has been due to the fact that they have been caught up at all : I think they are migratory and have taken other channels due to the feed or something Avhich has led them someAvhere else. I don't knoAv Avhether that ansAvers your (]uestion at all. Dr. Smith. Dr. S^iiTH. It gives just the information I desired. Mr. Saveet. The creation of a market for ncAv kinds of fish, the fish that have not heretofore been considered edible, Avould in a AMEEICAlsr-CANADIAISr FISHEEIES CONFEEEISrCE, 185 measure make provision, would it not. under a wider marlvet, for a greater demand ? ]Mr. Atwood. It certainly Avould. Mr. SwEpyr. That would play, you think, quite an important part in supplying a larger demand, if you had this educational propa- ganda that would greatly increase the demand? Mr. Atwood. Yes; I surely do. The demand has got to go along more or less hand in hand with the supply, as Mr. Willey has said. We have at times had lots of fish in Boston, and if there was not the demand for them we could not dispose of them. I think we could handle with our present equipment in Boston larger quan- tities on certain specific clays than, we are showing on account of not having the demand for it. Unfortunately, so far we have not been able to regulate a steady, constant, even supply. We get heav}?^ days and light days, and sometimes the days are heavier than any cold-storage plant or the fresh fish demand can possibly take care of. Yet, again, if that same supply could be distributed over a little longer period, or if the entire product Avas such that it could be held, then we could of course take care of it to a larger degree and per- haps take care of all of it. ^Ir. BrRxs. I would just like to have a word relative to the pos- sible surplus. During the ]3ast year we have disposed through onr company of about 3,500,000 pounds of oversupply at a very low price, considering that we are working to get high prices, so-called, and have sold also to a canning concern' during the same year possibly -1,000,000 pounds. To-day, under the existing conditions on the pier, in the dead of winter, with the so-called great scarcity of foods in this country, there are probably in excess of 200,000 pounds of fresh haddock on the ])ier to-day that can not be marketed at 6^ cents a pound. That is in the face of the conditions that we have had within a week, or I would say within two weeks, of a 10-cent and 12-cent market, and those fish to-day are in the packing houses and can not be moved at Qj cents per pound. Xow, while that does not perhaps mean a great deal, there is a bare possibility that without proper care we can overstep. Over- production is not an unusual thing in any line. While to-day it seems as if you can handle the whole surplus product and make a good sale of several hundred cars, and so forth, the thing possibly can get stuck. . Fish is a very peculiar thing, and as I told yoiu a slKU't time ago, New England is our chief outlet for the salt-water fish. We can with care go beyond New England, and, as Mr. Wille}^ sa,ys, the frozen fish is the solution of the question. But in the sum- mertime, or in the open season, we will say, for fishing through the lakes and rivers and the southern clime, they produce their own local fish and they are well taken care of. Up to a short time ago it was a peculiar thing that you should send any fish to the locality of our southern waters and to the Mississippi Valley. And it is barely possible when we return to normal times that they will be taken care of in their own local waters. But we must be careful. AYe must protect the investment on our own producing end to a great extent and not overstep. I would rather handle two pounds of fish than one, because it is sold at so much per pound profit; nevertheless, with the building that is going on at the present time, with the difficulties of war, the possibility of bringing foreign bot- 186 AMEKICAN-CANADIAN FISIIERIKS CONKIiRENCE. toms in here, we cerlaiiily will lunc (»\ criirodiicl ion. woi-k as liard as yoii have a mind to. Secretary Kkdfikld. I would li]rs of which we hjive s])oken that the British yards will he kept \ei'v busy for a long time ii>storing the formei- condition. y\r. IvKKi). Mr. Secretary, may 1 ask thiongh you, oi' some of the gentlemen who are familiar with the fresh fish and freezing in- dustry — entiivly without conmient on my jjai't, but ha\'ing heard it discussed several times — whether or not it is feasible, in \'iew of the fact that frozen fish are best handled — whether it is feasible to have fioating refrigerators, floating i-efrigerator shij^s, which could be sent out to the fishing gromuls at the time that they were catching and i)ut the fish directly into the freezers there at the time they were landed, or to materially assist in handling in any way'^ AVould il be feasible to construct such ships and o])erate Ihem in any way iVoui any standi>oint ? Ml'. BooLK. 1 think there ha\'e l)een sexeral experimenis along those lines. It is feasible on some \arieties. TIowe\ei', on the varie- ties — perhaps exclusi\e of the'herring on our shores, I don't l)elieve it would be feasible. B certainly would not be possible to send i-efrigerator shii)s lo the fishing grounds to buck the elements; as lots of the craft do to-day. Your expense, to begin with, would be prohibitive, and your element of risk would be great. I don't believe it is here thought it w^ould be feasible. Tt has been tried on the Pacific, and tried with some success, in towing refrigeratoi- ships. T know of one in ])articular that goes to Alaska each year, buying halibut and salmon from the native fishermen. In that case they can anchor in the bays adjacent to the fishing grounds, and secure some seasons a full catch, depending more or less on conditions governing those grcmnds; and can also be moved from one, point to another. That might api)ly to halibut and salmon because the grounds are adjac(>nt to tlu> inshores, to the bays— »the sahnon jjarlicularly. Secretary Redfikli). Do T infer correctly, Mr. Boole, that you feel that the refrigerator ship here emi)loyed is of such a character that she can not stand the rough liuifeting that a xcssel has to en- dure in the North Atlantic^ Mr. BooLK. Such a ship coiiKl he built, hut it would he very costly and very bulky. The refgrigerating e(iuii)ment, machinery, etc., takes up a large amount of space. V(m untlerstand the i>rocess of fi'eezi ng. The modern process of freezing mackerel or ground fish is in pans, those pans holding about P)() i)ounds each. Those fish are cai-efully placed in the i)an, the pans are placed upon coils in freezers wIkmv the (emi)erature is at zero and under — ]n'ef- (>rably under. .Vl'ter they arc frozen sufficiently they are taken olf those coils in the pans ami grazed — dipped, as we call it — dipj^ed in water. AMKItJCAX-rjAN'AOIAN KISt I KIM KS CONFRRKNCE. 187 III (loiii^ that vv(i loos(;n the. fiHh from tli(i pan so that we are able to r'('iiiov(; it, in its shape — the shape of tJie pan. That water, or that ^hizin^, liermetically seals that against the dryin^-up process of the air, whieli nii^ht occur. Those fish then are placed in boxes, and M^:ain they are sealed against the action of the air. P'rozen fish will dry up eontiniifilly if exposed to the air. On a refri^ei-at- ing ship yon can iinii^ijic, to carry the (iqnipment necessary to handle nny (jiuintity of fish, it would make it almost |)rohibiti\'e. V'oii woidd iias'e to carry youi* pans and have yoiu- freezing- arr-tm^i^e- ments and storao<' f'aciliti(^s. Seeretaiy IJkoi (Knn. I think' Mr. Heed's su<^'^estion haidly went as far as ihal iiiorc pcrfcrl pr'occ^s. I think your tliou<:(hi was to chill, mei'cjy, wasii"! it '. Mr. Ukko. Infor-mat ion in any i-especl. Secr-etary Wvawwwm. W'c have built up rather an inl(M«-rttin^- ex- periment in refi-ij2'erat ion ourselves, Mr. Poole, We have just com- pleted and put into servic*; a vessel that was fitted up for use in research work in the West Aleutian Islands where there are no sea- |)orts. A vessel of about a thousand tons. 7'liat rar-iies a crew of fJO men and is so e()ui|)p('d that she carries fuel and food, fresh meat, and ve^i-etables. for (I\c montlis" supply for the entire crew of GO men, as well as her I'liel. ;iiid mak'cs uo port, ^oin^- out in May, June, July, .\u^iisl. and September, and eominf^ back in October, replenishing neither food nor fuel during that |>eriod. She has rather an in- teresting refriger-ating e(juipment, compi-ising two sections — one where tlu; lK;ef and fish is frozen, running down to zero, as you iiave just said, and maintained at that ; and the other a cooling de- partment in whieh \-eget;ibles are kept at a tem)>(!ratui-e, as I i-ecali it, of about 35. or something of tliaf kind. So far as T know, it is a uni()iie ship. Mr, PoonK. May I ask if those tilings go aboard the vr'ssel in the fjozen .stated Secretary \\.vmv\vam. \o; fiozen on hoard. The vessel has just been sent o\'ei- to the Mediterranean. We ar-e interested to see the r-esults of that climate. I'liat. so far as I know, is a unique shi|>. Mr. Pooi.K. We loaded one ship liei'e in Poston — an Australian beef e;ii-r-ier for the troops abi-o;id with ^i.OOO.OOO pounds on one ship. Secretary Ki;i)i-[Knn. \'ou froze the fisli and |daced them on botfrd f I'ozen ? Mr, Poorj-:. Ves. I ask'ed tli«' man in eharge of that shipment how he was going to handle them on the othei- side, and he said they were well ('(juipped to handle them. Put he in turn asked nre if I knew how long those fish would last after they got on the othei- side. T said I didn't know that I coirld guess very closely. .Vnd he said if they sent them up the line they woidd last tlii-ee meals. Ml". FuniiA.M. If I am not out of oidei' I thouglit I would like to say, in the matter of overproduction, for your information I would state that while I haven't any facts or figures with me, I do not recall any time, j)articularly within the last six months, that our company has been stuck, so to speak, with fish; and there liave heen nniny and many days when we were unable to get enougli to fill our orders. even at a very high price. 188 AMERlCAlSr-CAlSrADIAISr FISHERIES COXPEEElSrCE. CLOSING STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Secretary, before the meeting adjourns 1 want very briefly, on behalf of the Canadian section of the con- ference, to express our appreciation of the treatment that we have re- ceived during- our stay in the city of Boston at the hands of the gen- tlemen who are more particularly interested in the fishing trade of this cit}^ We were received in a most cordial manner : we have been treated with the greatest hospitality, and we have had the advan- tage of listening here to statements made by gentlemen familiar with the industry Avhich we are discussing, all- of which statements have been made in the fairest possible spirit and with a desire, I think, to afl'ord us correct information, so that we may be able better than we otherwise would to come to a conclusion regarding the ques- tions that have been submitted to us for our consideration and for our report. Many questions ha^e arisen that are somewhat outside the main (luestion which we are considering here, and all of which have an important be*aring upon the fisheries of the country, and in- formation has been aii'orded to us that will prove of inestimable value, not only in connection with our present duties but in cxninec- tion with any future duties that we may have in regard to the fish- ery service in our OAvn country. Some matters have been referred to Avhich will form to some extent the basis of inquiry from the fisher- men of the maritime provinces. Avho we expect to uveet in St. John, New Brunswick, on Tuesday next, and on the following days, and I know we will talve every opportunity to probe to the bottom certain statements which have been made here to ascertain what the facts are in cases where gentlemen at this meeting Avere not prepared to fur- nish us Avith absolutely accurate statements i-egarding them. It will be a long time — speaking for myself personally, and I think in that regard I may spealc the sentiments of my colleagues as Avell — it Avill be a very long time before Ave Avill forget our visit to the city of Boston, the interesting tAvo days Ave have spent here in conference with the men Avho represent the fishing intei'ests of the city and of the State, and the very kind and hospitable treatment Ave have re- ceived. And I trust that the very kindly and good relations that haA'e marked ever}^ phase of the present meeting may simph" be typi- cal of the good relations Avhich are going to exist betAveen Canada aiTd the United States in future years. [Applause.] I Avas going to say — my friend, Mr. Found, has reminded me — that Ave Avill be more than delighted if it is possible for any of you to come to St. John and be present at the meetings there, and to ask any questions of the gentlemen Avho appear before us for the purpose of giving us in- formation. CLOSING STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD. Secretary Redfield. I should like to add to the invitation kindly given by his honor, the Chief Justice of Ncav BrunsAvick, by extend- ing, in behalf of the conference, an in.Adtation to any representatiA'e of any Boston interest, or of any Gloucester interest — and I shall be glad if the papers Avill take note of the uuitter — to send a representa- tive to St. John or to any other hearing of the conference and to take part in the hearings by asking questions or seeking any further AMEEICAN-CANADIAi^ FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 189 light that ma}' be desired. We want to put the thing on the broadest possible plane, we want to have it treated with the largest possible volume of light and with the least possible volume of heat. We desire also to place upon the record our obligation to the press of the city of Boston for their courtesy and for the very intelligent and thoughtful way in which they have reported the proceedings of the conference. We should do injustice to our own feelings if we did not express our sense of gratitude to the Boston Chamber of Commerce for its kindness to you and to us in permitting us to occupy this room, and for the hospitality extended to us personally, which we can not hope wholly to repa}^ In kind let me say that we are very deeply indebted to j^ou — to many of you. This hearing in its spirit, and this conference in its form and spirit, let us hope, represent a departure from the somewhat devious waj^s of diplomacy as she is done, or as she was done in the past. Here we are, two peoples, to whom the great things are the same. I am fond of the Frenchman; I recognize our debt to him in our time of trouble; I recognize that to France we have a great obligation in literature, art, and inspiration in many ways; but after all, gentlemen, after all, it is only the inhabitants of the British Empire to whom the great phrases mean the same things they mean to you and me. The word '' home " is not found outside of the English language, and wherever it is spoken in English it means the same thing, and it does not mean the same thing anywhere else. There is an enormous difference between " my home " and " chez moi.'' The whole concep- tion of home is one Avhich is common to the Englishman, to the Canadian, to the Australian, and to the American, and to nobody else. So is the conception of wife, so is the conception of woman- hood, and all that those things mean. And Magna Charta Avas our fight, and Oliver Cromwell was a good American, and we are all subjects of King Shakespeare ; and those are the big things after all. The hearing is now adjourned to convene in Gloucester to-morroAv morning at 10.30. Mr. George E. Willey. I would like to ansAver for the Boston fish trade. Perhaps, as I stated last evening, Avhile there might be a division of opinion on the subject, there was none whatever on the matter of hospitality. If it has been a pleasure to you to receive this hospitality, I can assure you it has been doubly a pleasure to us to giA'e that hospitality ; and the pleasure of having met you, gentlemen, and the information and good it has done us has more than repaid us. Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much. Chief Justice Hazen. Thank you. (The hearing was adjourned at 4.40 p. m.) HEARING AT GLOUCESTER, MASS. Gloucester, February Z^ 1918. The Gloucester hearing of the American-(-anadian Fisheries Con- ference Avas held in the rooms of the Master Mariners Club, begin- ning at 10.30 o'clock a. m. The same representatives of the United States and Canada on the conference were present as at the Boston hearings. Hon. William C. Redfield, Secretary of Commerce, presided. Among those in attendance at this hearing, in addition to the members of the American and Canadian delegations to the confer- ence, were the folloAving : Hon. ^^^ W. I.ufkin, Member of Congres.s. Hon. Chai'les I). Brown. State senator of Massachusetts. Orlando Mei-chant. William H. .Ionian & Co. Capt. .Tames H. Stapleton. seeretai'.v Master Mariners' Association. Edward P. Ring, port warden. Capt. Carl C. Yonns, vessel owner. Fred L. Davis, vessel owner and pi'esident (41oucester ?>oard of Trade. Thomas .J. Carroll. .ij:eneral manajier (Jorton-l'ew Fisheries Co. Ben.iamin A. Smith, vessel manager (rorton-l'ew Fisheries Co. E. Archer Bradley, genei'al manager S.vlvaniiis Smith & Co. .1. Manuel Marshall, vessel owner. Samuel . York, presiding justice of the district court. Henry D. Pinkham. president Heni-y D. Pinkham Co.. manufacturers of salt Hsh. Ralph J. Irving, local numager D. H. Lane Co., of Chicago. .John B. Freeman. (Jorton-Pew Fisheries Co. John A. .Johnson, director board of trale. Wilmot A. Reed, secretary board of trade. Percy W. Wheeler, boat builder. Capt. I'eter Grant, fishing captain. Alexander .J. Chisholm. vessel owner. E. Iv. Burnham, of E. Iv. Burnham Co. .John V. I'erkins. director board of trade. I^. C. I-'arkluirst. pi-esident Parkhurst Fisheries Co. Frank C. Pearce. (Jorton-Pew Fisheries Co. Henry F. Bi-own. (loiton-I*e\^- Fisheries Co.. also hxTil representative United States Departnient of Fisheries. Harry R. Christophuson. master rigger. .James E. Lenhart. sales manager (iortoard l^ree Navigation School. Antonie E. Silva. city alderman. Alexander Chisholm, manager .John Chisholm Co. Capt. L^red Thompson, vessel captain. Capt. .John Mathieson. vessel captain. Capt. Thomas S. Nickerson, Bucksport. Me., former captain, now owner. Capt. George J. Tarr, ti-easurer George .J. Tarr Co., fish oils. Henry E. Pinkham, Henry PI I*inkham Co., manufacturers of salt fish. .Joseph McPhee, Russia Cement Co., glue, hen food, etc. 191 11)2 AMKHlCAN-tW^X.vniAX FISIIKKIKS CON l^KHENCR. Ariliui' ( '. l»;i\is. In'iisiin'i- l''r:iiik Iv l>:i\is Co.. l;ii-,i;i>si iiuii l-ni'dt'i- lisli (listribulors. Friiiik K. l)ii\ij>, lucsidciil I'iniik K. l>;i\is('(). Fred A. Morris. Dm vis Bms., salt lisii uiiiuuriKUircis. I>iniiel S. 'rnrr, (it'oryv .). Tarr Co., lisli oils. Albert S. .McKoii/.io. deputy eollt>c(or ol' llu> porl. .lames K. 'rolmau, rt^presentalive in Siaic leuislai lire. {'"isliiii.t;- ves.sel captains: Capl. (Jeorji'e 11. I'eojiles. Capl- l''rauk L. Hall. ('apt. tkH)r,i;e 10. 11 i.u'.ii'i us. ('apt. Klroy Trior. ('a])t. (^eor.ue llanior. Ci\p\. John Barrett. ('apt. William .Nelson. Caiit. .lames .Mason. Cajit. l>avid (Jiliis. OPENING STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD. Secretary Kkdkiku). The ineeliii^- will [)le:>se eoine [o order. It is not the purpose of the conference, oentlemen, to detain you with addresses. AVe are here not to have you hear us, but to "have the privilege of hearing- you ; and we are here to learn, not for the pur- pose of even atteinptino- to instruct so expert an audience as this. xVt the A'ery beginniuo- ] Avish to express n>y j-egret that one of the Canadian coniinissioners, Mr. (Jeorge J. Desha rats, the deputy sec- retary of the department of marine affairs of Canada, is prevented by illness from being- with tis. The experience we have had of his counsel thus far nuvkes it a source of very genuine regret that he is thus temporarily kept away from the conference through so un- pleasant a cause. The circumstances under which we tueet are perhaps such that they should be laid before you as a background for the discussion which is to follow. As regards the two countries here represented, they are now Hghting side by side against a common foe. If the cause for whicli Canada is giving her sons, an(f for which we are giving or abotit to give our own, shall fail, (xloucesler and Boston, aiul all Americans as Avell as Canadian ports, will do business accord- ing to rules laid doAvn in (Ternutny. I need hardly remind you that it is a sober fact that the (Terman Government almost a year ago this very time notilied us that we might send one ship a week, painted in a cei'tain way which they prescribed, into a certaiit i)ort which they mentioned; something, 1 think, that never theretofore happened to this great country of oiu's, and something which, I trust, no nation will ever have the temerity to .suggest again. But I remind you also, gentlemen, that w(> must not as American citizens carry on this discussion of to-day as if things were as they have been in the past. Within a very foAV weeks a German publica- tion has distinctly avoAved it as the policy of Germany to dominate the seas, saying that by "" freedom of the seas " they mean German domiitation of the seas; and the issue is, whether you aiul T and our brethren in Canada shall be free to pursue so much of our liveli- hood as depends upon the sea as we desire. Tliat c]uestion is asked you now and is being fought out in the first line of trenehes upon the other side. There is a power in the world which means that we shall not bo free if they can prevent it. That is one of the conditions luider AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 193 wliich we have met. The other is a condition of a Avorhl-wide sliort- age of food. In every one of the great nations of the world the food supply is relatively scant. There is not sufficient, as there has been in the past, to go around. Great Britain, which has been the largest consumer of fish food in the world — her annual consumption being more than three times our own per capita, or about 59 pounds per person per annum as compared with IS pounds in this country — has found her supply cut more than in half, and her fishing fleet largely devoted to ]Hirposes of war and very largely suffering from the dis- astrous incidents of war. As I had the pleasure of saying in Boston, there is no finer record in the world than that of the fishermen of Great Britain who, through these fearful years on the North Sea, have been upholding the right to carry on their occupation where they wnll, the same right precisely for which we are fighting along- side of our brethren in Canada at this time. I invite ,you to consider, among other things, the fact whether it is not possible in this country to greatly increase, under these con- ditions, the den)and for fish food, for the sale of which this is so great a center. I point out to you that we consume about two lul- lion pounds of fish annually, with a population of 100,000,000; that Great Britain consumes, with a population of 4.5,000,000, over four billion poimds annually, or sojnething more than double, with less than half the population. I point out to you that Canada, wath her population of one-tenth of ours, consumes nearly double the amount of fish per person that we do. Among all the great nations of the world our Xation is the one which consumes the smallest amount of fish per capita, or 18 poimds as compared with 29 ])ounds in Canada and 58 or 59 pounds in Great Britain. This question suggests itself for consideration. If efforts were made to greatly increase this food supply, and if our fish consump- tion per capita were doubled, it would still be but about half of the fish consumption of Great Britain, and we should have to find some- where about 2,000,000,000 more pounds of fish j)er aimimi to meet the demand. Great Britain is at the moment considering the possibility of multiplying her fish consumption by four after the war. If that effort is successful, you can readily imagine Avhat the result will be upon the fishing industry of the world. Those are large factors in the problem, which are bound to form in a measure the back- ground for our thought. We have not come here, however, to press any viewpoint, to lay down any fixed practice or principle, but merely to learn wdiat we may as to how^ it may be possible to stop for good and all the fric- tion which has existed for many years past between two nations which now in one common cause are giving their sons and their dol- lars on the same field of strife. We surely ought not to stay apart on the question of food if M-e are willing that our children should die side by side, as they are doing on the fields yonder. Therefore, in making a tentative suggestion to you for the purpose of clear thought, let me also make it perfectly clear that this is not a fixed thing, but is subject to change. We are here to learn. Further- more, our -discussions will range into every phase of the mutual fisheries concerns of the two countries. We are not limited, nor are you limited. AVhatever information you may have now or later, or 51950—18 1.3 194 AMEEICAISr-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. whatever facts you can give on any phase of the fisheries industry, we are anxious to get. To make tlie matter perfectly clear, if any of you feel that you are not for any cause able to present as fully as you wish to do the facts you have at your command, if you will be good enough to address them to me at any time within the next two or three months at Washington, I assure you that they Avill receive the very earnest thought and care of the commission. Mr. Frederick L. Davis (president of the Gloucester Board of Trade). Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, as those here to-day were not present at the Boston hearing, that the articles be read over at this time, the points that were then suggested for discussion. Secretary Eedfield. Notice was sent on the '24th of January to the New England fish industry that the following subjects were before the conference and would be made, among others, the subject of study and consideration : 1. The proposed extension of the Canadian modus vivendi licenses to American fishing vessels, by whatevei- means they may be pro- pelled, and the reduction of the annual fee from $1.50 per registered ton to the nominal sum of $1 per vessel, and that the renewal of the licenses from year to year be not conditional on an Order in Council of the Government of Canada, but form part of the arrangement itself. 2. That United States fishing vessels be allowed to sell their fish in Canadian ports for Canadian markets, subject to customs duty, as well as to sell in bond. 3. That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to purchase bait and all other supplies and outfits in United States ports on ec[ual terms with American fishing vessels. 4. That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to take their catches direct to United States ports and sell them there, subject to customs duties, if any. 5. That the fishing vessels of either country visiting ports in the other be given clearances for the fishing grounds if so desired. 6. That the United States prevent American lobster well smacks from fishing off the Canadian coasts during the closed season, for lobster fishing on such coasts. Perhaps it would be well to say in further definition that the privi- lege granted in the Canadian ports would, of course, include the privilege to all American fishing vessels, hoAvever propelled, of purchasing in those ports whatever supplies, equipment, or articles of that character they might need. Mr. Chief Justice, do you desire to say anything? STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. Chief Justice Hazen. I did not come here with the intention of saying anything at this stage, Mr. Secretary. Like yourself, I came here for the purpose of getting information. The sitting of this joint commission, hearing statements and evidence in the United States, as the same commission will hear evidence and statements from parties interested in Canada in the coiu-se of the next few days, is a new step forward in the direction of open diplomacy. I think it is typical of the close relations and the good feeling now existing between the people of the two countries. It is, as was said in Boston the other night, perhaps the most striking example of open AMERICAlSr-CAIirADIAlSr FISHERIES COISTFEEENCE. 195 diplomacy that has so far occurred between nations that do not live under the same flag. At the present moment, when the relations of our countries are so close and intimate, when our sons on both sides of the line are fighting in the same cause, for the preservation of the same democratic institutions, for the sanctit}^ of treaty rights and for the protection of smaller nations, as well as for our own future lib- erty and prosperity, I think it is onW right and proper that in any negotiations we may have everybody should be taken fully into our confidence and that Ave should on both sides have the opportunity of hearing matters under consideration discussed from the view point of the other side. Of course, it is unnecessary to say to this audience, all of wdiom are very familiar with the subject, that the rights which American fishing vessels have in Canadian ports to-day are the rights obtained 100 years ago, under the treaty of 1818, and that under those rights American fishing vessels have the right to go into Canadian ports for four purposes, and for four purposes only — for repairs, for shel- ter from storm, for the purpose of obtaining wood, and for the pur- pose of obtaining water. Those are the only rights that, under the treaty of 1818, fishing vessels of the United States have in our ports at the present time. Attempts were made about the year 1888, I think — 30 years ago — to have the thing extended, and commissioners were appointed to negotiate an agreement looking toward a treaty on the basis that if the United States would admit Canadian fish free of duty to the ports of the United States, Canada would accord to the United States fishing vessels the same rights in Canadian ports which Canadian fishing vessels have in our ports to-day. That is. they would have not only the right to go to those' ports for the four purposes I have mentioned but to go and purchase bait and other supplies, to ship crews, to transship their fish in bond through to the markets of the United States. An agreement was entered into along that line, sub- ject to the treaty being ratified by the Congress of the United States, and pending that ratification the Canadian Parliament passed legis- lation providing for what is known as the modus vivendi licenses, licenses which no doubt some of you gentlemen here have taken out in the past. That legislation provided that annual licenses might be issued to a United States vessel on the payment of the sum of $1.50 per registered ton of the vessel's tonnage, under which the American vessel would have the right to go into our ports, buy bait and other supplies, ship crew^s, and transship fish through in bond to the markets of the United States. Unfortunately — I think un- fortunately for both countries — that treat}' was not ratified by the Congress of the United States. So to-day the rights that the Ameri- can fishermen have in our ports are of a temporary character, sub- ject to being terminated any year, because from year to year this order in council is passed, anct it has not been passed, I can say to you without violating State secrets or the oath taken by the privy council, in any year without considerable opposition, advancecl and urged by Canadian interests. It is not desirable, I think, that this arrangement should go on simply as a temporary matter, liable to be canceled at any time, in any year, thus causing confusion to the fishing interests in the United States and confusion to certain interests in Canada. 196 AMEBICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. By thQ tariff of 1913 the United States admitted Canadian fresh a)id frozen fish free into yonr markets, and not only Canadian fresh and frozen fish but fish from wliatever countr}^ it miglit come. It was not done as a favor to Canada ; it was done as a matter of domes- tic polic}^ of the United States, it being believed, I presume, by those who framed the tariff that it was for the interest of the people of the United States that fresh and frozen fish should be admitted free. That having taken place, the Government of the United States caused certain representations to be made to the Government of Can- ada, to the effect that as fish were admitted free to the United States it was felt that the Government of Canada should extend the modus vivendi to all vessels, however propelled, instead of limiting it, as it is now and has been for 30 years, to vessels driven by sail alone. Many things have occurred in the past 30 years. The fishing business has been largely revolutionizecl. Many of the fishing ves- sels are now propelled by steam or other motive power, and it is a small majority, I think, that are to-day propelled simply by the force of nature — the wind. In reply to that suggestion the Government of Canada, in cor- respondence, pointed out that this was not a privilege granted to Canada ; that it was a matter of domestic policy, and that the United States might terminate it at any moment they chose; that a different policy might prevail in the future, and that we might find that fish were no longer admitted free into the markets of the United States. We further pointed out that, Avhile you admitted fish free into your markets, there were certain restrictions which were im- posecl upon the Canadian vessels through your navigation and cus- toms laws which made it difficult for them to take advantage of the sending of free fish in here to the fullest extent; that our ves- sels were not permitted to come into your ports from the fishing- grounds. In this matter I am speaking solel}^ of the situation on the Atlantic coast, because a different rule seems to prevail on the Pacific coast. A different policy and practice is followed there under practi- cally the same law. But on the Atlantic coast the fishing vessels of Canada are not able to come into your markets with their catch with- out first proceeding to a Canadian port and there either transferring their load of fish to a trading vessel or else themselves taking out a license or registering themselves as a trading- vessel, and then pro- ceeding to your ports ; and those vessels, having come to your ports and unloaded their fish, are not then permitted to proceed to the fishing grounds by the shortest route — along the hypothenuse of the triangle — but have to clear for a Canadian port, and from that port to the fishing grounds, thus traveling by the base and the perpen- dicular of the triangle instead of by the hypothenuse — the short cut. We suggested, further, that there was also another matter that might be considered; that we were trying to conserve our lobster supply on the Atlantic coast; that we were having on our coast certain closed seasons during which no lobsters could be caught in our territorial limits — within the 3-mile limit — and that while we were enforcing that regulation well smacks were coming from the New England coast and catching- lobsters outside of the 3-mile limit, seeking the shelter of our ports at night and then going on to American ports with them; and that our fishermen had had the pleasure of sitting on the shore, prevented by our laws from catching A.MERICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 197 lobsters in thcit season, and looking out and seeing their American consins catching them beyond the 3-mile limit. Tvhile our action was intended to preserve the lobsters not only for our own benefit but for the benefit of everybody concerned in the lobster industry. The Government of the United States suggested, in a proper and statesman-like way. that there should be a conference on the sub- ject; that the whole matter should be discussed with the best of friendly feeling : and I am delighted to say that the best of friendly feeling' has prevailed between the American and the Canadian com- missionei-s at the hearings already held. 'Wherever we have been we have found a disposition to approach the subject from the stand- point of fair, honorable, and proper feeling between the two coun- tries, unhampered by any traditions or history of the past. So this commission has been appointed, representing both countries, on the one side Mr. Eedfield, Secretary of Commerce; Mr. Sweet, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce: and Dr. Smith the highest authority on fishing in the United States; and on the other side myself and my associate j)resent. Mr. Found, superintendent of Canadian fisheries : also Mr. Desbarats. the deputy minister of naval service. "We have come here for the sake of getting information and discussing these matters. We are not limited, however, to a discus- sion of these matters that have been referred to. We have a right to consider any outside fishing questions that ma}^ have arisen be- tween Great T3ritain or Canada and the United States, and many other questions that have come ujd at our conference. On Tuesday, at St. John. Xew Brunswick, we will hear the rep- resentatives of the fishing industry of the Maritime Provinces of Canada, and no doubt there we will hear differences of opinion ex- pressed, as they were expressed in Boston yesterday and as no doubt they will be expressed here to-day. I might say that it will be a very gi-eat pleasure to us if at our meeting at St. Jolin on Tuesday next, and probably on Wednesday next, there were present representatives from this section of the Union, so that they might hear the viewpoint of our people, ask them any questions they please, and get the fullest possible information, because our desire is simply to elicit the facts, and then, having the facts before us. we can get together and see if we can not recom- mend to the Governments of our respective countries an arrangement that will put to an end the irritation that has existed in the past and that will be for the general benefit of the people who live on this North American Continent, whether they live to the north or the south of the international boundary line. There is no hurry about the matter, because some time in March or April we will have to proceed to the Pacific coast, to the State of W'ashingion. to British Columbia, from there to Prince Rupert and Ketchikan. Alaska, for the purpose of getting the views of the people there in regard to certain difficulties connected with the fishing situa- tion that exist on the western shore of this continent. As the chairman of the joint commission (Mr. Eedfield) has said, anyone who has any statement to make after we leave here in regard to any matter that may occur to him in the future can put his views in writing and file them with the commission. Any communication sent to Washington in that wav Avill be read bv the commissioners 198 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEKIES CONFERENCE. and discussed and considered, being oi\en the very hdlest possible consideration in our poAver. We have stated briefly what we are here for. We wouUl lilce to hear from fishermen, the representatives of the fishing interests of this historic port of Gloucester, which is knoAvn the wide world over as a fishing port. We would like to hear from you your Aiews touching these questions. Secretary Eedfield. On behalf of the American commissioners I wish to say that we join very earnestly in the invitation extended by Chief Justice Hazen to representatives of various interests in your port to come to St. John, if they can do so, and be present at the hearings there next Tuesday and Wednesday. We can assure you that the fullest opportunity will there be given anyone who may come representing Boston or (xloucester to ask questions, and we earnestly hope representatives from Boston and Gloucester may be present there in St. John to get information and to give advice in regard to any program that may be thought proper. STATEMENT BY MR. FREDERICK L. DAVIS. PRESIDENT OF THE GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. Mr. Davis. INIr. Chaii-man, I noticed the other day in Boston tluit there was quite a little hesitancy in getting things started. We have different points of view here in connection with our fishing industry, one man differing from another, and I think you Avould like to have those differences of opinion brought out. I w^ould like to ask Mr. Marshall, who is the representative here of large interests of a pecu- liar type in connection with shore fisheries, a man who knoAvs his business pretty well, to start off by giving his ideas. STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN WILLFRED W. LUFKIN. Congressman Lufkin. Mr. Chairman, if I may, at this point I w^ould like to ask one or two questions before we proceed farther. In view of the fact that there has been a great deal of discussion in the newspapers and otherwise to the effect that these agreements should be carried out in the interest of patriotism, perhaps, I want to ask your board if it is its intention, its idea, that these recom- mendations should be in effect simply as a war measure or as a per- manent arrangement between the two countries'^ I think perhaps the gentlemen hei'e would discuss the matter more intelligenth^ if they understood about that. Secretary Redfiei^u. What Ave have in mind, of course, is a perma- nent arrangement betAveen the Iavo countries; but it Avould be an error, Mr. Congressman Lufkin, to speak of these things Avhich have been read as being all or even a major part of Avhat the com- mission has in mind. These are simply a portion of the subject, are not intended to be the Avhole of it, and the discussion would be pro- ceeding along mistaken lines if it Avere to be supposed for a moment that the points suggested are the sole ones, or perhaps in the final analysis even a majority of the things to be considered. Congress)nan Lifkix. I have raised the question because undoubt- edly a permanent arrangement Avould require approval by Congress, AMERICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEEXCE. 199 Avhereas I suppose a wav arrangement could be put into execution through a proclamation by the President under the food act. could it not? Secretary Redfield. I am sure I don't know. That is a thing that has not been considered, Mr. Congressman. Congressman Lufkix. I understand so. Secretar}^ Redfield. Our thought is purely to a permanent ar- rangement. There are certain features that have already been dis- cussed b}'' us — as. for example, the matter pending on Lake Cham- plain — that can be settled, I understand, by regulation. Chief Justice Hazex. Yes. Secretary Redfield. Certain other matters ayouIcI require action by Congress; certain other matters would require a treaty, which in its turn would require the approval of the Senate. Our purpose is not limited, not confined to any one of these things, but is as broad as the relations of every kind, from Alaska to Cape Breton Island. Congressman Lufkix. I thank you very much. sir. STATEMENT BY MR. J. MANUEL MARSHALL, AN OWNER OF VESSELS SAILING FROM GLOUCESTER. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I had not intended to say anything just yet, and I did not know that ^Ir. Davis intended that I should make any remarks just yet. I wanted to hear from those whom I thought would perhaps be more vitally interested, in a way,, than I am. My interests in the fishing business are comparatively small. It is true that I am interested in a few vessels, but very few vessels ; and^ looking at my interest in a personal wa}^, I would say that I shoulcl prefer to let the present situation remain as it is. I do not want to see Gloucester lose her identity, individuality, or personality, if I might apply that word to Gloucester as the seat of the fishing in- dustr3\ I certainly would not like to see Gloucester lose her in- dividuality. I realize, as you saj^, Mr. Secretarj-, that the question is a broad one and that we ought to do what is best for the whole country. Let us draw a circle right around the whole of Xorth America. It ought to be done in that way, if it can be so done, in order that these jeal- ousies — and they are not petty jealousies, but the jealousies that each of us have of the other — may not prevail. There should be a circle clraAvn around the whole of North America in connection with this matter, and I think that is coming, although personally, as X say, I think I should prefer to let the thing stay as it is. I think there would be more money in my pocket and in the pockets of those I rep- resent to allow the situation to remain just as it is. But I think what I suggest is coming in time. I look forward to the time, and perhaps not in the far distant future, when our in- terests in the fisheries will be identical, as they are now in one re- spect: when American vessels will be visiting the Canadian ports and have the same access there and exercise the same rights and priv- ileges that they have in our ports. Your object, I understand, is to enlarge the supply of fish. Whether that is going to accomplish what you desire or not I don't know : but it will certainly help in a great measure. 200 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. As I say, I do not care about discussing- the situation in all its different aspects or phases just now, until I hear from some of the others. But Mr. Davis has called on me, and I want to make these preliminar}'' remarks, to show how I feel personally. I say, however, speaking from a patriotic standpoint, from an enlarged view of the whole matter, that the time will come, and perhaps it is not very far away, when we will all use each other's ports as freely as we wish. Secretary Eedfield. May I ask you a question, Mr. Marshall ? Mr. Marshall. Certainly. Secretary EEnriiiLD. Taking tlie vessels that -you own, what is the nationality of the crews? Mr. Marshall. Portuguese, solely. That is, they are practically all Portuguese. Secretary Kedfield. And those who are not Portuguese are what ? Mr. Marshall. Why, there are very few others. I might say that they are all Poiiuguese. There are very few on tlie vessels Avho are not Portuguese. Secretary Eedfield. American citizens!* Mr. Marshall. Yes; some of them; and some not. Secretary Eedfield. Of what birth? Mr. Marshall. Mostly of Portuguese birth. The officers are American citizens, but principally of Portuguese birth. Secretary Eedfield. Naturalized? Mr. Marshall. Yes. Most of the men. I think, are not natural- ized. Secretary Eedfield. The vessels are propelled by power? Mr. Marshall. Auxiliary power. Secretai-y Eedfield. And fi'om your knoAvledge of the vessel-own- ing industry, it is the general tendency, is it not. to have vessels propelled by power? Mr. Marshall. I think so. Some of the vessels did not have power until this year — that is, auxiliary power. I caused it to be put in. Secretary Eedfield. Has there been within recent years a tendency toward the consolidation of ownership of fishing vessels? In other words, are there as many individual owners as there were 10 years ago ? Mr. Marshall. No; I think not. Secretary Eedfield. How many Aessel owners are there in Glou- cester, about? Mr. Marshall. Well, with regard to the fishing interests, they are largelj^ centered in one industry in Gloucester, the Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. Secretary Eedfield. You are not connected with that company? Mr. Marshall. No. Secretary Eedfield. They do own vessels? Mr. Marshall. Yes. Secretary Eedfield. How many different operating owners of ves- sels are there in Gloucester ? ' Mr. Marshall. I don't know. Probably, taking people interested in the different vessels, there might be 100 owners of small vessels, and of larae ones there might 100 more. AMERICAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES COXFEKEiVCE. 201 Secretary Redfield. That. I understand, is a smaller number than was the case 10 years ago? Mr. Marshall. Well, as I say, I think the ownership of the vessels is largely centered m one concern, now. Secretary Redfield. Then, do I get from you the impression cor- rectly that* there is a substantially concentrated ownership of vessels in this port ( Mr. jSIaeshall. In the fishing industry : yes. Secretary- Redfield. In the fishing industry. I mean ? Mr. Marshall. Yes. There is one question I wanted to ask in regard to the privileges to be granted to our vessels, with respect to selling fish in a Canadian port. I notice that you say with respect to the tariff' duties, '' subject to the tariff duties." Secretary Redfield. If any. Mr. ]Marsiiall. Xo; you dont say that. But here, in reference to the United States, you sa}^, " if any.-' I wanted to know whether there was any significance to that or not. Secretary Redfield. The tariff, as a domestic problem, a ques- tion of raising revenue, is not directly within the function of this conference. Mr. ^Marshall. I wondered if it was the hope that the vessels of the United States might exercise all the privileges of the Canadian ports, as thej' desire? Secretary Redfield. I am very much interested in that, ]SIr. jNIar- ^hall. I Avish you would give us your views on that. What do you think would l^e desirable? ^Ir. Marshall. As I say. that is not a question that would con- cern me much, personally. These vessels of mine rarely make use of the Canadian ports. Secretary Redfield. Why not ? Mr. ?\Iarshall. They don't fish dovrn that way so much, don't have occasion to. Secretary Redfield. That is. it is not a matter of the law but a matter of your own individual policy or practice ? Air. jMarshall. Their policy in the matter of fishing is somewhat different. Those privileges, as fai- as my vessels and a great many others here, are not exercised, or are exercised but rarely, but I think the tendency is more and more that the fishing vessels of Gloucester will not make use of them. That is not only the result of my own experience," but what I have learned from others, that our fishing vessels do not exercise the privilege of going into the Canadian ports, and paying a license fee of $1.50 per registered ton for the j^urpose of getting bait, as they did formerly. That is, they do not do so so much. They take bait from here more than they did. and I think it is the wish of owners of vessels that they do take their supplies from home and go directly to the ground, rather than be delayed down there, and they do not make any use of Canadian ports more than they are absolutely obliged to. That feature, that privilege, as far as granting it to us is concerned, is not as beneficial now as it was formerly. At least, it appears to me so. Secretary Redfield. Wliat would be your suggestion as to the action on the part of the Canadian Government which would be most helpful to your industry? 202 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. Mr. Marshall. I say, so far as I am personal!}^ concerned, I pre- fer to have it remain as it is; but taking it from a broad standpoint, looking at it broadly and from the ])oint of view of the welfare of all. if (irloucester is not going to lose its identity and its individuality, you might say, because I think if it does you will hear very little of (irloucester, if Ave lose our vessels, I think perhaps such action as is suggested between the two countries might be taken. Of course, a great many of our people are somewhat jealous, naturally, as your people are in Canada. They don't Avant the American vessels to go there and get many privileges. We are all naturally jealous of each other, whatever pursuit we may be engaged in. . That is a well recog- nized fact. Avhether it is the fish game or anything else. Chief Justice Hazen. That is human nature. yiv. Maushall. That is human uature. Your Canadian peo]de are naturally somewhat jealous of Americans going in and getting' ])rivileges. Our pei^ple are, too. Men interested in vessels — some of them — think they are better otf as they are noAv. There are others engaged in the fishing game — the fishing business — Avho think it AAOuld be better for their interests if they could get a greater supply of fish coming in here, that they Avould have a better opportunity of manufacturing it. But I feel that in one sense it may be that you are going to lose sight of Gloucester entirely at the time Avhen this thing comes about. Yet I am perfectly Avilling, as far as my interests are concerned, small as they are, to draAv a circle right around North i^merica and say, "Here let us feed the wdiole con- tinent; let us all help feed each other.'"' I don't knoAv hoAv the thing Avill AA'ork out betAA^een the tAvo countries, Avhether French and Portuguese and other vessels Avill Avunt to come in here and o])erate from foreign countries. Secretary Redfield. That is not Avithin oui' scope. Mr., Marshall. No. As I say, I don't know Iioav far this Avill extend in time, Avhether it is to be limited to the tAvo countries. Ml'. Found. I Avould like to ask Mr. Marshall on Avhat grounds his vessels usually fish — hoAv far they go ? Mr. Marshall. They fish around Georges and Middle Bank and Quero in the summer time. But in Avintertime my vessels don't go far. Mr. FouNO. Could you give the names of some of your vessels? Mr. INIarshall. The -/. M. Marshall is one I am interested in, the Ileiif)/ Mai'shnJh the Amjie Jloi'shalJ, the Mary Pierre', the Flora OUrer. I think that is all at ])resent. Capt. Carl C. Young, Mr. Marshall, you made a statement that we had 100 people OAvning vessels in Gloucester. I don't think. Ave have that many. Mr. Marshall. Well, Avhen I made that statement I Avas making a very brief, general statement. Of course, there are a number of little, small boats. There are some boats such as Ave call the " ginney '' boats and other small fishing boats. Of course, it is hard to give the number AA'ith accuracy. Capt. YouxVG. There are about 180 vessels that hail from Glou- cester over o tons, and I don't think there are over 50 vessel oAvners of those A^essels in Gloucester to-dav. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 203 STATEMENT OF CAPT. CARL C. YOUNG, OF GLOTJGESTER. Secretary Redfield. Capt. Young, suppose you take the larger vessels only, and the bankers, so-called, how many vessels have you of the larger seagoing type? Capt. Young. About 80, perhaps; 80 to 90. Secretary Kedfield. And how many owners? Capt. Young. I think you will come down to perhaps 10 owners — 12 owners. Secretary Redfield. When you say 10 to V2 owners, do you mean 10 to 12 parties who operate the vessels? Capt. Young. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Operating owners? Capt. Young. Yes, sir; operating owners. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, some suggestion has been made here in regard to the Gorton-Pew people, who have a large factory here, and I would like to hear from Mr. Carroll, the manager of the Gorton- Pew Fish Co., of Gloucester, which is, bj^ far, the largest vessel owner in the city of Gloucester. They are interested in trawlers, sailing vessels, vessels with clitferent motive power, and, I think, Mr. Carroll can give you a lot of information. STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS A. CARROLL, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GORTON-PEW FISHERIES CO., OF GLOUCESTER. Secretary Redfield. You are geneial manager of the Gorton-Pew Fisheries Co. ? Is that correct ? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. Mr. Secretaiy, if you will pardon me, 1 am not as accustomed to talking as my friend Marshall, but at a meeting of the board of trade the other night we discussed this matter, and a statement was made there that I would like to repeat here, as nearly as I can. It seems to me at this time, when the people of Canada and the people of the United States are fighting- together in the cause of humanity, we should take a broad view of this proposition, regardless of the fact that some people may be hurt. I took that stand then, and I still stand by that position. At that meeting it was suggested that an arrangement on a fifty-fiftj^ basis be made. That was the sense of the meeting, and I maintain that it will be the sense of this meeting. I maintain that it will be the sense of your discussions in conference and of your decision. But the question comes doAvn to this — what is fifty fifty? No fair- minded man should complain of a fifty-fifty settlement, but some- times opinions differ as to what is fifty fifty. To the best of my ability, I am going to tell you what I think fifty fifty is on this proposition. Some of the people of Gloucester seem to get the idea that this is a question of protection as against free trade. If it was a question of protection, or duty on fish, I would stand where I have always stood, for protection. I believe in protection for American industries, but this is not a question of protection. The question is, as I see it, whether we are going to assist the Canadians in taking advantage of something that was granted in the last Congress, under the Under- 204 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, Avoocl Icirilt' bill — luunely, putting' lisli on the free list^ 11' the Chief Justice will pardon me, I Avould like to make a little statement in regard to that niattei-. I notice that in his statement in Boston and here he has spoken about the only fish on the free list being fresh and frozen fish. That is not quite true. Salt fish is on the free list, too, what we call green fish. In other words, the tariif says that fish skinned or boned will carry a duty of three-(]uarters of a cent a pound, >Ahich means that all other fish we handle in (irh)ucester is free. Now, the question comes down in my mind to the schedules you have here. In regard to No. 6, taking the last of these six points that have been brought up ; first, I woukl say that I know nothing about it. I think there are not many people in (jloucester Avho will have nuich to say on the k)bster part of the proposition. But the others get down to one distinct proposition, in my mind, and that is this: On the one side there is the question of permittiug our vessels to go into Canada and get a license, however they are propelled, at $1 a vessel per year, as against the present modus vivendi license of $1.50 per ton, and giving Canadian fishing vessels the right to come into this market and land their fish Avithout going into their home port and taking out a license and becoming traders, as the Chief Justice says, with the right to transship fish, and so forth. I think it is a fifty-fifty proposition. Thei'e are a lot of men in the room who are going to disagree with me on that, I am sure, and they are all good friends of mine, and I respect their opinions. But I say to you, gentlemen, if (xloucester is to lose its identity, as Mr. Marshall says. nobody will feel it as much as the firm I represent. It is true that Ave have another interest that the fisherman does not have. We manu- facture the fish after Ave get them. But, broadly speaking, there is no one Avho Avill feel any change to the detriment of the industry here as much as Ave Avill, and there is no one more loyal to Gloucester than our people. We Avei-e born and brought up here, and all Ave haA'e is here, and it is inconceiAable that any of us Avould stand up in a meeting lilce this and advocate anything that Ave thought would in- jure this industry. If it floes injure the industry, it is a case of mis- taken judgment on our part. So nuich for that. I think there are a lot of things that Canada should do foi' our vessels that they don't do noAv, and there is one thing in particular. If they do accept this ]n'oposition of the license they should alloAv our vessels to dress the fish in the harbors of Canada. The captains tell me that that is one very impoi'tant thing that they should get, that they are forbidden to have uoav, Avithin the 3-mile limit. Secretary Redfield. Explaiu that. AAon't you, a little more fully for our record, Mr. Can oil 'i When avc read this it will be some Aveeks hence. Mr. Carroll. A vessel might get a school of mackerel. Of course, there are men avIio avouIcI ansAver the question, captains b.ere, a great deal better than I. I have never been fishing, and am not an expert in that line. But the captains are here, and if I state this thin^ wrong I would like to have them correct me. A vessel goes doAvn there and catches a school of mackerel, and for some reason — stress AMERICAN'-CAN'ADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 205 of weather or otherwise — they would like to go into a harbor. The mackerel is on deck and ought to be taken care of. They are for- bidden to do that now in Canadian harbors, or within the 3-mile limit. If they were allowed that privilege, coming from the banks, we would at least get that pri^dlege to offset the license. Chief Justice Hazex. Would there be any objection to that be- cause of throwing over entrails and waste having a pernicious effect on the fishing in that locality? Mr. Carroll. I think not, because there is very little waste in dressing mackerel. Chief Justice Hazex. That is something new to us. We have not heard about that before. Mr. Carroll. It is a very important consideration, as they will tell you. Mr. Sweet. That is very interesting. Dr. Smith. That is important to you, Mr. Carroll? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir ; but not so much as to others. I would like to recede a little from the position I took the other night. I would not mention this, but it is in your line. The question was asked me by ni}' friend, Millett, the other night what I would say if one of our steam trawlers was forbidden to fish within the 12-miIe limit of Nova Scotia. I said, if Nova Scotia passed a law in the interest of the conservation of her shore fishing which forbade our own vessels in that area from doing what the Canadian vessels were forbidden from doing, we ought to respect the law and not act contrary to it. I will now amend that statement, however. I thinl?:, in connection with any action whereby either Canada or the United States intends to conserve or protect its inshore fisheries outside the 3-mile limit, if you can call it so, the Jaw should not be changed with regard to any other nation without considering its position first, and letting it have something to say about the subject. I will stand on that jjroposition. Chief Justice Hazex. Well, this is the situation: That it is im- possible for us to make a law preventing fishing outside the 3- mile limit, except as applied to our own vessels operating from our own ports. We could not prevent your vessels, operating from American ports ; French vessels ; or vessels of any other nation from operating outside the 3-mile limit. Mr. Carroll. I understand that, Mr. Chief Justice, but taking the case that has been already stated to you, it was our vessel, and while the law was clear and while our captain was an intelligent man and knew the law, still his position was this: That he wanted certain things, and couldn't get the things without signing an agreement which in effect was just as strong to him as if it were the law. Secretary Redeield. That case, so far as the commission is now informed, appears to have been a clear oversight and a mistake. Mr. Carroll. Yes. sir. Secretary Redfleld. And we propose, when we go to the Maritime Provinces, to investigate further, and our friends the Canadian com- missioners have offered to help us in the matter. If we find the facts as they have been stated, assurances have been given that col- lectors will be notified so that it will not happen again. 206 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Carroll. There is another question that has come np and been talked about a good deal, upon which I would like to state my opinion. Much has been said to the effect that we admitted the products of the Canadian vessels here free of duty, whereas Avhen our vessels go into Canadian ports they have to pay duty. I don't know how it strikes this assemblj^, but I am going to say that I do not object to that. I can not consistently oppose that proposition and at the same time favor the coming in of the fish. The changing of this law which prevents vessels now coming in direct is going to mean a great pile of fish coming into this market, and then it is proposed that, if we want, we can go down to Canada, if we want to sell fish there. As far as that side of it is concerned, as a rule the American market is better than the Canadian market, and that proposition does not appeal to me. I don't know of any time when a vessel of ours has wanted to sell fish in Canada except she has been disabled or unable to get to an American port. Under those condi- tions she can send her fish in bond. I know there will be a disagree- ment on that, but still I think this is the time for plain speech and for every man to state his position as he sees it. Secretarv Redfield. You export fish to Canada at times, do you not? Mr. Carroll. Very little. ■ Secretary Eedfield. Well, for the purposes of the record I will say that there have come into the United States — the entire United States — from Canadian ports — much of it might be from lake ports or northwestern ports — in the vear 1916, fresh fish other than salmon, 6,750,259 pounds. Mr. Carroll. Yes. My firm does not sell any fresh fish to amount to anything. Chief Justice Hazen. I think probably a large amount of that is halibut caught on the western coast. Secretary Eedfield. Go on. Mr. Carroll. I think I have talked myself out, Mr. Secretary. Secretary Redfield. May I ask a feAv questions? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. You deal in prepared fish, entirely? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. And has your business — your output in pounds — increased largely in the last 10 years? Mr. Carroll. Yes. Secretary Redfield. And do you find a ready market for your output ? Mr. Carroll. Yes. Secretary Redfield. Is it your thought that that market is capa- ble of still further expansion? Mr. Carroll. Yes. Secretary Redfield. Are you familiar with the area of the country in which fresh fish is sold? Mr. Carroll. Xot as an expert. A fresh fish man would be able to answer that question a great deal better. Secretary Redfield. Is your market country wide, Mr. Carroll? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. You send to the far West and to the South ? AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 207 Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir; we send codfish to the Pacific coast — are sending codfish to San Francisco to-daj^ Secretary Eedfield. Why is it that we eat, consume, so small an amount of fish in this countr}^, in your judgment f Mr. Carroll. I will answer that in my own way, perhaps. Secretary Eedfield. Of course, you will. Mr. Carroll. It brings up something I want to say. I want to pay a tribute to the administration here, if I may be permitted to do so. For a great many years the demand for codfish was large, and then it dropped out. But for some years now it has been gradu- ally increasing. Some 3^ears ago new concerns went at the thing in a new way and put the fish up in more attractive forms, and that prevented the trade slumping as it might otherwise have done. But it didn't increase much until this past year, and I am going to give a great deal of credit for that to the Fish Commission, through Dr. Smith and his department, advocating and advertising fish. Xo doubt a lot of it is clue to economic conditions in the country, the high prices of other food products, but, whatever the reason, the in- crease of late has been tremendous. The result is now that none of us, speaking now for my own firm, have been able to take care of it this fall. Secretary Redfield. What I want to get at, Mr. Carroll — and 1 think you are an expert on the matter; doubtless there are others here — is whether in our fishing industry in this country we have been more or less neglecting a very great opportunity^ which is just beginning to open to us, and AA'hether if we take that opportunity the problem is not this — and if it is it alters our whole viewpoint — Avhether, if we seize the opportunity and take advantage of it, the problem is not this : Have we or can we get vessels enough and equip- ment enough to meet the demand, regardless of any other question in the case ? Mr. Carroll. I think that is practically the question now; yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. You have been kind enough to speak of the Avork Dr. Smith has done. It is a great and Avonderful Avork, for which he is entitled to very great credit; but, just to refer to Avhat Ave Avere speaking of for the last 20 or 25 minutes, the Bureau of Fisheries has caused to be put upon the market in excess of 50,000,000 pounds of entirely new and unused fish foods. Mr. Carroll. Yes. Secretary Redfield. Not one of which tAvo years ago Avas on the market at all, and it has done that apart from the other A^ery great care Dr. Smith has giA^en to these matters concerning the fish in- dustry. Dr. Smith's department has been able to do that, Avith the assistance the Doctor has had from his able friend. Dr. Moore, and his clerical force, and chiefly Avith the aid of one man, who is knoAvn to you, Mr. Douthart, at a cost of $20,000. That process is still going on. Much work along that line has been done, Avith a great degree of success. For instance, the Avhiting, Avhich up to 10 or 12 years ago Avas an entirely neglected product, is no av selling in very large quantities and is being sent fresh or frozen as far Avest as DenA^er, Colo. I presume, too, Ave all knoAv that 15 years ago there was no flounder fishing in the United States, and to-day, I think, we have to plant a billion flounders a year to keep up Avith it. The 208 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. work which has been undertaken along these different lines shows that there is an enormously great market almost untouched. If we bring up our consumption to lialf that of Great Britan by Govern- ment aid, I think you can all realize what it would mean. I may say that I made an offer in Boston, Avhich is open here, to put a first-class man on at Government expense, whose sole duty it shall be to travel throughout the Middle and Central States continuously for at least six months to preach the gospel of " Eat fish ■' and nothing else. If by that means and any other we bring ourselves up to the consump- tion per capita of Great Britain, it means that 2,000,000,000 pounds more fish has got to be found from somewhere. Is there an equip- ment in existence — vessels and equipment — to meet such a demand if it were to arise within two or three years ? Mr. Carroll. No; positively not. Secretary Redfield. In other words, then, if we merely wish to create in this countr}^ the condition which Great Britain already has, or even if we proposed to raise our fish consumption to the per capita rate of Canada, from 18 pounds to 29 pounds apiece, it will overstrain the entire fishing facilities of this covmtry. Is it not so ? Mr. Carroll. Absolutely. Secretary Redfield. Now, are you aware — I think I am not be- traying any confidence, Mr. Robertson, when I say this — that there is at least a very earnest suggestion in Great Britain that the fish consumption there be multiplied by four, bringing it from 58 pounds per capita per year to approximately 200 pounds? Mr. Robertson. Yes; the movement proposes, as I understand it, that the total fish consumption of the United Kingdom shall be 18 to 20 per cent of the total food consumption. Secretary Redfield. And it is now what? Mr, Robertson. It is now about 6 per cent, I think. Secretary Redfield. That would multiply it bj^ three. Mr. Robertson. Yes; and I believe it is capable of achievement. Secretary Redfield. That would call upon Great Britain's fish- eries to provide an annual supply of 12,000,000,000 pounds of fish, six times the product of the American fisheries ; and I have merely pointed out to you that it is seriously undertaken and that it has a distinct bearing upon the question whether British shipbuilders, for example, are going to be occupied in competition with Americans. Mr. Carroll. I hope, Mr. Secretary, if I may suggest something, that in the campaign which perhaps the Government is attempting to carry on in the interest of increasing the fish consumption, they do not lose sight of the fact that people should pay at least reason- able prices for fish. You can not increase the production of fish without the men who man the vessels getting at least reasonable com- pensation. They must be paid as well as men in other industries. The great trouble has been in this country in years past that people have looked upon fish as something cheap, as something to be eaten as a penance at certain times; tliat it was something that poor people had to have when they couldn't afford to buy meat; That is not true in England. The people there pay for fish, and they must pay for it here in this country. When they do that, I have no doubt that we can attract more men into the fisheries and build more ves- sels. The result will be, when you create the demand, if the prices AMERICAN-CAN" ADTAN TISHEEIES CONEEEENCE. 209 are at all reasonable, we Avill tackle the supply, will do our part. It can not be clone in a year or two with such an increase as you speak of, but it will be clone in time. Mr. Sweet. Of course, Mr. Carroll, if a larger cleniancl is created, the natural tendency of that would be to keep up the prices ? Mr. Carroll. Yes. sir. Along- that line you see what has hap- pened this winter. Mr. Sweet. And that would enable the industr}^ to pay proper wages ? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. I notice that the papers have been knock- ing the fish people as having taken advantage of the situation. I assure you that they have not. Mr. Sweet. Well, if such a demand as referred to is created throughout the whole country and people buy fish in large quantities, the tendency of that Avill be to raise the prices of fish and enable the industry to receive better wages ? Mr. Carroll. Yes. sir. Get out of the minds of ])eople the idea that fish is cheap — a thing to be despised. Mr. Sweet. You regard the work done by Mr. Smith's depart- ment as one of importance, a very commendable work^ Mr. Carroll. Yes. sir ; and we have cooperated with him. Dr. SariTH. I know you have, most cordiall}^ Mr. Carroll. Mr. Marshall said he would prefer to have things stay as they are, personally. I would say to Mr. Marshall that things don't remain as they are in this world. There are ahvays things going on, dangers coming, and we must meet theu.i after the war, and meet them like men, solving them to the best of our ability. Mr. Sweet. Something has been said about reducing the license fee from $1.50 per registered ton to $1 per vessel per year ? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. Mr. Sw^EET. If the Canadians should exact that from us, don't you think we ought to exact the same thing from them ? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweet. That would be one of the fifty-fifty ideas? Mr. Carroll. Yes. That was one of the things I had forgotten. Mr. Sweet. Let me now ask you. Is there any particular object you can see in having that license fee, in having any license fee at all in either country? Mr. Carroll. That is what I wanted to speak about. I didn't care to bring it up in one way, because people might think that we didn't want to pay the dollar for the vessel. That isn't it. It is the prin- ciple of the thing. Why have that payment of a dolhir at all if the thing can be done Avithout for both countries ? Mr. Sweet. What I wanted to get at was this: Can you see •Any advantage to either country, in the wa^r of keeping a better record of the vessels engaged or in any other way, through exacting that license fee? Mr. Carroll. I can not see any advantage in it at all; no, sir. Mr. Sweet. I wanted your views. Mr. Carroll. I suppose the idea is to have control. If Canada wants to have control, let us have control. I say, summing it all up, in the last analysis, we should have the same rights in" Canadian 519.50—18 14 210 american-cajstadiax fisheeies conference. waters that the Canadian vessels have in our waters, and should give the same rights. Mr. Sweet, Exactly. Whatever concession is made on one side should be made on the other. Mr. Carroll. Yes. I Avill stand on that principle. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. J. MANUEL MARSHALL, OF GLOUCESTER. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, I made a remark, to which Mr. Carroll has alluded, in regard to my position in this matter per- sonally, and I spoke about Gloucester losing her identity. Now, if the purpose, the endeavor, is to enlarge the consumption of fish, I hope you will accomplish Avhat you desire. When I spoke of Glouces- ter losing her identity, I meant this: I feared that the base of operations might be transferred from Gloucester to somewhere else — to a Canadian port. You should know, Mr. Chief Justice, that a great many people here fear that the base of operations of our fish- ing vessels will be transferred from Gloucester to your Canadian ports, that there Avill not be the work here for shipbuilders that we , have to-day, that there will not be the work for the different artisans that we ha^'e now supphdng the vessels. Chief Justice Hazex. Why do you fear that ^ Mr. Marshall. We do not fear that Gloucester will lose her identity as a fish port, for manufacturing, but we do as a fishing port. We will still get the stuff from your country, from the Canadian waters, and Canadian people will bring it here, and it Avill be manu- factured here. But our fishing fleet will gradually become, if I may use the word, decimated ; we will not have very much of a fleet here. Chief Justice Hazen. W^hy not? Mr. Marshall. That is what a great many people apprehend and fear; and when I spoke of Gloucester losing lier identity, I did not mean that she Avould lose her identity as a fish market, but as a fish- ing port, because I think the base of operations of the fishing fleet Avill be transferred to those ports which are more convenient and hanch^ for operations in and out, in connection with the great supply of fish. But, so far as enlarging the consumption of fish and getting it to the people is concerned, I think that is a thing we would prob- ably all like to see accomplished. iSecretary Redfteld. From what locality does the largest supply of fish come? Mr. Marshall. I think the great supply of fish comes from Ca- nadian waters. I don't say it does now, but that is where it will come from. Perhaps the figures now, the statistics, will show you that more has been brought in adjoining our shores than from down in that locality ; but if this plan goes through I imagine, apprehend, that the largest part of the supply will be taken from off those shores, in those waters, and either shipped directly through Canadian ports or brought directly in Canadian vessels and American vessels to our ports. Secretar}^ Redfield. Mr. Marshall, if you will pardon me, the records show that 73 per cent — and this has been the record of 15 AMERICAI^-CA]SI"ADIAN' FISHERIES CONPEEENCE. 211 years past, I am told — of the catch hmdecl by the American fishing fleet at Boston, Gloucester, and Portland, is taken from the fishing grounds lying otf the coast of the United States. Mr. Marshall. Yes. Secretary Redfield. Xow. under the conditions of which we are speaking, this greatly enlarged fish demand, what reason is there to assume that that condition of affairs which has continued so long will change? Mr. Marseiall. I think you will have a five to ten times larger fleet tonnage operating than you now have, and that they will operate in those w^aters. You will get the fish, if you pay the prices. You will have the means of getting fish. Secretary Redfield. Why operate in different waters? Mr. Marshall. The fishing grounds there are more convenient to operate in from those ports than here. Chief Justice Hazex. Why would they take those fish to Canadian ports and leave them there, when the^' can ship them by rail to United States ports? Mr. Marshall. Well. I feel that they would naturally operate there. Chief Justice Hazex. Why? Mr. Marshall. I think it would be more convenient in every re- spect — I mean where they are doing it on a large scale. Mr. Sweet. You mean American-owned vessels? Mr. Marshall. Amei-ican-owned vessels; yes, sir. I think, if I were going to play the game on a large scale, I would do it that way nwself. But when you do that I think there will be no disputes of any international consequence between Gloucester and Canada affect- ing our fisheries. You will never hear much of Gloucester in that respect. Chief Justice Hazex. Those vessels will be coming to American ports with their catches? Mr. Marshall. I think so. Chief Justice Hazen. Then, why will they operate from Canadian ports ? Mr, Marshall. I think it will be handier for them, more con- venient. Mr. Found, Why more convenient, if the American fishing ves- sels have the privileges suggested and the liberty of getting their fish, anj" supplies they may need, coming, in and transshipping their catch, and all those things, in Canadian ports, that Canadian vessels would have ? Mr. Marshall. Well, it will be a great benefit for them to operate down there. Mr. Found. Well. I fail to see where the advantage would lie with the local man when the market is here. Mr. Marshall. I presume it is better to have your base of opera- tions close to your fishing grounds where you harvest your fish from. Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Maishall. At this point I would like to put into the record a statement con- cerning the Gloucestei' fleet of over 32 tons, showing f.n ag£"regate 212 AMERICAISr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. of 93 vessels, of which 87 are auxiliary and 56 are sail. This is open to the inspection of eA'erybocly and will be made a portion of the record. (The list of vessels in the Gloucester fleet of over 32 tons, for the year 1917, prepared by United States Fisheries Agent Ik-own, of Gloncester, and approved by President Fred L. Davis, of the Glouces- ter Board of Trade, is as follows:) 100-110 tons 90-100 tons. 80-90 tons . . 70-80 tons.. 60-70 tons . . 50-60 tons.. 48 tons 45 tons 43 tons 42 tons 39 tons 33 tons 32 tons Total Vessels. 93 Auxili- ary. Sail. STATEMENT BY CAPT. GEOKGE H. PEEPLES, OF GLOUCESTER. Mr. Fred L. Davis. Mr. Chairman, w^e have a captain of vessels here, Mr. George H. Peeples, whom I would like to have address you. He has been for awdiile in Newfoundland, and has just arrived home. He is in touch wdth what is going on there. Capt. Peeples. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, looking at the mat- ter from a practical point of view, from the standpoint of an operat- ing fleet, I think that a fleet of vessels can operate out of Nova Scotia cheaper than they can from here — that is, if you are going to allow American vessels to go down there and have free privileges — they can operate out of Nova Scotia to-day cheaper thnn the}^ can out of Gloucester. As far as conservation of food is concerned, I believe, as Mr. Car- roll does, that we should do all we can in this critical time to conserve and produce food in order to carry on this war. We are fighting in a common cause Avith Canada and should put no obstacles what- ever in the way of the scientific production of food. In my cruise through Newfoundland, in and around the coast, I have found that the people of that colony are not doing their part, so to speak, in the conservation and the production of food. But that is neither here nor there. Of course, here we are speaking of Canada. But the people of Newfoundland are not only living under prewar conditions, but under a great deal better than prewar condi- tions. Their product has increased in the last two years, you might say, 100 per cent. Codfish has been selling from $10 to $12.50 a quintal. There is no lack of beef, pork, flour, sugar, potatoes, cab- bages, butter, lard. They have everything in every port, in abiin- dance. There is n© food famine in Newfoundland to-da,y, and families there have stored in their houses anywhere from five to nine barrels of flour. You can buy sugar anywhere in Newfoundland without AMERICAX-CAISrADIAX FISHERIES COXFEREISrCE. 213 lestriction. About three Aveeks ago I attended a church meeting at Si^iingdale. Xotre Dame Bay. and the clergyman read a procla- mation of King George V. asking the people to sacrifice and to con- servo food, as being a necessary measure to Avin the Avar. They treated it there simply as a good joke. So the i)eople of that country are living in plenty Avhile Ave are doing all Ave can to conserA'e and produce. The broader aspects of this question, gentlemen, I am not prepared to discuss, as I am simply a fisherman and not a statistician, and I haA^e not the figures at hand so that I can discuss the matter intelli- gently. But, a^ a Avar measure. I hold up both hands for a i^roposi- tion that Avill remove all friction from the production of rood. I Avould like to see. as I liaA^e been telling the officials in NeAA'foundlancl this year, the fisheries restrictions removed from their statute books, as AA'e have removed certain restrictions from our statute books re- garding the fisheries. Let Canada take off her restrictive measures and let us all get together and produce food. That is the great thing. TheA'^ tell us that the Avar is to be Avon through the production and conserA-ation of food, and that is AAdiat Ave are AA^orking for. That is the one aim, if Ave are to vs'in the Avar, and let us go at it right. Let us take otf every restriction and produce food, having in this con- nection reference to fish as an article of food. That is my attitude. Secretary KEm'iELD. I am interested in Avhat you have said. Cap- tain, about vessels operating from Canada more cheaply. Tell us Avhy that is so. Capt. Peeples. Mr. Secretary, I am not a statistician and I have not the figures at my command, but I could get them very easily, to shoAv the relative difference in the cost of operation in Canada and in the TTnited States. Secretary ReufielI'. Where does that difference occur? Capt. Peeples. The difference Avould be in the construction of the vessels, for one thing. I think no one v^'ill dispute the fact that you can produce a Aessel in Canada cheaper than in the United States to-day. Secretary Eedkield. How about the compensation of creAvs? Capt. Peeples. Well, of course, since the Avar started the compen- sation of crcAvs has increased very, A^ery much. Secretary Eedfield. In Canada ? Capt. Peeples. In Canada. I understand they are paying as high as $50 a month to men before the mast for over-sea service, and on the coast, I think, $45. Chief Justice Hazex. In the fishing industry, in addition to pay- ing a regular monthly salary, are the men paid a commission on the earnings of the vessel? Capt. Peeples. The fishermen Avho man the fishing vessels are not paid a salary. They fish on shares as Ave do. Their lay is very much the same as ours. Chief Justice Hazex. We were told in Boston that the men Avere paid a certain sum of money as Avages and then, in addition to that, Avere paid $7 a thousand. Capt. Peeples. That avouIcI be the bounty, Avouldn't it? Mr. Carroll. Xo : that Avould apply to the beam traAvlers. Chief Justice Hazex. Oh. I understand. 214 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FiSHElilES CONFERENCE. Capt. Peeplks. In regard to bounty, I will say, so far as New- foundland is concerned, that Newfoundland pays a bounty of any- where from $8 to p20 a ton on ship construction. Chief Justice Hazen. Newfoundland has no part in these nego- tiations. Capt. Peeples. No; but there is fish from there just the same. There is a great ship concern, the Havre de (xrace Ship Building Co., operated by Christopher Hanneveg, who has been going into the fish- ing business with large vessels. They keep fish in cold storage, l)ox them up in ice, and ship them to New York. They have a large vessel that will carry perhaps 400.000 pounds «f fish, and I under- stand that they have been going into the matter with a good deal of success. Of course, they operate largely during the months of short- age — that is, the months of January and February — and when March opens and our vessels bring in large quantities of fish they Avill go out, because they think there will be no profit in it. They are simply in the thing from the financial standpoint, going into the business not to get fish right along, but to get it when the price is large. Secretarv liEUFiELn. Your crew is of ^^ hat nationality or nationali- ties? Capt. Peeples. Portuguese, Scotchmen, Frenchmen. Danes, New- foundlanders, and Nova Scotia men. You can not tell at any par- ticular time what nationality your crew is. You might have a crew consisting perhaps of four or five nationalities to-day, and perhaps a week hence an entirely different crew. Put the gi'eater number of men I carry are Newfoundlanders. Secretary Kedfield. Your vessel has power? Capt. Peeples. Auxiliary power. Secretary Pedfield. Would it be an advantage to you to enter Canadian ports freely? Capt. Peeples. Yes; it would. I find in my experience in operat- ing an auxiliary vessel on the coast of Nova Scotia that sometimes we have been treated very much as you would be treated in this country in war times. I went into the port of Halifax this time with a trip of fish, going up with a Avesterly gale of wind, and went in for shelter, and the}^ tried to exact pilotage in harbor dues. Chief Justice Hazen. Y^ou were not obliged to pay. Capt. Peeples. I tried to convince the commissioner of pilotage of that, but he wouldn't take my word for it, and I had to get a busi- ness man to vouch for me. Chief Justice PIazen. I suppose that was due to war conditions. Plalifax being a closed harbor during the war. Capt. Peeples. Yes, sir. We had no trouble going through, but he merely tried to collect pilotage. It wasn't according to the statute books, because fishermen were exempt he found on consulting- the statute books. Chief Justice Hazen . I am inclined to think it had something to do with the Avar. Capt. Peeples. And then he insisted, from the fact that I might be in there to purchase sujDplies, that there might be a doubt there, and I had to get a business man to vouch for me before I could get a clearance at the pilot office. That was necessary in order to clear at the customhouse. AMEEICAN-CAlvrADIAISr FISHERIES CONFEKElSrCE. 215 Secretary Redfield. But you didn't pay the pilotage^ Capt. Peeples. Xo : because I found a man to identify me, to vouch for me. Otherwise I Avould have been detained there over night. Mr. Sweet. The whole incident being due to the mistaken point of vieAv of an official \ Capt. Peeples. Yes. sir. I explained my attitude to him and talked to him, as I am expressing it to you here now, that fishing regulations should be removed during the period of the war, at least. Let us get together and produce food. Dr. Smith. You have spoken of the matter of boiu\ties. What is your idea of Canadian bounties? Capt. Peeples. A bounty is a thing I am more familiar Avith in Xewfoundland than in Canada. Mr. Found. On fishing vessels? Capt. Peeples. Yes. sir ; $50 and over, according to the size of the vessel. If you want to build a vessel, start it in a shipyard: the Gov- ernment guarantees 7 per cent on your investment and free entr^^ for all machinery you install. There are ship plants in Xewfoundland operating to-day on those lines. CANADIAN BOUNTIES. Chief Justice Hazen. I would like to explain what the Canadian bounty is, as long as the matter of bounty has been brought up. There is no bounty in Canada on the catch of fish, as in France. The Canadian bounty dates from about the year 1875 or 1876 — along in the 70"s. After the abrogation of the treaty of Washington in 1885, claims were made both ways in regard to damages that had been done to the English fisheries, and the result was that an arbitration was entered into between Great Britain and the United States. The result was that the United States paid to Great Britain $5,500,000. which was the award of the arbitrators. Of that $5,500,000, $1,500,000 went to the Government of Xewfoundland, and they took it and used it for the ordinary purposes of the colony. Four million dollars came to the Dominion of Canada, and the Par- liament of Canada thought it was desirable to set that aside in some way for the benefit of the fishermen of the country, as it was an award for injury done to the fisheries by the American vessels. That money was accordingly funded, and every year since bounties amount- ing to -t per cent on that amount have been paid, amounting to $160,000, under the provisions of an act declared to be for the bene- fit of deep-sea fishermen and the encouragement of fishing vessels. It is divided among the vessels and the men doing the inshore and deep-sea fishing. Xo vessel can get more than $80. What is paid to fishing vessels is $1 a ton up to 80 tons, and then it ceases. That is the niaxinunn amount that any vessel can get in one year. Each boat gets the sum of $1. at least,' every year. The men work- ing on vess'els have got amounts averaging, depending on the men engaged, from $5.15 a year up to, I think, $6.50 a year, and the boat fishermen have received sums running from about $3.50 up to sonie- thing around $5. As a matter of fact, it has not had the effect in- tended. The amounts have been very small and have not resulted in any encouragement of the industry. Xo vessel owner regards $80 as a sufficient sum. So it has not' had the result intended, has not encouraged the deep-sea fisheries, has not encouraged the build- 216 AM KRlGAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONPEEElSrCE. in«i- of vossols. and to-thiy tlunv is considerable discussion as to the advisal)ili(y of alioiishino' the whole thino- and iisino- the money for scientilic work in connection witli I he lislu>ries, or souiediino' of the soi't. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. FREDERICK L. DAVIS, PRESIDENT GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. Mr. D.vvis. Mr. C'hairnian. it would ai)pear from the remarks that have been made here that our vessels — .schooners, oi- howe\er pro- pelled — on the west coast arc allowed to do what is not allowed on the Atlantic coast. For instance, it a])i)ears that a Nova Scotia vessel, a proxincial \essel, can not now oo from an Amei'ican [)ort to the fishini>- <>-i'ounds without first i>"oiu*>- to its home port, and that it can do so on the Pacilic coast. Is that correct? Secretary Kkdfikij). Yes'. INIr. D.wis. I understaiid that on the west coast Canada "ives American boats entries to its harbors free without any license,' and that they do not discriminate as to whether they are sailinji;, steam, or any other kind of vesseh Chief fJustice Hazkx. They ha\e to take out a license, but there is no discrimination l)etween sail or steam vessels. Secretary llKOFiKLn. The situation that pi-evails on the Pacific coast is this, that everythino- there is jnst the reverse of what it is here. American \ essels are in\ited, and some of the Seattle people think are ahnost couii)elhHl — at least, they so understand it, and we are goino- to find out whether their views are rig-ht or not — to enter the port of Prince Kuix^rt; whereas, on the other hand, we require a Canadian Acssel ))assino- throno-h the inland Avaters to enter the ]K)rt of Ketchikan, from Avhich port the halibut vessels clear for whatcv(>r i)ort they sec fit. and o-o direct to the fishino- o-rounds Avith- out nuikiuii' any other port. 1 understand that that has been done for a i>'reat many years. Mr. Davis. It seems very fnnny that such should be the case, with the law on both sides one Avay. Secretary RKDriELD. That is one of the reasons Avhy Ave are here. Mr. Davis. I Avonld also like to say a Avord at this time in regard to Avhiting. The (irloncester people at one time did considerable business Avith Avhitino-. but the thing- had an nnsatisfactory Avind-up. ^Vv tried to create a sale for the fish, but OAving to change of nauie in connection with the food laAv Ave Avere fined in many cases and our goods thrown away, and (juite a lot went over to the Kussia Cement Co. for glue. So avc have been rather delicate about touching that ('((unnodity for the last tAVO or three years. There Avas a pretty heavy loss, having our goods seized, and fined, Avith the resnlt that we had to i)ractically throAv them aAvay. That Avas on account of the name that Ave ga\e them, undei' the law. Secretary Ivkofiklo. What did you call them'^ Mr. 1)A^ is. ()tH>an white fish. Secretary Rkufiklu. You should have had the Bureau of Fish- eries give them that title, and then you would have been free. They have a right to fix the official title, but you proceeded without get- ting that authority. Mr. Davis. Yes"; 1 sec that they took the "dog" otf and put the "grav" on tlu' dogfish. AMEEICAN'-CAi^ADIAiS^ FTSJIEETES CONFERElSrCE. 217 Dr. S^iiTii. You want to cooperate with ns after this. Mr. Davis. After Ave g-ot hurt a littk' we were delicate about taking the matter np. Secretary Eedfteld. Do yon know what tlie sharing system is in your port on fishing vessels? Mr. Davis. Diffei-ent rates — quarter, fifth, and half lay. Secretary Reufield. Describe what you mean by a quarter lay. Mr. Davis. The vessel takes 25 per cent of the stock, and from the other 75 per cent the expenses of the voyage are paid and the crew shares the balance, what is remaining. Secretary Redfield. Shares equally? Mr. Davis. Shares equally. Secretary Redfield. Where do the officers come in ? Mr. Davis. An officer gets a certain percentage out of the vessel's quarter. Secretary Redfield. Is the cook hired? Mr. Davis. Xo; the cook in some cases gets a little extra com- pensation. Mr. Found. The cook is paid by the crew. Mr. Davis. Of course some cooks get about $10 a trip or perhaps $20 a trip, but that comes out of the trip, out of the stock. Secretary Redfield. How are supplies furnished? Mr. Davis. By the crew ; buy their own. Secretary Redfield. When you speak of a fifth lay, what is the difference ? Mr. Davis. Practically the same, except that the vessel takes a fifth and the creAV finds everything in the grub line. vSecretary Redfield. Is it the same with other kinds of lays? Mr. Davis. Half lays are different. The vessel takes half and the crew the other half. The vessel in that case furnishes the supplies and fishing gear. Mr. Found. And the deductions from the crew are the same in each instance? You have on this side a certain proportiton of the percentage of deduction from the crew. Mr. Carroll. I presume he means for the gear. That was what was fought out last spring in the strike here. Ml-. Found. Yes ; that is the gear question. Mr. Carroll. That is practically settled now. Mr. Found. The captain finds the gear, and the upkeep of the gear is in the gross stock. Mr. Davis. One thing should be cleared up, and that is that out of this quarter that the vessel has the vessel has to pay one-quarter of all lost gear. It has to come out of the vessel. The vessel doesn't get a clear quarter. Also there are certain port expenses that the vessel has to pay and other bills that come in. Last spring we had a strike here and changed our law on this. This gear question has been quite troublesome in many cases and has detracted from the vessel's earning power, because in many cases the}^ lose a good deal of gear. I had a vessel the other day where it*^cost $600 or $700 right out. Secretary Redfield. What is the present arrangement since the strike was settled ? Mr. Davis. That out of the quarter which the vessel is supposed to take she has to bear one-quarter of the lost gear. In other words, 218 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. tho lost gear is taken from the total stock before the division is made, and on those divisions, of course, she has to pay one-quarter, and that deduction is onerous in many cases. Mr. Found. For what reason do they lune a fourth in one \n- stance and a fifth in another? Mr. Carroll. That is a proposition that goes back a great numy years. In the old days, first they changed over from halves to (juar- ters, and a large vessel took a quarter of the gross stock. Then they started in with small, inexpensive vessels fishing along the shore, not costing as nuich as the big ones, and it was nuitually agreed at that time in the case of a \essel of that size that the vessel, instead of tak- ing 2r) per cent, slioidd take '20 per cent. There is the difference be- tween the fifth and fourth lays. But of late years \essels ha\e grown large, and the most expensive vessels to-day arc on fifths. Hut ihc same divisions obtain as in those days. Secretary Kkofteld. Why have a half lay in cei'tain cases? Mr. Carroll. That was the original law, the old 50 per cent spoken of before. In the old days tliey fitted out a vessel to go fish- ing and the owners furnished the vessel and everything necessary for a successful voyage. Chief Justice Hazen. Furnished the food rations? Mr. Carroll. Yes, sir: and the same thing was done in Xo\a Scotia. That Avas a pai't of the expense of the voyage. That is so to-day on some fishing \essels, and on some others they ex[K'ct extras. Some men like to live a little higher tban the owners thought they should in the old days, and buy some high-priced canned goods, which are considered extras. That comes out of the c-rews. That is the only deduction. That is the only part, on tlu' halves, tbat they pay for. Secretary Redkip^ld. So that these three lays are to-day in vogue? Mr. Carroll. Yes — hfths, fourths, and hahes. Mr. Davis. Relative to this gear, on the quarter-lay proposition, before the strike last year the captain bought and owned the gear, and the creAv paid 10 per cent for the use of the gear. Now that is changed. The owner of the vessel or the captain has to own his gear himself, and he can not charge 10 per cent. So the vessel now has added that extra cost of from $1,000 to $-2.()00 or $-2, 500 extra as an investment. Avhich before was carried by the crew. I hope, if you are making records here, that you will get this in, because it changes the matter entirely. Secretary Redfield. We are very glad to liaAe your statements. The hearing was adjourned at 12.45 o'clock ]). ni. to 2 oV'loclv p. nu A FTERNOOX SKSSION . The hearing was resumed at 2.10 o'clock p. m.. Secretary Redfield presiding. STATEMENT BY CAPT. BENJAMIN A. SMITH, VESSEL MANAGER GORTON-PEIR FISHERIES CO., GLOUCESTER. Secretary Rkhfiklo. Capt. Smith, can we get soi\ie information from you in regard to this matter? AVhat is your business? Capt. S^irni. Producing hsh; managing vessels. AMERICAN-CANADIAISr FISHEEIES CONFEEEISrCE. 219 Secretary Redfield. How long liave you been in the business of managing- vessels? Capt. Smith. Since 1883, 1884, and upwards. Secretary Redfield. How many vessels have you under your man- agement now i Capt. S:mith. About 50. directly. We may have about 25 or 30 that we own, through captains who manage them, in the Portuguese fleet, but they never come to me unless they get into trouble. Secretary Redfield. What classes of vessels are these? Capt. Smith. Fishing vessels, the ordinary fishing vessels, all sizes. Secretary Redfield. Are there different types? Capt. Smith. Yes. sir; all types. SecretaiT Redfield. All kinds of fishing vessels? Capt. Smith. All kinds of fishing vessels. Secretary Redfield. I want to ask you what, in your judgment, would be the effect upon the Gloucester fishing fleet if Canada were to suspend her modus vivendi and if it became necessary under those circumstances to proceed under the treaty of 1818 ? Capt. Smith. I wouldn't want to manage any fleet of vessels. Secretary Redfield. Why not? Capt. S:\riTH. Oh. we would be up against it. Our shore fisheries here would be operated all right, the same as the Portuguese fleets, and our seining fleet would operate all right except the cape shore fleet. It would handicap us. of course, considerably if we couldn't get certain supplies and ship men in the provincial ports. I think the same thing would happen that has happened in N^ewfoundland in the last feAv years. We all know what has happened in regard to the bank fisheries. We know where our banker fleet has gone since we were not allowed to ship men and enjoy the privileges of Newfoundland the same as we used to years ago. Secretary Redfield. Do you wish the commission to understand, then, that if we were obliged by the action of the Canadian Govern- ment to operate under the onl}^ treaty there now is, the effect would, in your judgment, be more or less disastrous to the Gloucester fleet? Capt. S3IITII. I do. Secretary Redfield. Are you aware that the present condition under which we have operated our fleets, our fishing fleets, in this country as regards Canada is a temporary condition? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir ; I understand it so. Secretary Redfield. One that it is within the lawful power of the Canadian Government at any time to stop? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir; I so understand. Secretary Redfield. Are you aware that there, are interests in Canada which are more or less annually bringing pressure upon their Government to stop the present situation ? Capt. Smith. Y^es, sir ; I understand that. Secretary Redfield. Now, as a business man having interests in the fisheries affected by that condition, do you think it sound judg- ment to allow that condition to continue if it can be avoided ? Capt. Smith. No, sir ; I do not. I would like to see it changed. Secretary Redfield. In what respect Avould you like to see it changed, Captain ? 220 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. Capt. Smith. I would like to see it so that our vessels can go down there and enjoy the privileges that their vessels enjoy. I would like to see it so that there is no discrimination between any vessels. For several years I have tried to get licenses for the auxiliary vessels, and I have tried all kinds of things. I have often got a license for a vessel the first year and then installed an engine in it later in the vear, and have tried to see if that vessel couldn't carry on the fishing it Avas engaged in, the trawl fishing, without going into the Canadian ports. That is a strong desire at present. But we had to give up the license, of course, right after we installed the engine, and what happened to her would happen to any vessel that didn't have a license in that kind of fishing. Of course, we can get by on the mackerel fishing, and can get by on our shore fisheries, if we can take all the supplies Ave need here and go to the near banks, or as far as Quero, Avhich they do. But that is carrying on the business on a suiall scale, and we ought to carry it on on a broader scale. Secretary Beofieli). Is there, in your judgment, a possibility of increasing the demand for fish ? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. For food? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. SecretaiT Bi:dfielo. Do you regard the market for fish food in the United States as in any degree a saturated market? Capt. Smith. No, sir.- Secretary Redfield. From your experience, is it or is it not a fact that the market for fish in the United States is one that has been but partly exploited ? Capt. Smith. It has been exploited in a very small way. That is my opinion. I think there are great possibilities in the fish business, only it requires some large people to take hold of it and make it the business that it ought to be. Secretary Redfield. What is necessary to be done, in your judg- ment, to make it the large business that it ought to be? Well, let me leave that for a moment. Have you a proper equipment of refrigerator cars for handling fisli? Capt. Smith. Xo, sir; I don't knoAv about that. I am not in the fresh-fish business, but T know that the fresh-fish people have not the facilities for shipping that they have for meats and fruit, although I am not interested in that business. Secretary Redfiei>d. But I take it that you have dealers in meat in Gloucester who receive their fresh meat in refrigerator cars? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. Chairman Redfield. And the sight of a meat car is a common sight in every town, is it not. in every railroad yard ? Capt. S:mith. Yes, sir. Chairman Redfield. A car built aud designed to carry meat — liaA^e you ever seen cars of that character for carrying fish? Capt. S^eith. No, sir; I have not. Secretary Redfield. Do you know anj^body that ever did see one? Capt. Smith. No; I don't. Secretary Redfield. Do you know what means of transporting lake fish the Booth Fisheries Co. use from Chicago? Capt. Smith. No, sir. AMEBICAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 221 creiaiy Kedfield. Whether they have followed the example of )ackers, adopting smiilar means for transporting fresh fish? Secr( the pi , ^ _ Capt. Smith. I don't know. I presume they would, because they are a large company and can do that in time if they are not doing it now. Secretary Eedeield. If Canada were Avilling to make arrange- ments with the United States whereby the vessels of both countries should be, so far as customs and navigation laws are concerned, upon an equality, what would you say should be done by the Canadian authorities to bring that aljout? Capt. Smith. You mean what they would give up to us? Secretary Eedfield. Yes. Capt. Smith. One of the things that Gloucester would like to have, of course, would be free entries into their ports and the same con- ditions and the same privileges that their vessels have and enjoy more privileges than we do by the modus vivendi now. Take, for instance, the mending of nets. " A seiner, for instance, goes down on the cape shore and may get a school of mackerel 4 or 5 miles olf and may get a seine torn." It would be very nice if it could go into a harbor and mend that. It would not be doing any harm to anybody if it anchored there and mended the net. They are prohibited now from doing that. Secretary Kedfield. You mean that a motor vessel is so pro- hibited? Capt. Smith. No ; a sailing- vessel. Secretary Redfield. A sailing vessel is also prohibited? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir; there may be two or three privileges of that kind which would be very beneficial to us in certain cases ; that is, in cases where a vessel met with an accident it might break up the trip. You might have to go home without a full trip, providing she wasn't allowed to go in there and buy some little supplies or mend the seine or salt the mackerel. I have heard that spoken of several times in the last few years ; that it would be very beneficial for us. Secretary Redfield. Is there, in your judgment, reason to fear that if the vessels of both countries w^ere put on an equality, each in the ports of the other, the business of fishing w^ould be as a result transferred to the Canadian ports? Capt. Smith. I think one of the most serious things is going to be the manning of the vessels. I don't know where we are going to get the crews. I think it may be that the crews will stay at home and go in the Nova Scotia vessels rather than come up here and go in our vessels, as they have been doing in the past. Personally, I believe that that is one of the greatest drawbacks we are going to have, although it may change after the war, getting men to man our vessels. We depend on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland for a lot of men, and if they can do just as well shipping in vessels down there as they can by 'coming here, they are apt to stay there, and of course that is going to be a drawback to the fishing vessels here, getting crews here. On the other hand, there may be plenty. Secretary Redfield. The fishing industry, I take it, like every other industry, must get men and pay them in competition with every other employer of every kind, must it not ? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. 222 AMBRICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Secretary Redfielix That does not apply simply to the emph>y- iiient of fishermen, but to the employment of all men? ('apt. Smith. In the last few years the fishei-men have done very Avell, and J[ don't believe we will be bothered much in getting men as long as present prices obtain. Of course the prices here have been very high and exorl)itant prices to pay for fish, although the prices in Nova Scotia last year were as high as they were here, and in many cases higher. I have lost two or three of our prominent captains, who have notified me this year that they were not coming up here, that tliey were going to fish out of Lunenburg, and the only reason they gave was because they couldn't get crews to come across. But they take vessels dowu there and got crews. Secretary KKOKiErn. Why do they do that? Capt. SMrrii. They can get crews theiv to go with theui, and they can not get the crews from Nova Scotia to come over here. I presume the reason down there was that the fishermen down there did so well last year. They did as well or better than they did here. Secretary Kkui'ikld. ^^^)uld it come within your department of your business to consider the relations of the meat supply of the country to the fishing trade? Capt. Smith. In what respect? Secretary KEOiMELn. As to whether the falling off in the meat supply of this country and other countries has been so great as to require a lai'ge inci'oase in the amount of fish food eaten? Capt. Smith. That is so; yes, sir. Secretary Redfikld. That is a fact? Capt. SiMiTii. I think so; yes, sir. Secretary Redfieed. In considering tlie (|uestion of after the war. do you give any consideration to the length of time it would take in a country like (ireat Britain, for example, to restore the balance of the meat supply to what it was before the war? Capt. Smith. Well, I have an idea that it will take four or five 3'ears or more under the conditions that exist. Secretary Redfieed. Would it surprise you, Capt. Smith, if I told you that the meat supply of Great Britain, together with that of Continental Europe, has been depleted to such an extent that it would take 30 years to restore it to its normal condition? Capt. Smith. No, sir; I wouldn't be surprised to hear it. Secretary Redfield. Mr. Robertson, is that a correct statement ? Mr. RoiiEirrsoN. I Avould be sorry to make it as a correct statement, Mr. Secretary, but it is a very Avell-known fact that the herds fur- nishing the meat supply of the whole continent of Europe have been killed off to such an extent that it will take a very considerable time to replace them, and in the interval the peoples of the world will have to dei)end on some other form of nourishment. Secretary Rei>fh':ed. Has there ever, to your knowledge, Capt. Suiitli, been a c(mdition where the facts surrounding the fishing industry have been similar to those Avhich exist to-day? Capt. Smith. No, sir. Secretary Redfield. Do you think it is a condition froui which we can reason safely from past experience to the future? AMEBICAiSr-CAISrADIAIS' FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 223 Capt. Smith. Oh, I think the demand for fish is going to be increasing so that it will be mnch greater than it ever was before, now that the Government has taken hold of the thing together with Canada and is attempting to speed the business up, produc- ing as much fish as is required. Personally, I never saw enough. Secretary Redfield. You never saw enough? Capt. Smith. No. I might see enough in Gloucester for a few months, but I mean, looking ahead for six months or a year. Now, with our cold storage, it is different from what it was. I can remember times when I saw cargoes of the finest kind of frozen fish dumped outside the harbor here. We don't see those conditions now. and never will again. Cold storage has taken care of that. Mr. Sa\'Eet. Capt. Smith, have you with you or where we can get it for our inspection one of those licenses that have been issued by the Canadian Go\'ernment under the modus vivendi ? Capt. Smith. I thinly: I could: yes. sir. I have one. Mr. Sweet. Before we go away, could you let us see one of them? Capt. . Smith. Yes. Mr. Sweet. Oh, you have one? Capt. Smith. Yes. [Handing license to commission.] Secretary Redfield. I hold in my hand license No. 226. issued to the master of the United States fishing vessel Arethusa. This is identified by the suj^erintendent of fisheries of Canada as being a Canadian license, and it calls for the payment of $160.50 for the an- nual license. If there is no objection, a copy of this license will be made and inserted in the minutes as a part of the record in this case. {A. copy of the license referred to will be found at the close of C^apt. Smith's statement !225]). Dr. Smith. I would like to ask. Capt. Smith, what i)roportion of the offshore fishing fleet of Gloucester is now propelled by auxiliarj^ poAver and is, therefore, unable to avail itself of the privileges of the Canadian ports under the modus vivendi license ? Capt. Smith. It would be pretty hard for me to say. I should say. perhaps, a quarter. They are installing them fast every day. Probably a dozen vessels to-day are having engines installed in them that didn't have engines last year. So it is increasing fast. Mr. Found. I would merely like to ask one question. I would like to ask if Capt. Smith has given any consideration to the gross time that would probably be saved, which could then be devoted to fishing, by the entire New England fleet if they had available to them the port privileges of which he is speaking? Do you understand what I mean. Captain? They now have to come up at times with a broken trip, and because of other things. What would it mean in the aggregate if there was no such loss of time in the extra quantity of fish that would be produced i Capt. Smith. There is a question in my mind whether there would be any loss of time. I think we would lose as much time in our ports as we would gain by going in there. One would offset the other. I don't think that is any consideration. Mr. Found. I don't know as you get my meaning, or what I wanted to get at. At the present time the licenses are available for a very 224 AMERICAN-CAiSrADIAN FISHERIES C0NFE±5XCE, small portion of the fleet. Now. jjroviding that the i)rivileges cov- ered by the licenses, or such other privileges as might ulthnately be decided upon, were available so that ^•essels coidd for any purposes needed go to port and get right back to the fishing grounds, whether in the aggregate of a season's work it would not save considerable time to them that could be devoted to fishing? Capt. SMrni. I doivt know. I can not see Avhere there would be much time saved. Mr. Found. Providing a vessel is fishing otf Quero bank or any of these fairly eastern banks and meets with bad weather such as would make it necessary for her to go to port, if she could go to Canso or Lunenburg, and could then go right back to the banks, wouldn't there be a good deal of time saved as compared with her having to go back to Gloucester and then go to the banks? Capt. Smith. It would save the broken trip. Mr. FouNn. That is what I was getting at — provided all vessels could do that freely at an}'^ time, that conditions would make it desirable for them to do it, what in the aggregate Avould it save for the fleet, how much fish ? Capt. Smith. That would be hard for me to say. Mr. Found. That is a very important matter. Mr. Sweet. Capt. Smith, Avhen you said " one-quarter," you meant that one-quarter of the fishing vessels are propelled by sail and three- quarters by other power? Capt. Smith. No; I spoke about the offshore fishermen. I Avasn't considering the sailers at all; I Avasn't considering the bankers. None of the salt fish Grand Bankers have any poAver. I Avas con- sidering AAdiat Ave call the offshore haddocker. Dr. Smith. My question had reference to all vessels that under any circumstances Avould liaA'e occasion to resort to Canadian ports, including mackerel A^essels, cape shore salt fishermen, as Avell as fresh. Capt. Smith. A lot of our vessels don't have occasion to go to Canadian ports. Dr. Smith. They fish on the shores of Nova Scotia? Capt. Smith. Yes. Dr. SiNiiTH. Never eastAvard ? Capt. Smith. As far as Quero in the summer time. A good many of them take supplies here and go out and back home again. I understood you to ask about Avhat proportion of the vessels are equipped Avith auxiliary power? Dr. Smith. Yes. Capt. Smith. I think I am safe in saying 40 per cent; and in only a short time it Avill be 50 per cent, because they are installing them fast. Mr. Saa^eet. When you speak of auxiliary poAver do you include steam vessels? Capt. Smith. No. Mr. Saveet. You mean sailing vessels Avith gasoline to help them? Capt. Smitpi. Yes, sir. Mr. Saveet. Noav. Iioav many are steam A-essels? Capt. Smith. AVe have some small boats fishing on the shore here — small steamers, converted yachts, and have tAvo beam trawlers, which are steam vessels, out here. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 225 Mr. P'ouND. In the fiscal year 1915-16 the record snys there were 230 clitferent United States vessels that called at Canadian ports, making an aggregate number of 1.G33 calls. Secretary Redpield. Seven calls to each vessel. Mr. Sweet. Those were sailing vessels'!' Mr. Found. All United States fishing vessels. (Following is a copy of the license for the Arefhuso, submitted by Capt. Smith:) CAXADIAX I.KIOXSK lO I'MTKI) STATICS KISITiXO VESSELS (XO. 22(;). [Original for issue to vessel. Dominion of Canada. License to United States fisliing vessels, 1917.] (,"hit{) per registered ton. I lie pi'ivilege is hereliy granted to said fishing vessel to enter the bays and liai-bors of the Atlantic coasts of Canada, for tlie i)urcliase of l)ait. ice. seines, lines, and all other snp])]ies and ontfits. the transshipment of catch, and the shipping of crews. This license sliall continue in force for tlie year 1917 and is issued in pur- suance of section H of chapter 47 of the Revised Statutes of Canaihi of 1906. This license, while conferring the above-mentioned privileges, does not dis- pense with a due observance by the holder, or any otlier persons, of the laws of Canada, and will become null and void, and forfeited fortliwith. and the vessel will become ineligible to olttain a license in future if any of the goods or supplies or otliei- advantages obtained heretmder are .sold or transfen-ed to any United States tishing vessel that has not obtained a licen.se. Vessels propelled by steam, steam auxiliary, oi- by any motive ixiwer other than sails, are not eligible for this license. Dated this 4th day of May, A. D. 1917. <1. .1. Dehhakats, DH7 Capt. Thompson. Yes, sir. Mr. ForNi). Do you inind telliii«>' the eoniinissioii what the axeraiie earnings of the fishermen on your vessels were in 1017^ Capt. Thompson. "Well. T didn't com])lete the whole season this year myself, but the earninii's weiv larae, as I understand. I think they reached in the neiohborhood of between $l.oO{) and $'2.0()(). That is simply a g-uess. 1 (k)n"t think it would uo uuich better thau that, but somewhere in that neiiihborhood. Dr. S^Mirii. How does that compare with years l)et"ore the jn-esent industrial situation developed, when there is such a marked (lemand for fish of all kinds and prices ha\e ruled high ^ How would the earninos in 1017 comi)are with those in 1913. say? Capt. Tho:mpsox. Oh, wouldn't be any comparison. This past year would double 1913. The followino- information regardino- the expenses of tishiuo; \es- sels Avas submitted to the conference durino- the course of the hearing. «. year 1V)]7. in Nova Scotia, parts of wliifli I liave record of. is given lielow. as follows: Bait. .$1.U44.SU; uroceries. .i;i2o..")0: ice. .$S().7r) ; tishliooks. $2:>r) ; total. .*1,490.0.1. lies])ectfully. y(nirs. Finci) 'rno.McsoiN. {li.orcKSTKi; ^Iass.. .IdiiiKirii .?.''. t!>IS. Mv. Hkxuy 1"\ Ukown. Cilji. Deai! SiK : The Esjicniiilo is the only vessel \vc had last year with a Cana- dian license. As far as T can see we spent about .$800 for bait, icv .$800. fiMxl .$800. fishin.ii- apparatus SIOO. and other sni>itlics about $'_'0(t. Yours, truly. W'll.l.lAM II. .loiaiAN ( 'o.. <>i:i..\M)() .Mkiuiiani'. 'I'rrdxin-cr. KxrK.NDirruKs i\ (-anaiua.x pouts loi; riiK caikxdai: yk.vi; iimt. List of /■c.v.s-c/.v from (' inniiiHilKnii d- 'riioiii itsoii bnincli of drotoii-l'cir Fisheries Co. Schooner, l.icensp. I?ait. Supptie.s. rort charges. Total. .«142.50 Ifil.OO 157.50 , 138.00 144.00 122.50 1 139.50 S(i07. 57 915.80 1,359.40 527. 50 784. 40 1,047.08 429.00 $838. 56 592. 95 1,447.28 208.35 304. OS 284. 53 1,425.62 115.24 12.70 13. 95 57. 62 1.50 S9.00 5.75 15.75 6.25 5. 50 7.85 28.35 9.70 4.95 5.50 4.00 2.00 $1,597.63 Arethusa Ingomar T. S. Gorton 1.675.50 2,979.93 SSO. 10 1 , 2;?7. 98 Rhodora 1,401.96 2,022.47 124.94 Arkona 17.65 19. 45 H.B.Thomas 61.62 1 3.50 1 Total 1,005.00 5, 670. 75 5,302.38 104. 60 12,082.73 AMERICAN-CAiSrADIAN FISHERIES CONEEBENCE. dortoii-l'cir Fialicrif'H (Jo. ■ 237 Schooner Athlete $1. 800 Schooner Catherine Burke 2. 000 Schooner Elsie 2.000 Schooner J. J. Fallon 900 Schooner Gov. Fos.s 3, 700 Schooner Georgianna 1. 500 Schooner E. E. Gray 1,000 Schooner Mystery 1, 500 Schooner .James W. Parker 4. 000 These ti,iiui-es are approximate. Schooner Fannie A. I^rescott $1, 100 Schooner Repuhlic 1, 300 Schooner Mildred Robinson .500 Schooner Romance 4,000 Schooner Smuggler 2, 000 Schooner W. L. Stream 400 27, 700 ■lohii CliisJioliii i(- Son. ScIkk/iicis Rolxrt diid RichdnJ. — I'ald out in Xora Srotia portfi. 19 n. License. Liverpool $137. 75 Towing 8.00 Potatoes 8.00 Ice 70.00 Bait — 221.00 Eggs, etc 14. 00 Towing 10. 00 Bait .$286.00 Ice 60.00 Bait 355.90 Tea. etc 7. 20 Total 1.174.85 Sclioonrr A. Piatt Andreir-s. — Paid out in Nova Scotia ports, 1917. License .$138. 00 Towing 5. 00 Bait 248.00 Flour, etc 16. 00 Water ,3. 50 Ice .$67. 50 Potatoes 7. 73 Total 485. 73 OnliiHiri/ Hcininn t li j) on linlf la j/. Gross stock .$2, 860. 00 Stock charge 370. 00 2)2,490.00 Vessel share 1, 245. 00 Men's share 1. 24.5. 00 ( 'rew's expenses, of their half 145. 00 20)1, 100. 00 (.55. 00 1, 000. 00 1. 000. 00 Share, $55.00. Gross expenses : Gas and oil .$250.00 Ice : 45. 00 75. 00 Barrels, if used 370. 00 Crew's expenses : Extra grub 100. 00 Cook's wages . 21. 00 Hoisting engine 19. 00 Purser : 5.00 145. 00 On a base of 19 men on an average trip of three weeks. One share for gas engine. 238 AMERICAN-CANADIAiSr FISHERIES COISTFEEENCE. OrfJiudrii frip fresh jiHhm^t. Very true. Secretary Redfield (continuing). And Canada is giving her boys and we are giving our boys in a common fight. Capt. Gea>'t. Surely. Secretary Redfield. So we are coming to know each other better, and when we fight side by side Ave like each other better. Capt. Grant. C^h, we will get over this after awhile. We will learn to eat whale meat, although^it will taste awfully sour at first. Secretary Redfield. My cook is a good cook, and she doesn't know yet that it'wasn't beef she was serving. Mr. Sweet. Did you ever eat whale meat, Capt. Grant? Capt. Grant. I haven't, but I have eaten porpoise. Secretary Redfield. I would quite agree with you on that, Cap- tain, but the whale is a different bird. I think we will have to send Capt. Grant a can of whale meat— and don't tell your cook Avhat it is. Mr. Davis. We will have to put it on our list to get some. Secretary Redfield. The only difficulty is to get it. Mr. Sweet. The large amount of money spoken of, paid to Canada, was the amount settled upon by arbitration? Capt. Grant. Yes. -^ Mr. Sweet. Who were the arbitrators in that dispute? Capt. Grant. I have no idea, but they were not very good business men. Mr. Saveet. a little too friendly to our Canadian friends. Secretary Redfield. There was a Massachusetts man on that com- mission, too. Capt. Grant. Well, he came from the western part of the State. (Laughter.) Secretary Redfield. From Pittsfield. Capt. Grant. A Gloucester man would have been smarter than that fellow, I know. Mr. Sweet. I would like to ask you, Captain, if, seriously, there is ill feeling here in Gloucester or elsewhere in the United States grow- ing out of that, if there is much feeling left on that matter? Capt. Grant. Well. I expect that it is like everything else, hard to get rid of. Mr. Sweet. You think there is some left ? Capt. Grant. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. Think of our feelings when we had to pay you $20,000,000 at the time of the Geneva award. Capt. Grant. Of course, we don't know about that. Mr. Sweet. The shoe was on the other foot then, wasn't it. Cap- tain ? Chief Justice Hazen. That wasn't fifty-fifty. Secretary Redfield. We are obliged to you for introducing a kindly element of human nature and good humor into the convention. STATEMENT BY CAPT. JOHN MATHESON, OF GLOUCESTER. Secretary Redfield. Your name and your business. Captain? Capt. Matheson. John Matheson, captain ; go mackerel fishing on auxiliary vessels. 246 AMERICAN-CANADIAISr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. Secretary Redfikld. You litive occasion to use a Canadian license? Capt. Matiieson. If I could gei it. I would. Secretary Redfiklo. AVould you use one if you could ^'et it'^ Cai)t. Ma'J'iiesox. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. What would you do with it;! What would you use it for? Capt. Matfiesok. Probably get fittings; ship men at certain times. Secietarv Redfield. For all the general pui'poses a ship needs a port for? ■ Is that about it ? Is that right? Capt. Matiieson. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Now, y,ou have heard this proposed arrange- ment talked about, haven't you? Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. I will assure you that it is not the whole job, by a great deal. We have got the problem of Fraser River and other problems to tackle, but I don't want to worry you gentlemen here. We do not, however, want you to think that this is the Avhole thing. Do you regard the ari-angement as proposed as a square deal all around; and if not, why not? Capt. Matfiesox. I clon't think we can compete with the Canadian fishermen, fitting out from Gloucester. Secretary Redfield. Why not? Capt. Matheson. Because it costs us more here to fit out. Secretary Redfield. For what? Ca])t. Matheson. Most everA^thing : for the vessel, in the first place ; to build the vessel. Secretary Redfield. You are referring, I take it, to the time be- fore the war ? Capt. Matiieson. Well, naturally, it is going back again, I sup- pose, after the war. Secretary Redfield. Of course, that is a very important question. Wl\y do you think it will go back after the war to the former condi- tions ? Capt. Matheson. Well, the vessels built down there, the material put into the vessels, wouldn't cost as nnich. Secretaiw Redfield. Why, again? Capt. Matfieson. Build cheaper ships. Secretary Redfield. You mean that they are not as well built ? Capt. Matheson. They serve the purpose just as well. I wouldn't say they are not as well built. A vessel here is built of very costly material. Down there the vessels are built of different materials, and don't cost as much money. Secretfiry Redfield. Is that because our uuiterial is scarce? Capt. Matheson. Say, for instance, you build a vessel of oak or of hard pine, and another of softwood, the ones built of softwood will cost less money. Still, the vessel will produce the same fish. Secretary Redfield. And is there that difference between the usual Canadian craft and ours, that one is built of hardwood and the other of softwood ? Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir; as far as I know. Secretary Redfield. What kind of planking do our hulls have in vessels built in Gloucester? Capt. Matheson. A first-class vessel, of oak. AMEEICAN-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEKEXCE. 247 Secrete! ry Eedfield. The planking of oak? Capt. Matiieson. Planking and timber. Secretary Eedfield. Throiighont? Is that the usual practice? Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. Copper fastened throughout ? Capt. Matheson. Not copper: galvanized iron. Secretary Eedfield. Galvanized iron fittings throughout. What is the difference in cost between such a vessel and a Canadian vessel doing the same work? Capt. ^Iatheson. I think they can fit out cheaper from a Cana- dian port. Secretary Eedfield. You mean l"»y that, get their e(juipment for less? Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. And as regards supplies? Capt. ]Matheson. I think they could fit out with supplies cheaper. Secretary Eedfield. You mean that the supplies cost less. Now. Captain, have you niacie an actual comparison of those matters, or are you speaking from what has been told you ? Capt. ]SIatheson. Well, I haven't lately been to Canadian ports. The last Canadian port I was in was last spring, and you could get lots of things there cheaper than in Gloucester or any American port. Secretary Eedfield. But you were not able to get them there? Capt. Matheson. No, sir: without I violated their law. Secretary Eedfield. But under the new arrangement you. would be ixhle to get them? Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. So under the proposed arrangement you would have the advantage of chea])ness in the Canadian ports? • Capt. Matheson. I would: yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. On supplies and fitting out? Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. Woidd be on an entire parity with Canadian vessels in that respect ? Capt. Matfieson. Of course, there are two ways of looking at that. I am interested in two vessels, part owner of two. and go as master of one, myself. Suppose T went from here and fitted ou.t one vessel in Nova Scotia, and that my other ]5art owners would be running a business here. I think I would be hurting them, wouldn't I ? Secretary Eedfield. They certainly wouldn't get the business if you bought the goods down there. Capt. Matheson. That is the idea. Secretary Eedfield. But on the other hand vou woidd be able to pay them a larger profit, perhaps, by getting the goods elsewhere. and if you can do that raid do do it, are you not working for the benefit of your company? Capt. Matheson. Of course, as I say, there are two ways of look- :'ng at it. M3' idea is that we couldn't compete, because you can run a vessel cheaper from a Canadian port, and under this arrangement there would be an inducement for the Canadians to stay home and ship and fish from there. Secretary Eedfield. Well, how about getting other men? Capt. Matheson. Might in time, but the idea is to get the fish, now. 248 AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. Secretary Eedfield. Have you any actual fio-nres as to the cost of a Canadian vessel such as you speak of? Capt. Mathesox. No, sir; I haven't; not at the present time. Secretary Redfield. What do vou assume the diiference in cost to be? Capt. Mathesox. I should judge a third less in Canachi. Secretary Redfield. That is a Canadian vessel, doing the same work, could be built for twc-thirds of the money that an American vessel can be built for? Capt. Mathesox. I think she could. Secretary Redfield. People owning these vessels are in the lousi- ness, I suppose, to stay? Capt. Mathesox-. We hope so. Secretary Redfield. Would it not seem common sense for them to build a vessel so that she would do the greatest amount of ^\ork over the longest amount of time? Capt. Mathesox. I didn't get that question. Secretary Redfield. I ask you whether it wouldn't seem common sense for them to build a vessel so that she would do the largest amount of work over the longest amount of time ? Capt. Mathesox. You mean, build a vessel that would last longer? Secretary Redfield. Yes. Wouldn't that seem common sense? Capt. Mathesox^ Yes. Secretary Redfield. You don't mean to have the commission understancl that the Canadians don't know how to build a good vessel ? Capt. Mathesox. No; but the material wouldn't last as long. You build a vessel out of birch or soft wood — spruce — and it Avon't last as long as a vessel built of oak. Secretary Redfield. I understand, but is that the fact always or usually, Captain? Capt. Mathesox. I imagine so. Secretary Redfield. Well, really, do you know ? Capt. Mathesox. Well. I know they are built of softwood, down there. Secretary Redfield. Usually or sometimes? Capt. Mathesox. Well. I have been in the shipyards and have seen them. Secretary Redfield. That is what we want to knoAv. precise facts. You have been in the shipyards and have seen them made of soft- ^vood ? Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Whereabcnits was that yard ? Capt. Mathesox. Liverpool. Secretary Redfield. Do you know whether that is the custom else- where in Canada? Capt. Mathesox. Well, I imagine it is at Lunenburg. We see the A'essels after they come here. Secretary Redfield. And find them to be softwood vessels? Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. AVe are not attempting in anyAvay to ques- tion your statement, but simply want to make sure of our facts. When we get down to St. John, you know, the men tliei-e may say AMEEICAlSr-CAlSrADIAK FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 249 the other thing, and we want to know how 3^011 know it, so as not to be taken unawares. Xow, is it your opinion, then, that that is a factor which applies throughout the business generally ? Capt. Matheson. I imagine so. Chief Justice Hazex. Do you know. Capt. Matheson. how much such a vessel, say, of 100 tons, a fishing schooner of 100 tons, would cost if built here to-day ? Capt. Matheson. I know that I couldn't get one built under any conditions, I myself. Chief Justice Hazex. You couldn't get one built? Capt. Mathesox. I don't think so. They wouldn't guarantee when it would be built. Chief Justice Hazex. I suppose you know. Captain, that the cost of shipbuilding in Canada has tremendously advanced during the last few years? Capt. Mathesox. No doubt. Chief Justice Hazex. Of what wood are vessels built here in Massachusetts and Maine constructed? Capt. Mathesox. Oak and hard pine. Chief Justice Hazex. The cost of wood of that sort has advanced tremendously ? Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazex. I suppose you are aware that the cost of wood of all sorts in Canada has soared up to prices that are simply fabulous ? Capt. Mathesox. No doubt. Chief Justice Hazex. Spruce, which two years ago was an inex- pensive wood, to-day is extremely expensive. In fact, it is hard to get it for love or nu)ney for certain purposes. You wouldn't be able to give us to-day the diiference in cost on a boat built in Canada and a boat built here or in Maine ? Capt. Mathesox. Some of the people here might be able to do so. T understand that shipyards are taken for an indefinite time, even where they are building fishing vessels. I couldn't get one built if I wanted to. Chief Justice Hazex. Any fishing vessels being -built in Massa- chusetts to-day? Capt. Mathesox. Yes. Chief Justice Hazex. Whereabouts? Capt. Mathesox. Essex. Chief Justice Hazex. In the State of Maine ? Capt. Mathesox. I think so, possibly. Chief Justice Hazex. If it is possible, we would like to get some figures in regard to ship-building costs here, and then when we go to New Brunswick we Avill get the cost there. If there is anybody here who can give us such figures we would like to have them. Now, have you of late made any comparison between the cost of supplies in Canada, in Nova Scotia, and the cost of supplies here in Massa- chusetts, such supplies as are required for outfitting fishing vessels? Capt. Mathesox. Vegetables there are cheaper. Chief Justice Hazex. What are you paying for potatoes here? Capt. Mathesox. %2 a bushel, I imagine — around that; might be somewhat less. 250 AMERICA N-CAISrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Chief Justice Haze>\ If that is the case, there is little, if any, (litference in the price paid in Canada and that paid here, for pota- toes. But Ave AYonld like to get a statement before the commisison of the prices paid heie in this country for supplies for fishing- ves- sels, and then Ave Avill have some reliable persons in the maritime provinces give a list of prices paid there. AVe Avill then knoAv. Secretary Rp:dfield. Will you furnish us memoranda on that point ^ Capt. Smith. We Avill try to see that you are furnished figures shoAving Avhat Aessels ai'e paying here and what our vessels are pay- ing cloAvn there. Secretary Redfield. That will be first rate. ^ Chief Justice Hazen. I Avould like to ask a question in regard to equipment. Captain. When you spoke of equipment being cheaper in the maritime provinces, Avhat equipment did you mean ? Capt. Matheson. Outfits in general. Some things are higher. Chief Justice Hazen. You mean nets? Capt. Matheson. No; I Avouldn't say nets Avere cheaper there. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, rope? Capt. Matheson. I Avouldn't be sure about rope. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, Avhat is there you could get. if you were on board a fishing vessel cheaper in Canada? Capt. Matheson. Referring to the food ? Chief Justice Hazen. Referring to the equipment, that is used for catching the fish, fishing equipment. Capt. Matheson. Labor? Chief Justice Hazen. Xo ; I am not talking about labor, but I am referring to the statement about equipment being cheaper. Did you mean that the food was cheaper ? Capt. Matheson. I meant that you could fit a vessel cheaper there, always could. Chief Justice Hazen. You say fit a vessel. For Avhat? Capt. Matheson. Fit it for sea, to go fishing. Chief Justice Hazen. Well, take the question of the equipment that is necessary for catching fish — the nets, ropes, things of that sort — can they be purchased cheaper in Nova Scotia than in Massa- chusetts ? Capt. Matheson. I Avouldn't say on the nets' The fishermen in general Avould rather have American nets. I haA^e seen fishermen buy American nets when they had to pay $24 or $26 for the nets, Avhen the}^ could get an English net for $6, because they Avould rather have the American nets. Chief Justice Hazen. It certainly ought to be much better for that price. Capt. Matheson. Yes; that is a fact; and there are men here Avho Avill bear me out in that. Chief Justice Hazen. It is true that some of the articles required on a fishing trip Avould be higher in NoA^a Scotia than in jNIassa- chusetts ? Capt. Matheson. American articles Avould. Chief Justice Hazen. And other articles Avould be higher in Massa- chusetts than in Nova Scotia? That Avould be true? AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAN JFISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 251 Capt. Matheson. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. And in order to strike the ditference you ought to have a complete list. Perhaps Capt. Smith can give us that. I suppose you know, Capt. Matheson, from your experience, that prices in Canada are very much higher than they were some years ago? Capt. Mathesox. Yes; no doubt. Chief Justice Hazen. I suppose you know that in the year 1013 the prices were very rapidly advancing in Canada ? Capt. Matheson. Yes; no doubt. Chief Justice Hazen. And that there has been a general upward trend in the price of commodities and articles in that country? You know that, I suppose ? Capt. Matheson. Yes. Mr. Sweet. When a fishing vessel starts out for the season, how large a quantity of supplies does she lay in to begin with? F^nough for one trip ? Capt. Matheson. That is according to the trip she is going on. For mackerel fishing they generally fit out for about six weeks or seven weeks. Mr. Sweet. Get enough to last until they come back and discharge the cargo of fish? Capt. Matheson. We leave here and go to the southward, fish off New York, and, of course, there are more or less things we get there — fresh meats, butter, and stuff that wouldn't keep very Avell. Mr. Sweet. If a Canadian vessel came here, unloaded her fish, and was granted clearance to the fishing banks, and then came back here, and then went to the fishing banks again and back again with a load of fish, where would she buy her supplies — food? Capt. Matheson. Buy her supplies Avhere she could get them the most reasonable. I would, if I was on the vessel. Mr. Sweet. And if she was running from Gloucester out to the fishing banks and bringing fish here direct, would she be likely to get her food supplies here or go to some Canadian port to get them, or somewhere else? Capt. Matheson. Probably take enough for a month or two months, what we call heavy food, probably use salt beef. Our fisher- men have got so that they don't dare to carry nuich salt beef, as the men don't like it. We have not carried much for five or six years. Mr. Sweet. She would carry some supplies in bulk, in a sort of wholesale way, and then get part of her supplies on each of these voyages, each trip? Capt. MLi^THESON. Very likely do what we call patching out; get stuff for two or three months and patch out on the fresh stuff. Mr. Sw^EET. And if those food supplies cost more in Gloucester than in some Canadian port, she would be at a disadvantage to that extent, to the extent that she bought food in this market? Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. Mr. Sw^EET. Of course, it would be of some advantage to Gloucester to have that additional business, I suppose? Capt. Matheson. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweet. Now, referring to the advantages, you said when you first commenced to testify that if a vessel of yours propelled by 252 AMERICAK-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONPEEENCE. auxiliary power Avas entitled to take out one of these licenses you would get one? Capt. Mathehox. I never had one in ray life. Mr. Swp:et. But you said you would if you were entitled to have one? Capt. Matiiesox. Yes, sir; I would. Mr. Sweet. What would be your motive in getting it ? Capt. Matheson. Well, probably Avould go down there and fit out. Mr. Sweet. In other words, you would probably find advantages in having it ? Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. Mr. Sweet. Now, then, would the advantages of having a license that would permit you with the kind of vessel you use to go into Canadian ports to discharge a small or broken cargo, as they call it, make shipments in bond here or any other place you please, rather than having to come back here, that would give you all the privileges that a Canadian fishing vessel has — would that, do you think, be any more than an offset, or would it be a substantially fifty-fifty arrangement, granting them the privilege of coming in here, that we are talking about? Capt. Mathesox^, I think so. Mr. Saveet. You think it would be pretty nearly an even thing ? Capt. Mathesox. Even to some extent, but, as I said before, if you had a firm here and the^^ were interested, you would naturally like to fit from your firm. Pro])ably they wouldn't want you to go some- where else. Mr. Sweet. But, speaking broadly, it wouldn't be a very uneven bargain from what you say, I take it ? Ca]Dt. Mathesox. No. I think myself, though, that jou would be practically giving the fishing business to Canada. The vessels, of course, would be coming here, but I think myself it would be the same as moving down there. Mr. Sweet. You think the Canadians would be able to catch our market if we did that, do you? Capt. Mathesox. That is what I think myself. That is my per- sonal opinion. Mr. Sweet. Are you now taking into account the facts that have been brought out here in regard to the markets, the increasing de- mand for fish from all over the country, a rapidly increasing demand? Are you taking that into account? Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. Mr. Saveet. Have you heard the testimony of several gentlemen who have testified here, that there is not enough equipment in the United States and Canada combined to anyAvhere near meet that demand ? Capt. Mathesox. Yes, sir. But those men make their money han- dling fish. I don't. The firm I go for don't. We fish. Mr. Saa^eet. I knoAv, but an enlarging or increasing market is just as much an advantage for the man Avho catches the fish as for the man Avho merely buys the fish and sells it again, isn't it ? Isn't it for the advantage of all engaged in the fish industry to haA^e a big demand for fish? Capt. Mathesox. Yes. sir; but the man AAdio handles them can make the most money. AMEEICA]Sr-CA]SrAI>IA]Sr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 253 Mr. Sweet. We are not deciding between the two. Capt. Mathesox. The more fisli that comes in, the more lie can make. Mr. Sweet. We are not inquiring into rehitive advantages in that respect. You will admit that it is an advantage to everybody if the fish market of the United States is very largely increased and brought up somewhere about where the British market is; that it will make plenty of work probably for both Canadian and American fishermen ? Capt. Mathesok. les; but I would probably be of the same opinion and would probably wind up like Capt. Spinney, going down and getting a vessel there. Chief Justice Hazen. We would be delighted to have you there, Captain. FURTHER STATEMENT BY CAPT. BENJAMIN A. SMITH, OF GLOUCESTER. Capt. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I don't want it to go out that Capt. Spinney is going away from us except temporarily. I think Capt. Spinney Avill say that he is going to fish out of Gloucester again. Isn't that right. Capt. Spin^;ey. Yes, sir. I am going down there tor aAvhile, but I live here and Gloucester is good enough for me, and I would just !\s soon fish on this side as the other. But I didn't have anything to do this summer and had a pretty good chance, and so I said, " I guess it will work out all right." But this side is good enough for me. It is all right in Canada, as far as that goes, but I think if we get together and make it fifty fifty it will be better. Congressman Lufkin. Capt. Matheson, are you going to have an American vessel of your own built here? Capt. Mathesox. When the opportunity conies to get it built; would like to have one built here later. I would have one built now if I could get it. Secretary Redfield. Capt. Smith, can you tell us about this dif- ference in outfitting? Capt. Smith. I can get the figures for you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Redfield. We would like to get a statement of what you pay for a vessel outfitted here and in Canada. Capt. Smith. I can get figures on a great many articles. Secretary Redfield. Will you? Capt. Smith. I will. , Secretary Redfield. And making the comparison an equitable one, in which the conditions are the same. Capt. Smith. We have had vessels this year that have bought the whole outfit in Canadian ports, and I will give you those prices. Secretary Redfield. Thank you. Capt. Smith. And let you know what the other vessels are paying here for them. Secretary Redfield. That is just what we want. We would like to have you send that information to Dr. Smith, in Washington, please. (See Exhibit W.) Capt. Smith. I will do so. Mr. Found. Captain, can you give us the cost of a 100-ton vessel here and the cost of a 100-ton vessel in Canada ? 254 AMEFiTCAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Capt. Smith. I don't know ns I can tell yoii about the cost in Canada at the present time, but the Canadian vessels are cheaper than vessels here. Mr. Found. Do they last as long as American vessels? Capt. Smith. No. Mr. FouMD. Then an American vessel may be cheaper in the long run ? Capt. Smith. She is, in the long run. For instance, one of .our vessels is 20 years old, and I think we would class it with a vessel built in Lunenburg that was 10 years old. Chief Justice Hazen. Then, as a matter of fact, taking a series of years, the American vessel does not cost as much as the Canadian \essel ? Capt. Smith. Not after the first five or six years. One great saving in running vessels out of Nova Scotia is that they don't fit them so liberally as we fit them here. I am interested in a way in vessels sailing from Canada and Newfoundland, and those vessels gave us moi-e money and the crew got more last year than from ves- sels out of here, because it costs so much more to fit the vessels here, and we gave them so much more. They denumd more here. Secretary Redfield, The same men? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. It wasn't so much because of the extra prices here ? Capt. Smith. No, sii'. Chief Justice Hazen. But because the vessels here were fitted out, I may say, more liberally ? Capt. S^iith. Yes, sir; and more economically down there. Chief Justice Hazen. Take the pork, beef, butter, things of that sort that enter into the cfinsumption on a fishing vessel ? Ca!)t. Smith. Cost more doAvn there than here. Chief Justice Hazen. The prices there are higher, are they? Ca]:»t. Smith. Yes, sir; and that is the reason Avhy Ave had some of our vessels come here and fit. We have three bankers now. for instance, sailing out of Newfoundland. They took their outfit here this spring, because we could buy it much cheaper than down there, and the vessels are fitted much more economically than those same ^essels woidd be fitted if they Avent out of (Uoucester the last few years. Chief Justice Hazen. Does that mean that the sailors sailing out of Gloucester demand more of what you might term luxuries? Capt. Smith. Well, a little different class of food. Chief Justice Hazen. A higher class? Capt. Smith. Yes. Secretary Redeield. Capt. Snnth, have you had actual experience in sailing vessels yourself? Capt. Smith. No. sir. Secretary Redeield. Are you able to say whether a Gloucester ves- sel built of oak, as has been described, is a vessel that could be driven harder ? Capt. Smith. Oh, yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Than a Canadian vessel? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. AMEEICAN-CAN^ADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 255 Secretary Redfield. Does that mean capacity to make her trips faster ? Capt. Smith. Not necessarih^ : no. Secretary Eedfield. Is she a more efficient vessel i Capt. Smith. Not for the first five years or so. When she is new she is just as good as ours. Secretary Eedfield. But after that? Capt. Smith. x\fter that she needs more repairs than ours; don't hist as long. Secretary Redfield. At the end of 10 years is the additional amount in a Gloucester a essel well invested or ill-invested, compara- tively speaking? Capt. Smith. Well invested. Secretary Redfield. So the capital, if I understand you correctly. is invested more eifectively throngh the life of the ship in the Gloucester vessel? Capt. Smith. I think so; 3'es. sir. Secretary Redfield. So, taking vessels by and large, a hundred of them, it isn't the first cost that is the controlliong factor, but what you are able to get for the cost in the long run i Capt. S:mith. That is the way I look at it. Secretary Redfield. It is the same as in buying machine tools. For one yon will pay $1,000 and for another $600, but at the end of six years the cheaper one is Avorn out, and the other one is still good for six years. It is the (Question of the work done by the two tools, respectively, relative to the cost rather than the first cost of the tools, that is to be considered? Capt. S:mith. Yes, sir. Secretarv Redfield. And where you can get a thing that is that much better for $1,000, you will use the $1,000 article instead of the 7?()00 article right along, if you have the capital? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. Secretarv Redfield. Exactly. I ran a factory on that basis for a good many years, right along. Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. I don't think you save over $2,000 now between Lunenburg and Essex on the same materials. Dr. Smith. On what total cost ? Capt. Smith. $20,000. Secretary Redfield. So really you have here simply two diilerent theories in the construction of vessels — whether it is better to build a cheaper vessel and build more often, so to speak, or build a better vessel and not build so often ? That is the fact, is it not, from a busi- ness standpoint? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. I think it is hard to get oak in Nova Sco- tia, and always has been. STATEMENT BY MR. ORLANDO MERCHANT, OF W. H. JORDAN CO., GLOUCESTER. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, there were two Glintonias built in 1907, one in Nova Scotia and another here, and Mr. Merchant can tell you just what they cost at that time. 256 AMEEICAN-CAiSrADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE, Secretary Redfield. That was 10 _years ago. Mr. Orlando Merchant. The Clmtonia buiU here cost $15,000 before putting anything on it, and the other cost $9,000 ready for the sea down there. I think they are both living to-day ; neither one of them is worn out. Chief Justice Hazen. What was tlie one built here built of? Mr. Merchant. Oak. Chief Justice Hazen. And what was the other built of? Mr. Merchant. I suppose of softwood, the same as all of them down there. They are both living and going to-day. Dr. Smith. Which is the best? Mr. Merchant, Probably the Nova Scotia Z'lintonia will go for five years longer, but it is not as good a boat as the other. Mr. Marshall. The one here has just made two trips to the Mediterranean, and I doubt very much if the other one could go abroad to-day. Secretary Redfield. You see, the question is, when you are speak- ing of prices, considering prices in Gloucester as compared with those in Canada, whether the additional price paid for a ship here is well or ill spent. Mr. Merchant. A Gloucester ship is better; there is no doubt about it. Secretary Redfield. And over a period of years would be the better investment ? Mr. Merchant. Of course, there is quite a difference in price be- tween $9,000 and $15,000. The Clmtonia. here cost $15,000. Chief Justice Hazen. You think there would be the same ditfer- ence in prices now? Mr. Merchant. I think there is. The vessel would cost more here now. Such a vessel would cost here to-day over $20,000. Chief Justice Hazen. Yes; because the cost of everything has ad- vanced. STATEMENT BY MR. CHASLES F. WONSON, OF THE GLOUCESTEE SALT FISH CO., GLOUCESTER. Mr. WoNSON. Mr. Chairman, most of the testimony so far has been given by vessel owners or fishermen. In Boston, for the last two days you have heard the statements of fresh-fish men or cold-storage men. I want to speak, as I can, from the standpoint of a class of distribu- tors of which there are quite a few in the city, who are not vessel owners and are not producers in that way, but are quite large dis- tributors and are quite an important factor in the distribution of that product. Our business here, as you know, is largely salted, pickled, and smoked fish, and it is, to my mind, as important an interest as even the fresh or cold-storage interests. I will try to explain why. Our friends in Boston, the fresh-fish people and the cold-storage people, testified before this commission that, owing to the distance and to transportation difficulties, they were able to supply only a cer- tain area of the country. Now, without our salt-fish market how could the balance of the large territory be taken care of? Further- AMEEICAlSr-CAlSrADiAK' FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 257 more, even in that area which tliey chiini that they can cover well and safely at the present time there are occasions when fresh fish are not procurable on account of the weather conditions and possibly because there is not a sufficient quantity in the cold-storage ware- houses. You can see how^ necessary is our salt-fish product, which is a reserve supply. Further than that, it is not always convenient, it is not always pos- sible, it is not at all possible except for immediate consumption, for the housewife to have in her store closet a supply of fresh fish, and if at a moment's notice she thinks that fish would be a good meal for the day she sends to the market and the market man tells her that to-day, because of this, that or the other, no fresh fish are avail- able. She then either has to buy meat or go without- her dinner. But with the salt fish on hand she knows that she is provided for, because she has salt fish. She has salt mackerel, she has all kinds of canned fish to-clay, if she is a careful housewife, and that sort t)f thing is growing tremendously, as demonstrated by our friend Frank E. Davis. She has a supply of each of those fish on hand, and is able to furnish her family and guests with a meal. That shows the necessity of us people who are clistributors of salt fish pro- curing the material from which we can make the salt fish. The fear seems to be expressed by our fresh-fish people that if the Canadian or foreign vessels were allowed free access to our American ports the fresh fish would be here in such an oversupply that it would depress the market prices to such an extent that the business would not be remunerative. But without what they call the surplus supply, vchat we call an ample suppl3^ we would not have a chance to buy those goods at a figure which we call a splitting price, which enables us to do dress, cure, salt those fish, and hold them for the salt-fish busi- ness. Our friends in Boston, if you will remember, stated that they had on hand at the present, I think, about 2,000,000 pounds, which could not be sold for 6^ cents. Well, (H cents, gentlemen, seems pretty cheap, when they are getting 12. 14, and 15 cents, but 6| cents is a mighty good price for fresh fish in a wholesale way, and it pays the producer a mighty good profit. Those fish, I think I am safe in sa3dng, could be sold for 3 cents a pound to the splitters, and thej^ would command that to-day. They have sold much cheaper in the past, and yet have shown an extremely good profit to the Droclucers of those fish. Xow, then, we must get this surplus supply, and I Avant to speak for my friends who are in the same sort of business that I am, in the open market. I am not going to speak on the other side, because I am not a vessel owner and it does not interest me, except that as a citizen I want to see the closest connections in every way between the two countries. But I will speak on one side of the question and will try to show the necessity for a more ample supply of fish from some source in our American ports. Otherwise Ave Avill not have the salt-fish products which will enable us to do our share for the food supply of the people of this country. A very small proportion of our stock in Gloucester to-day is taken for what we term sahed fish from the vessels. Most of our product to-da,y — and that means a change as compared Avith years ago — is 51950—18 17 258 AMERICAN-CAISrADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE, bioiiglit into the market fresh or seniifresh, or iced. We take it, split it, dress it, salt it, put it into the butts, and hold it until such time as the trade demand that we take it out, cure it and pack.it. So we are depending almost entirely to-day upon the fresh-fish receipts for cur stock of the salted goods. I want to say a word, if you will allow me to do so here, for the much-abused whiting, because it has had a peculiar history and I have had perhaps a peculiar experience in connection with it. This is going to be a rambling talk, perhaps, but I would like to tell the Secretary about this if he .cares to hear me, because I was in the business when whiting Avere fii'st commenced to be caught by trap and weir fishermen along the coast. For many years these whiting Avere considered a pest by the fishermen. They AAould fill the traps and prevent fish of other kinds getting in, and they Avere thrown out of the traps by hundreds of thousands of barrels. But because there Avere so many tht)usands of these fish a great many Avould become tangled in the meshes of the nets, and Avhen the nets Avere hauled the fish Avould have to be taken out by hand. As it Avas just as easy to throAv the fish into the dory as to throAV them overboard, some of the fishermen, in order to pay their overhead costs, would save those fish, bringing them to the splitters, and the splitters tried to see if something could not be done with them by salting them. At that time, as you know, as a fresh fish possibility they were not considered at all. Very many dealers did try to sell the fish, but the people didn't think very much of them. The fish had no fat ; the_A Avere a very Avatery fish. When they are salted the salt seems to ab- sorb all the moisture there is. They get very flat and it seems as if there Avas nothing but skin to them, and they are rather tough. But they Avere cheap and Avere sold by hundred of thousands of barrels at 25 or 30 cents a barrel. It didn't pay the fishermen, but at times no other fish Avere running and they had to take them out, and they felt that perhaps they could get a day's Avork out of a dory load, tAvo or thrpe dollars. So' they were glad to sell them for "25 or 30 cents a barrel. So they didn't cost the dealer much. It Avas more a matter of labor expense than anything else. They tried to put them on the market as a cheap salt fish foi'the southern trade. The product, on account of its price principally, took tremendously, and very shortly they Avere being cured and sold by carloads to all the southern country. That trade Avould have been continued for years had the same education been extended to the fish dealers, the same educational policA% that is uoav being carried out by the GoA;ernment of the country. That is to say, if the dealei-s had" been educated to take any kind of fish and put it"on the market in the past, it Avould have been the best possible think for the fish industry. But Avhat Avas the con- secjuence? The fish Avas so cheap that nobody cared much about it. A number of concerns took them on to fill in si^are time for their men employed temporarily. If anything more important came in the men working on those fish Avoidd be taken off for the more im- portant duties, and the fish Avould lay around perhaps 24 or 48 hours before they Avere finally dressed, salted, and sent doAvn South. Anything Avas good enough to go doAvn South. What Avas the consequence? In tAvo or three years the dealers co:ij- nienced to haA'e an over-supply on hand, and they asked the trade AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 259 what the trouble was. They ^Ye^e told, *"' We caiVt do anything with the fish. Our customers Avon't eat them.'" "" Wliy not ? '" '" They saj they are no good ; that they are not put up as good as they used to be." It was simply want of care. But a report came in regard to the fish from a great many people. The fish, being salted, became Aery dry, and AA'hen fried — and most fish are fried in the South — they AA'Ould curl up, and the report came to us that these fish AAould fiy out of the pan. That AA'as an exaggeration. They Avouldn't fly out of the pan. but they would curl up. I had at this time a thousand barrels on hand, and some of my friends more than that or as many. The trade AA-onldn't take hold of them, and Ave about all concluded that they AA'ould have to be sent to the glue factory or the fertilizer factory, and very many barrels Avere so sent. But T had a thousand barrels, gentleuien, that I tliought I had taken pretty good care of, and I hated to send a couple of thousand doJhirs to the guano factory if I could help it : and so I started some experin^ents, ;uul this touches on my AA'hole point in regard to education. 1 said, " I believe those fish properly prepared can be relished, if they are properly cooked,'' and I took some of the fish liouie and, remeuibering wliat had been written me from the South in regard to the fish curling up and flying out of the i^an, I said, " I aaIII skin the-fisli. soak them out, and try handling them in that Avay. boiling theui and cooking them in different ways.'" I said, ''Anything that is good enough for me to eat is good enough foi- anybody doAAii the other side of tlie line." and so I experimented Avith theui and fixed them up in good shape, and they AA^ere all right. When properly handled they Avould not curl up and fly out of the pan, and so I simply instructed people to try and skin the fish and comply Avith the inclosed recipes, and I AA^rote my customers and bi'okers and said I Avoidd send those leaflets in quantity to any customer who Avould handle the gi^ods, to influence the dealer to push the gt)ods. You had to use some influence, because they had been giAcn a black eye and CAerybody aasis against them. I told my customers that for every hundi-ed bari'els thfit they Avould take and market, at a certain price, I Avould put in fiAe foi' Avhich I Avouldn't charge, and that Avould be Aelvet for them. That was attractiA'e advertising, and I gi\'^e you my Avord that that thousand barrals of fish, instead of going to the waste pile, Avent to the trade South and Avas satisfactory. We commenced to learn some- thiug about Avhiting and counneuced to take better care of them; but in the mean time the fresh fish and cold-storage people found that they were a pretty good fish and they brought a better price. What is in the market has sold from $T to $10 a hundred, and the market is cleaned out and the demand is growing. That is Avhat can be done with Avhiting. I speak of Avhiting because everybody knoAvs about Avhiting. and it has been talked about a good deal. It can be done with all kinds of fish. That sort of work can be done Avith all kinds of fish. We IvAxe had our experience here in the past Avith food fish that has been brought here in an unmerchantable condition, and Avhich people have felt obliged to utilize and send out to the trade. It Avas done to a certain extent, but the btisiness Avas ruined. The dealers came together and said, " We will have no business left if you allow this sort of thing to continue" ; and so we took a stand and said to the fish captains, " Gentlemen, you must bring in your fish in proper condition, or we will not accept it from you." The sug- 260 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. gestion was taken very kindly ; the men understood the situation, and since then the fish have been brought in in very much better shape than ever before. As a consequence ovir trade, without the war con- ditions, has continued to expand and increase. I trust, gentlemen, that in considering this question you will con- sider the advantages of the distributors, the advantages which the distributors, have Avith their conveniences to place before the Ameri- can public any quantity of fish that they can secure. But the diffi- culty with us who are equipped to distribute those fish is to get the fish. We are not vessel owners and we can scarcely expect a man who is a vessel owner to furnish us Avith the product so long as he can utilize it himself. Consequently^, Ave are obliged to look to outside sources for our fish. So if you can giAe us the fish through any legis- lation you can make, or any treaties, I Avill guarantee that there are enough people in Gloucester Avho Avill and can improve their con- veniences of distribution so that Ave Avill do our part to take care of the trade. STATEMENT BY CAPT. THOMAS M. NICKERSON, OF BUCKSPORT, ME. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, Ave have Avith us here to-day Capt. Thomas M. Nickerson, from Bucksport, Me., a man Avho has been a sea captain and Avho is a large vessel OAvner there noAv, and Avho rejiresents the entire fishing business of the State of Maine. He tells me that he can not make a speech, but that he is Avilling to be interrogated on an}^ matter. This man has risen from captain up to a large vessel owner, and is A^ery conversant Avith the entire subject. I Avill introduce to you Capt. Nickerson. Secretary Kedfield. Captain, Avhat is your full name and your business ? Capt. NicKEKSON. Thomas M. Nickerson, of Bucksport, Me.; in the fishing business ; salt-fishing business. Secretary Redfield. Are you a fish producer? Capt. Nkkekson. I am. Secretary Redfield. Not a fish distributor ? . Capt. Nickerson. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. You are both a fish producer and a fish dis- tributor 'I Capt. Nkkerson. I am. Secretary Redfield. Do you OAvn your oAvn vessels? Capt. Nickerson. I do. Secretary Redeield. Have yo.u had actual experience on a sailing- vessel, 3^ourself ? Capt. Nickerson. I have. Secretary Redfield. Have you ever held a Canadian license, Capt. Nickerson ? Capt. Nickerson. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Why did you have the license? Capt. Nickerson. Well, to go in to different places. The vessel has been into Shelburne, Yarmouth, different places along there, and Sydney, I guess. Secretary Redfield. Did you feel that the license Avas needed? Cajt. Nickerson. Why, yes, sir. AMEETCAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 261 Secretary Redfield. And thought you could ali'oi'd to pay the license fee ( Capt. XiCKERSox. Vrell. we thought so. Secretary Redfield. Would it be an advantage to you to have the license extended to your power vessels? Capt. XiCKERsox. Have none. Secretary Redfield. You have no power vessels? Capt. XiCKERsox. Xo. sir. Secretary Redfield. Would it be an advantage to you to have the license fee reduced to a nominal charge of a dollar a year? Capt. XiCKERSox. Well. I wouldn't want to say. but if we could go in there for one thing and another, perhaps it nught be all right. Secretary Redfield. Of course, the point I had in mind was this: You now have to pay $1.50 per registered ton for a license? Capt. XiCKEKSox. I understand. Secretary Redfield. And the proposition before us contains as a portion of' it the suggestion that the license fee be practically done away with and that a nominal charge of $1 per annum per vessel be substituted. Capt. XiCKERSox. I should feel that that would be all right pro- \iding there were no concessions made from this side. Secretary Redfield. What do you mean by that, Captain? Capt. XiCKERSOx. Well, I don't want to enter into that subject, but there are various things that might be referred to at the present time. I am only a fisherman, but I have been more or less down through your country on my way to Xewfoundland. back and forth, for the past 1:2 years, and I no doubt have heard, listened to quite a number of your men in regard to one thing and another, and of late years the war: and. I being, as they knew, from what they call " the States."" they have sometimes discussed the question of us coming with them. I told them I guessed we would come, that the time was coming when we would come, and we have come, and I feel as if with what we produce and what we have done, that we. I think, are doing all that vre ought to do, without giving any con- cessions. Secretary Redfield. When you say '' concessions "' do you mean that we in the United States should not grant the Canadian vessels the right to enter our ports directly ? Capt. XiCKERSox. I do. Secretary Redfield. And why so, Captain? Capt. XicKERSOx. Why. you have your own fishing grounds, your own ports: you can build vessels with your own materials, and you have got the men. and it looks to me as if you had got everything. It looks to me as if we didn't have but a very small part in this, when it comes right down to justice and fairness. You know, it costs people more to live, more for everything h^re, and we can not com- pete. We can not think of competing with these fish coming in here free. I don't believe it. Secretary Redeield. In other words. Captain, it is your idea that fish delivered to you in an American vessel costs more to deliver than it would in a Canadian vessel. Is that so? Capt. Xickersox. Well. I don't know. Your advantages are more, of course. It is more to vour advantage, vou beino- so much nearer 262 AMEEICAN-CAlS^ADIAiSr FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. the fishing grounds and my compan}^ so much farther away, and your men being there. Secretary Redfield. I am an Ameidcan. Capt. NiCKEKSOX. I beg pardon. Secretary. Redfield. You don't have to apologize. Capt. NiCKERSON. I know, but you are asking lue sometliing that is pertinent to both sides. Secretary Redfield. That is right. Capt. NiCKERSON. And I am answering to the best of ni}^ ability. Secretary Redfield. What we want to get at in the commission is this. If I understand you correctly, you do not feel that you can compete on even terms with the Canadian vessels. Is that so? Capt. NiCKERsoN. I don't, really. I don't feel that we can. I don't know. My gracious I I think we are doing a good deal, and I believe this is a serious question for the fishermen and the vessel owners of the States of Massachusetts and Maine, covering practically the coast of New England and probably as far as NeAV York. I don't know. I think we are doing all and giving all that we can, and I don't know but a little mite more. Secretary Redfield. But I don't get an answer to my question, Captain. Mr. Sweet. Is this your idea. Captain? You think, as long as we have gone into the war and are helping our Canadian friends out, that they can not respond too generously to ns? Capt. Nickerson. There, sir, you have got it ! Mr. Sweet. That is your idea ? Capt. Nickerson. Novr you have just hit the nail on the head. I didn't like to bring that in, but I think that is the situation at the ]3resent time, taking things the way they are and what ^ve are doing. I don't want to be selfisii or anything of the kind, but I think really, my gracious goodness' sake, we are entitled to something. Secretary Redfield. Suppose, Captain, you look at it from this point of view, that, rehitive to population and relative lo resources, in a Avar which is of connnon interest and is as important to us as to them, Canada has done far more in proportion than we are pro- posing to do, even. Now, looking at it from that point of view, which is the fact, if you take the relative resources of Canada and her population, think of her sending half a million men and main- taining them, a tremendous undertaking, their blood having been shed like water, as ours perhaps will be, in a common cause, if there exists any obligation by reason of what the respective nations have done in the war, the obligation is from us to them, broadly, and not from them to us. They were in it first; they have sufferecl far more than we. They have given of their children in far larger proportion than we have done, and if we were to give in proportion as they have done our army in" Europe would outnumber tiiat of Great Britain and France put together. I am afraid you haven't thought of that. Capt. Nickerson. I have, very carefully. I have this to say, that we are only just, practically speaking, amateurs in going in, and we have not got there. We have only just commenced, just started; but before we get through I am afraid there is going to be a different way to look at it than at the present time. J AMEEICAN-CAN^ADIAN FISHERIES COiN'FEBEXCE. 263 Secretary Redi-ield. I hope so. Capt. NiCKERSox. I don't blame you. Secretary Eedfield. Xoav. let us come back to this proposition, Captain. Our Government approached the Canadian Government ^Yith a request that they grant us certain privileges in their ports. The lequest came from Ub. The proposition was originally our own. They say, "' While we nominally have free access for our catch to your ports, as a nuitter of fact, by reason of ancient navigation laws, by reason of laws passed in the eighteenth centur3^ you are imposing upon us certain restrictions which we would like to have removed." Xamely, they ask to have the right to come directly into our ports fiom the banks and to go directly to the banks from our ports. Xow, if the}^ give to us such rights in their ports freely, why isn't it a fair proposition for us to reciprocate ? If it is not fair, why isn't it fair ( If it is not fair, we want to know it. Capt. NiCKERsox. We pay for that privilege. Secretary Redfield. They purpose to give us that privilege free, of course. Capt. XiCKERsoN. Xow, to speak plainly and conscientiously, we are all more or less selfish, and I am going to be as just as I can in answering that question. We have vessels here and you have vessels there; you have fish there and we have tish here. Now, I presume a man who actually has vessels that catch fish would naturally like to have his own markeis to market his fish in. He doesn't like per- haps to have another country, we will call it, marketing their fish perhaps in the same market. But the other man can do it, now. This Canadian country can produce fish and put them onto this market in spite of all, and do it for less monej" than it can be done here now, I am afraid. It is the same in the construction of vessels. As far as material is concerned, they haven't got to go far back for what they want. They have all they need, and they have their men to build them for a less amount of wages, and they have got the fishing grounds nearer io them than we have in this country, much nearer, and they can produce fish, 3^011 know, and more of them, for less money than Ave can from this coast. Massachusetts or anywhere between here and Cape Sable, Secretary Redfield. Are all the banks nearer them? Capt. NiCKERsoN. Yes, sir. But my line is salt fishing. There are banks off here, but they produce more fresh fish. Fresh fish come from aroimd these grounds. Mr. Smith. May I inquire how many vessels go from Maine ports to the salt bank fisheries? Capt. NiCKERSox. I may have five or six, suppose I have another one. six or seven. Mr. Smith. The total number? Capt. NiCKERSOx. That is, bank fishing, I don't know, but I think I am the only one sending vessels salt fishing, bank fishing. Mr. Smith. Where are your fish sold? Capt. NiCKERsox. Sold out of Bucksport. They come in there, and we ship them. We cut and smoke, sell some whole, sell them both ways. Mr. Smith. Where are your principal markets? Capt. NiCKERSON. Sell in many different places — Massachusetts, New York, sometimes farther. We export some fish to Porto Rico 264 AMEinCAN-CANADlAN FlSllKlllES CONFERENCE. aiul soiuetiinos to II;i\'aiiii: soini'tiiues dvy and lialt'-ciuvd Hsli and send tlitnn to Porto Kiro. Secretary Kkdkieli). Do yon ha\e tronble in ii'etting fish enongli? Capt. NuKKitsoN. Yes, sir; sometimes have lots of tronble in get- ting fish, and sometimes not so nnieh. Secretary Rediteld. Of late yon are gettino- all the fish yon need? Capt. NuKEUsox. No. I bny them. Secietary Redkikld. That is. in addition to yonr se\en or eii>ht vessels ? Capt. NiCKEiisoN. No, sir — or se\en now, have added one. Secretary Redeield. In addition to the lot they can get yon are still bnying fish? Capt. Nu'KEKsox. Some on the coast. Secretary Redeield. Any tronble in getting them when yon want to bny them ? Capt. Nu'KEiJsoN. Sometimes they don't come too planty. Secretary. Redfield. Is the bnsiness growing. Captain? Capt. NuKEKsox. Well, now. I shonld say that in the past conple of years it might have imin-oved some. Secretary Redeield. Isn't that a very moderate statement. Cai)- lain? Capt. Nu'KEiJsox. Well, to qnite an extent. Chairman Redeield. To <]nite an extent? Capt. Nk'keksox. Yes, sir. Secretary Redi-'ield. Why do you suppose the bnsiness is growing so fast. Captain? Capt. Nrkersox. AVell, the conntry is increasing in popnlation. Secretary Redeield. Short of meat, is it not? Capt. NickI':ksox. And all the physicians throngh the conntry are advising people more than they nsed to to eat fish, and it is in all the papers, and we have to take into consideration that the shortage of food this winter has cansed more consnmption of fish. Secretary Redeield. And yon think that likely to grow ? Capt. NiCKEijsox. Well, there, I wish I knew ! Secretary Redeield. Yon hope so? Capt. Nu KERsox. Yes, I hope so. Secretary Redeield. Where do the American people come in on this proposition. Captain? Capt. NiCKEKsox. I don't know; in regard to the people, 1 don't know. Of course, yon know, when yon come to this question of the American people, why, there are some people, yon know, that are — well, we don't want to go into that, perhaps, because I am not a blue blood, and when you discuss that with me we would have to go, you know, into these people that are away above fishermen, that think they are. Secretary Redeield. TIa\"e you ever heard such a thing as coni- ]:)laint because the cost of living was so high? Capt. Nk'kersox. I have. Secretary Redeield. And what about the American people being entitled to get the largest possible snj)]dy of fish at the lowest ])rice? Capt. NicKEi.'sox. That is all right. Secretary Redeield. They onght to have it, ought they not? Crpt. NiCKEiJSOx. Why, I don't know Avhy not; provided the men in the business are properly treated. They have got to get a profit AMERICAN-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEENCE. 265 out of their business, but tlie}^ can not get the profit that they are getting down about a couple of hundred miles from us to the east- ward. Those fellows are the fellows that are making the money to-day. They are making a great deal more, in my opinion, then we are up here, and they are doing it easier. They have got the men, and they have built. I don't know, about thirty-odd vessels this winter, I hear, and have all the men they want and have the fishing almost, as I tell you, at their own door, and they can not help pro- ducing fish at much less, with the labor to take care of and handle it. than in this country. That is where it comes, in my opinion. Secretary Redfield. What percentage of the fish that comes into our country comes from Canada? C'apt. NiCKEKSON. I haven't the statistics and I don't keep track of that, perhaps, as much as I ought to. I don't know. Secretary Redfield. It is rather surprising, isn't it, under the circumstances, with our market so very high and their costs so very loAv, that their entire catch is not sold in the United States? Isn't that rather surprising? ('apt. XicKEKSox. Well, you know, tliere is good air down there to cure the fish, good mai'kets to ship the fish through the West Indies, and the men own more interest in the vessels and take care of everj^thing, and they are as much ahead of us as the sun is above the earth in some ways, and they can not help but getting something- out of this when we can not, on account of the expense. Secretary Redfield. Your idea is that the Canadian fishermen run the business better than we run our business? Capt. Nit'KEKsox. I don't know about their running it better. They are no smarter men. They have some good men and we have some good ones here. Secretary Redfield. Thank you very much, Captain. AVe are very much obliged to you. STATEMENT BY MR. GEORGE J. TARR, OF THE GEORGE J. TARR CO., DEALERS IN FISH OILS, GLOUCESTER. Mr. Tark. Mr. Chairman, others have expressed their views with reference to other parts of the fish industry, and I have an industry which is known as a by-product. It is as essential in every respect as the codfish business, although its volume of business is not as large. I noAv refer to the cod-oil business. I hope, whatever may be the future legislation pertaining to this matter, it w ill not prevent the people of the United States from con- tinuing to bring in fish and cod oil to our country. Some years ago it was without difficulty that we got all the oil we wanted right here in this port and along the Maine coast, as far as Eastport. Gradu-. ally the vessels commenced to leave, for one purpose or one reason and another, until the Grand Banks fleet that we depended upon so much has almost ceased to exist. Merchants of Gloucester have gone to other ])laces to obtain their supplies, as you all well know, and we with our small industrj^ had to follow suit. At that time there was a protective tariff, and I was a protection- ist, because we were getting plenty of cod oil. I was a protectionist because the menhaden industry — an industry having perhaps the 266 AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. greatest volume of money invested in it, more than was invested in the salt-fish business of New England — was then struggling for ex- istence, on account of the low price of the goods; but gradually, as all things do, as everything is doing all the time, things changed and continued to change all the time, there began to be greater de- mands for the poor menhaden oil, that was the cheapest grease on the market, competing with grease that came from France, going into the manufacture of leather. Gradually, by improvement in methods in connection with the menhaden oil, by different methods, taking better fish and converting it into a light oil, it was used in connection with linoleums, soaps, paints, and for lots of other pur- poses, the price being raised so that it was more valuable than cod oil. Cod oil, on the other hand, has to go into the leather trade. This is a very important question. Automobile leathers, sole leathers, upper leathers, kip leathers, every kind of leather worn to-day by ladies or gents, is bathed in cod oil. Xow, the supply of cod oil is limited. Newfoundland pro- duces about 15,000 barrels a year: Canada nms from 7,000 to 14:,000. depending on the catch. You can see how limited that is when it comes to supplying the manufacturers of the United States with their oil. While menhaden oil in Avhat we would term an ordinary or a good year was being produced to the extent of 187,000 barrels, we have taken that right out of the market, from where it used to be consumed, because in connection with every piece of steel, every saw, every hammer that is tempered, they use menhaden oil. and consume it in large quantities. But cod oil is distinct : there is nothing in connection with the manufacture of a piece of leather equal to cod oil. Its nature is such. We have now only 30,000 bar- rels of. cod oil, or say in a good year 50.000 barrels, to use in the United States, where Ave need at least double that quantity. Now. let me give you an idea of the way things have been changed. We were buying oil 20 years ago at from 30 to 35 cents a gallon. What is taking place to-day? It is $1.05 a gallon, the same oil, and there is not half enough to go around. We are paying the fishermen 05 cents and even a dollar, in some instances. It is an important thing to keep this market open. We can not go without it. Some will say to you, " Get it from Norway or Iceland.*' We get very little from there. The Germans, the first year of the war, gobbled all the cod liver oil and carried it off to Germany, and it is scarce in England. It may be surprising to you to know that the year before the war 186,000 barrels were imported into this country for consumption. We want the consumptives to still have their oil from Nova Scotia. or wherever it may come from. It has got to come. You Avant to bear in mind the by-products from codfish. There are the fish blad- ders, and there are the fish sounds, an enormous quantity, hake sounds. An enormous amount are imported from other parts of the world to suppl}- the demand. Of course, those handling those fish can tell more about them than I can. I am going to digress just a bit. and only for a moment. I have been in the last 10 years visiting nearly every port in Canada, large and small, trying to find oil, and I have gone into the small hamlets and the largest cities. I have dealt with the fishermen and I have dealt with the merchants, for the last 8 years more particularly, and AMERICAI^-CAK"AI>IAX FISHERIES CONFERElSrCE. 267 I want to say to you, gentlemen, if I am any kind of an observer at all. that Gloucester has done much for Canada and Canada has done much for Gloucester. The closest of feelings are now existing. The people are welcoming the men who have gone there and bought green fish that never was sold before. Those fishermen are building more boats to-day and are bringing more of their sons into the busi- ness, and I think I speak Avith authority Avhen I say that the Gaspean coast has more fishermen on it to-day than ever before in the history of the business. That means much for the interest of the business. All the concerns that have gone there and located have built up the industry for those jDCople and have impressed them at all times with their fair dealing. Also, on the south side of Nova Scotia the same firms have gone there and established places. All along the Maine coast they are establishing places and working hard to induce the people to produce more fish. But Mr. Carroll this morn- ing told the greatest truth in regard to the matter. The reason why the fishing business has been on the decline for so many years is simply because fishermen didn't get enough for their fish. How can a man afford to go fishing, the most hazardous business in the world, and get only small compensation? But there is now a change, and we are seeing the results. Their shipvards are full, are busv. Men want to build beam trawlers costing' $250,000 or $300,000." Why? Because they think they can get something in return. Mr. Carroll, who has had great exj^erience in distributing fish, also says that this is a vital thing and that the people must not expect to get fish for nothing: that they must not get the idea that fish is scum, but must have the idea pumj^ed into their heads that it is as good as beefsteak, and some like it a good deal better. That is the great trouble here. We have had too low prices, so that fishermen were getting only $400 or $500 a year, dragging along a miserable existence. But now the thing has changed, and the Government of the United States is sending this commission around so that we can ad- vertise our case and get it before the public. This is what has been needed, what should have been done years ago. Our industry needs fostering. It should have been done long ago, and I hope your com- mission will do everything it can. will keep the thing going, and will let the vessels come in with fish. We will take care of them. We are going to have freezers come in as an important factor. I had 10 years' experience in the fresh fish business on Commercial Wharf anci T Wharf, and I know something about it. We will have the beam trawlers and open ports in connection with Canada, and then Gloucester will thrive. STATEMENT BY MR. HENRY E. PINKHAM, OF THE HENRY E. PINKHAM CO., GLOUCESTER. Secretarv Redfield. Are vou a producer or a manufacturer of salt fish ? ]\Ir. PiNKHAM. Well. I would like to tell you a few of my expe- riences before answering questions. On January 26. 1906. I started in the salt fish business, manufacturing salt fish, boneless fish. Our company is the Henry E. Pinkham Co. We started with a very small capital, so small that it is hardly worth mentioning. $600. Well, since that time, there has been no other concern started in tlie 268 AMEEJCAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEREXCE. boneless business in the city of (jloucester. I mentioned tlie oihor nig'ht that the A. Booth Co. started, but that has been started a number of years. The trouble has been lack of raw material. I don't blame the large concerns. Mr. Carroll, when I started in busi- ness, w^as the first man to help me out with the banks in Gloucester. I have never forgotten the kind act he did. But we need larger amounts of fish coming in here to supply our great country. The people of this country need food, and we should supply them with it, no matter whei-e it comes from. We can't get in so much that we will not know what to do with it. We never in my experience have been overburdened with so much fish that we can not sell it. In my opinion, which may not be right, this thing that is proposed will not hurt me. I am interested, own a steamer, a gill netter, we call it, and I value her at $11,500, which operates olT this coast, and if fish becomes so cheap as everybody says, I will not be able to operate her. But I don't worry about it. If the Cana- dians come in with fish I will get more to work with, and pei-haps will go down there and operate there and ship fish to this country. The gill net fishery is quite a large business, and there is a lot of money invested. I suspect that there must be $5,000 invested in the city of Gloucester in the gill net fishery. If they could go down to Nova Scotia and operate and ship fish to Boston it would be a great benefit to this country. At this time of year we don't get any fish there, because the season, you might say, is otF. About the ist of March we start the fishing year and get very good fishing. But, on the Avhole, we need more material here. There is no man. I don't care how large or how small his business may be, who will say that we do not need more material, because we are going after it every day. Take a small man, with a small business, it is almost impos- sible for him to go after it. I have to stsij home and take care of the business. You say, "How small is your business?" I have put out since May 1 1,000,000 pounds of fish, and when I started the first year I put out 15,000. In the last 10 weeks I have put out $45,- 000 worth of fish. It is going somewhere, the people are being fed, and that is what the country needs, something to feed the people. That is my idea of it, and I don't want to be so self-sufficient as to try to keep everybody from bringing fish into this port, particularly when everybody is uoav favored under free trade. I don't believe there is a concern in the city that has not prospered wonderfully undei- free ti-ade. I have, and I think everybody else has. STATEMENT BY ME. A. L. PARKER, PRESIDENT BOSTON FISH PIER CO. Mr. Parkek. Mr. Chairman, just a word of explanation. Some- thing has been said about 200,000 pounds of fish in Boston that they couldn't sell at G-|- cents, and the statement was made in regard to how they did dispose of it, in connection with the statement I made yesterday that we couldn't get fish enough. As a matter of fact, that fish was not put onto our exchange for sale. It was brought in by the Bay State Co., which tried to distribute it in its 6wn stores and hold the price above the market. We were not offered a chance to buv that fish. AMEEICAX-CAISrADIAlSr FISHERIES CO:NFERE]SrCE. 269 COKEECTION OF STATEMENT BY CAPT. GAEL C. YOTJUG Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. SecretaiT, in Boston yesterday or the day before yesterdaj^ Capt. Young made a statement with regard to American vessels that had take out modus vivendi licenses hav- ing to apply to Ottawa in order to transship fish. I think that he Avould like to make a statement about that here. Capt. Young. Mr. Chairman, I have found out that what I said in that respect is not so. that my statement was not correct. STATEMENT BY MR. JOSEPH McPHEE, OE THE RUSSIA CEMENT CO., OF GLOUCESTER. Secretary Eedfield. Is jMr. Joseph McPhee in the room ? (Mr. McPhee came forward.) Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. McPhee. we had some discussion in Boston yesterday with regard to the uses that are made of fish waste, and some reference was made to the fact that fish waste was being transformed into fish meal, which was being used as food for cattle and fod for poultry. I am informed that you will be able to give us some information upon that subject. Mr. McPhee. That is, so far as poultry goes. We get the raw mate- rial from the fishing concerns in Boston — that is, skins, waste, bones, and other material that they do not use for food. It is cooked, the liquor extracted and evaporated down, and we get glue out of that. Our concern manufactures Le Page's glue. Then the remaining ma- terial is put through a dryer and is then thoroughly ground. For a number of j^ears it was sold as fertilizer, and then the fertilizer plant to which it was turned over was sold out, so that that branch of the business was discontinued, and since then this chicken food has been developed in this way. We are making up what we call chicken foad from it. Nothing is added to it. It is just as we get it, being ground and handled in that way after being extracted, using what is left after we get the material for the glue. Chief Justice Hazen. As I understand it, the waste which was formerly used for fertilizer is now used as chicken food? Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. You have found that it is a fairly profitable business? Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir; fairly so. Chief Justice Hazen. Hovr long have you been engaged in that business ? Mr. McPhee. The chicken feed is something new ; I don't think over a year and a half or two years. Chief Justice Hazen. Speaking in dollars and cents, what does the business amount to, the chicken food business? Mr. McPhee. I couldn't say just what it would figure. Chief Justice Hazen. It is a growing business? Mr. McPhee. Oh, yes. We can not get enough material to sup- ply the demand at the present time. Chief Justice Hazen, This food is a favorite food with poultry raisers ? Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. 270 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Chief Justice Hazen. They find that they get good results from feeding their hens upon it ? Mr. McPiiEE. Yes, sir; it is a good food for producing eggs and also makes good broilers. Secretary Redfield. You are turning fish into meat and eggs? Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. Are you using all the fish waste that you can get for this purpose? Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. If yon could get more fish waste would you extend your business? Mr. McPiiEE. I think likely. Chief Justice Hazen. The quantity of fish waste you can get de- pends. I suppose, on the quantity of fish brought into this port? Mr. McPhee. It is brought here from the Pacific coast and also from Canada. Chief Justice Hazen. You get this waste from the Pacific coast? Mr. McPhee. No ; not the waste. We get the glue from the Pacific coast. Chief Justice Hazen. And also get glue from Canada, do you? Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir: we have a plant at St. John, NeAv Bruns wick. Chief Justice Hazen. Who is running it for you'? Mr. McPhee. Charles E. El well. He lives on the hill the other side of the railroad track. Chief Justice Hazen. Yes: you are able to secure fish waste there for glue? Mr. McPhee. Yes. sir. Chief Justice Hazen. That business is progressing all the time ? Mr. IMcPhee. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. Then, the more fish business that is done, the more people there are eating fish, the more chicken food there will be. Mr. McPhee. And glue. Chief Justice Hazen. And I suppose that means more chicken food for the jieople of the United States and Canada ? Mr. McPhee. I should think so. Chief Justice Hazen. Is it an economical food for poultry? Mr. McPhee. It is in the long run. It costs more at the start, but there is more value to it. more protein value in this fish meal. I understand, than in anything they have put out. The meat concerns for a number of years did something in that line, and do some now, but we- have taken some of that business, because the meat scraps. as they call them, have been falling off, and they have been getting refuse meat from the soap factories, tallow plants, and slaughter- houses, so that it has hurt business and nuide more of a demand for fish meal. Chief Justice Hazen. That fish meal, if I understand you cor- rectly, is made from glue you get from the Pacific coast and Canada, and manufactured here? Mr. McPhee. Not from glue ; it is made from the material left after the glue has been made. Chief Justice Hazen. The meal is made here ? Mr. McPhee. Wherever the glue is made. Chief Justice Hazen. You make it in St. John ? AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHEETES CO^iTFERElSrCE. 271 Mr. McPhee. No; not enough there to bother with. It is sold there. I think, to the Provincial Chemical Fertilizer Co. Chief Justice Hazen. But you have this factory in St. John where you take this fish waste, and you manufacture that there into glue material ? Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. Then, that glue material is sent on to you here ? Mr. McPhee. No : we have this plant located on the other side of the line to take care of our sales in Canada, to save sending goods into Canada from the United States, which saves the duty. Chief Justice Hazex. Yes. Mr. McPhee. And we have at times an oversupply of raw mate- rial in Canada, which is brought into this country, because there is no duty on it. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you manufacture any of the meal in Canada, at all? Mr. McPhee. No ; it is sold to the fertilizer company. Chief Justice Hazex. All the meal manufactured, then, is manu- factured here in Gloucester? Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazex. Do you employ manj- people in that in- dustry ? Mr. McPhee. Of course, this meal has to come from the glue end of it, and is a by-product. I think we have 250 employees. Chief Justice Hazex^. Employed in your glue industry to-day and in the making of meal? Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazex. That is quite an industry. Do you pay large sums in wages? Mr. McPhee. Our pay roll here is $2,500 a week. Chief Justice Hazex. Do you find that your individual wages that you pay to men in an individual capacity in your factory here are much larger than in St. John? Mr. McPhee. Of course, in St. John they have only four men. and the foreman there gets about the same as our foreman over here, practically. There isn't much difference except that we have on\j four down there as against a large number here. Chief Justice Hazex. But, as far as the individual wages are con- cerned, there is not much difference ? Mr. McPhee. No. Chief Justice Hazex. A man in St. John gets about the same as a man in Gloucester? Mr. McPhee. Pretty near. Still, I think they are paid more here. Chief Justice HAZEX^ Can you tell us how much more ? Mr. McPhee. Well, perhaps 20 per cent. Chief Justice Hazex. That is. men doing an equal class of work? Mr. McPhee. Yes, sir, Mr. FoTjxD. What do you use for the purpose of manufacturing the poultry feed, on that end of your business ? Mr. McPhee. On that end of it there is nothing but a common grinder, the same as one that would grind grain. Mr. FouxD. And a dryer? 272 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Mr. Mc'PiiEE. The dryer is n common dryer, manufactured in Cleveland. Mr. Found. You collect over a consideral)le area if Mr. McPiiEK. Yes; from Gloucester down through beyond Halifax. Mr. Found. You collect the raw material. How do you trans- port it? Mr. McPiiEE. They bring it into St. John by either boat or rail, and then we get quite a large stock from the St. John producers. Mr. Found. In what condition does that raw material get here? Mr. McPpiEE. Most of it is from fish that are salt cured, have been on the flakes and dried. Mr. Found. Using sounds? Mr. McPhee. No sounds at all, just offal. Mr. Found. Internals and heads? Mr. McPhee. No internals — heads, skin and bone. Mr. Found. Are you handling what is commonly called along oui- coast offal, entrails, heads and such like? Mr. McPhee. All but the entrails. We don't handle entrails or oily stock, at all. Chief Justice Hazen. If you could get more fish you would be able to extend that business? Mr. McPiiEE. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. And increase its importance to the city of Gloucester ? Mr. McPhee. Very much so. Mr. Found. What size packages do you put the chicken food u]) in? Mr. McPhee (handing catalogue to commission). Here is one of our catalogues, which I shall be glad to turn in to 3^ou; 5 or 10 pound packages and 100-pound bags. Secretary Eedeield. What disposition is made of the offal that is produced here in any of the canning factories or otherM'ise? Mr. McPhee. You mean by the off'al, I suppose, the material we handle? Secretary Redfield. The entrails? Mr. McPhee. I understand by the entrails, in common phrase, the insides^^-the guts, in other words. We don't handle any of those. I don't think they are handled here. Secretary Redfh'^ld. Is none of that material produced here in the canning process, at all? Capt. SMrrn. Not used at all. Secretary Redfieed. I ask the question because the director of markets of the State of California, who is himself a business man of large experience, called the attention of the Commissioner of Fisheries to the fact that the entrails, guts, are used on the Pacific coast to manufacture this very chicken meal such as you speak of producing here. Mr. McPhee. I never heard of it. Secretary Redfield. The evidence available to us is that the prod- uct from all kinds of offal of the canneries of Alaska alone pro-, duces a product of that kind of an annual value of $8,000,000. Mr. McPhee. You saw that in a magazine article? Secretary Redfield. No; in a direct connnunication to me of the director of markets of the State of California, handed to me by the Connnissioner of Fisheries within a fortnight. Anybody interested AMERICAN-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHERIES CONPERBlSrCE. 273 can communicate with Mr. Weinstock, director of markets of the State of California, in San Francisco, and get the wliole tiling. It seemed to be a matter of very considerable interest to him. Mr. McPhee. There is a plant also in Anacortes, Wash., Avhere they handle a large amount of stock there, salmon and halibut, but I believe they have never used the entrails, never would use them. Secretary Redfield. Of course, this is quite a new matter. I understand from the commissioner of fisheries of Canada that they are using those entrails on Fraser Eiver fo-r various purposes. Mr. McPhee. I am glad to know it. Mr. Found. For oil, and in Xova Scotia they are making glue. FACTS ABOUT THE - SEAL" IN HALIFAX HARBOR. Secretary Redfieed. If Capt. Frank C. Pierce is here, perhaps he can tell us accurately the facts in regard to his having been asked by the collector of customs at Halifax to sign an agreement concern- ing the vessel jSeal. Capt. Smith. Capt. Atwoocl was the master, and he is not avail- able, but I think I can state the facts. The Seal, one of our beam trawlers, went out on the banks and met with a mishap to the machinery. She went into Halifax to have some repairs made and get a few supplies. She bought the supplies, and the collector of customs asked the captain if he would sign that agreement not to fish Avithin the 12 miles. He showed the captain the agreement, which the other beam trawlers had been signing, for one year, ancl Capt. Atwoocl said, "Well, I had just as soon sign for this trip." He said he was perfectly willing to do that, as he didn't intend to fish within the 12 miles, anyway. So he signed the agreement not to fish within the 12 miles for that trip. Chief Justice Hazen. The collector asked him to do what he had been asking our own fishermen to do, and he had no right to do so. Secretary Redeield. There Avas a misunderstanding, and we will look into it more carefully. Secretary Redeield. Is there anybody who can inform the com- mission as to the vessels sold from Gloucester to other countries in the last year or two, or two or three years, and as to the reason for their sale? Mr. Frederick L. Davis. I don't think anybody in the hall can give the information, but I think I have figures available on that matter that can be ascertained, by reference to our records. Secretary Redeield. We have in the Bureau of Navigation the actual transfers of all ships, and the reason why I am asking the question is because those records seemed to show that the number of vessels sold in eachyearof the last three or four 3- ears has been exactly 11; and yet I gathered the impression from something said in Bos- ton that the number was thought to be very nuich larger than that. I wondered Avhether Ave could get accurate information from some- body. Mr. Davis. I am of the opinion that possibly for the year 191T II vessels might cover it, but I think in 1915 and 1916 the number Avas larger. The number of tliose sold in 1915 and 1916 were sohi 51950—18 18 274 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERJP^S CONFERENCE. in order to get rid of them and to get neAv vessels, bnt those sohl in 1917, I guess, were sold becanse of war prices, becanse there was so much temptation to sell, the prices being so great that they got their year's profit by selling the vessel. Dr. Smith. None sold in 1917. were there ^ They were not allowed to be. Mr. Davis. Vessels were sold in 1917, just the same, out of port. Dr. Smith. Not to any foreign country ? Mr. Davis. I don't know where they went, but sold out of port. (Further statement on this matter by Capt. Smith, page 277.) STATEMENT BY MR. E. ARCHER BRADLEY, GENERAL MANAGER SYLVANUS SMITH & CO., GLOUCESTER. Mr. Bradley. Mr. Chairman, E. Archer Bradley. Secretary Redfield. Will j^ou kindly state your business? Mr. Bradley. Vessel owner and distributor of fish. After listen- ing to the questions asked by your honorable board and the replies that have been made, I am led to infer that Canada is Avilling to grant a concessiou by making the license fee for a vessel $1 instead of $1.50 per ton. Secretary Redfield. Correct. Mr. Bradley. It seems to me that principle is entirely wiong, and there has been onlv one witness you have had wlio has expressed him- self that way. Capt. Peter Grant. When the treaty of 1818 was entered into, of course, the fishing business was a very small matter to both countries. As it grew and the matters of friction increased, the modus vivendi Avas entered into between the two countries. At that time Gloucester accepted it because she had a large fleet of bankers and was depending a great deal on the Nova Scotia ports for bait. Since that time the fleet of bankers has dwindled aAvay. cold-storage warehouses have been erected along oui- shores, and there have been increased facilities foi- catching herring and bait fish here, so that the demand for the use of the Canadian ports for bait is very small at the present time. The conditions are still chang- ing. As has been said here, a large percentage of vessels have auxil- iary power. We are also enlarging our fleet of beam traAvlers, and in a few years there will be a much larger fleet of beam trawlers. If we want to make the thing reciprocal, I should think our good Canadian friends would be willing that our vessels should have the same privileges in their harbors and along their shores as Ave grant them, and. in order to avoid friction later on, why not have ji treaty made that Avill embody that? If the old treaty of 1818 still remains, and we haAe a sort of modus vivendi Avhereby the vessels here shall pay $1 apiece license, Ave should haA e the same commercial privileges for our fishing vessels that other vessels have. As time goes along there Avill be changes in the methods of catching fish. Avith a liability to some more trouble, and Ave Avill have to go over the Avhole matter again. So it seems to me if our good Canadian friends desire to haAe mutual relations Avith us, as Ave certainly do with them, the conces- sions they should grant Avould be to grant our vessels the same privi- leges that Ave give their vessels at the present time. In that connec- tion. I don't knoAv that there should be this license fee that has been referred to. AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAlsr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 275 Secretary Kedfield. I don't iinderstand that it is a matter of the dollar, the sum of money involved? Mr. Bradley. No, sir; it is the principle. Secretarj^ Eedfield. The principle of having any license? Mr. Bradley. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. I have tried to explain that the commission has not yet been able to search the matter to the bottom, but the present imclerstanding is that that form of license is intended simply in order to comply Avith the terms of the old treaty, which was, so to speak, forced on Canada by the action of the British Government, rather than hj action on the part of Canada. We are not sure yet, as we are going to look into that matter further, but I would ask you, apart from that, what further privileges joii would suggest in order to bring about the condition of which you speak. Mr. Bradley. The same privileges that their vessels have alona our shores and in our harbors, within the 3-mile limit. Secretary Eedfield. Have you in mind any further changes on their side which that would invoh-e? Mr. Bradley. I hope it will involve the charging of a duty on the fish sold in our ports. Secretary Eedfield. That, of course, is not a matter that is within the province of this commission. Mr. Bradley. Well, in regard to the 3-mile limit? Secretary Eedfield. That can not be altered, as a matter of inter- national law. In both countries the conditions are the same in that respect. I didn't know whether yon might wish to suggest other things, such as mending nets, cleaning fish, etc. ? Mr. Bradley. Nothing; except that I would include such sugges- tions, which have been made by other gentlemen. Secretary Eedfield. Then, what further concessions on our part might be necessary ? If that condition was to be brought about? Mr. Bradley. In what way ? Secretary Eedfield. Well, there is a law of the United States, for example, which requires Canadian vessels navigating the territorial waters of the United States to report at the customhouse of the dis- trict, which I think Canada does not require us to do. That is a thing that we require of them that they do not require of us. If you went, for instance, to Portland, Me., where, from the geo- graphical location, ships have to navigate in our territorial waters, you will find that many Canadian vessels are obligated to enter themselves there and report themselves, which they do not ask of us at all. Don't you think we should abandon that ? Mr. Bradley. Isn't that because of their going under register and our vessels having a different style of papers? Secretary Eedfield. No. It is a part of the old law in force, and it throws an interesting light upon this discussion. That very thing that some of our friends here this afternoon object to as likely to be destructive, in their thought, quite sincerely, has operated on the Pacific coast for a great many years, vessels being required to re- port at an American port, being granted clearance to any port they seek to enter, and then being allowed to go directly to the fishing grounds from the American port, and the entire halibut business of the Pacific Ocean is done on that basis and has grown up in that way. So the commission is required to consider how it can be that 276 AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. on the North Atlantic the thing would work destructively while on the north Pacific it is consistent with a very large growth in the industry. That is why we desire to learn Avhy these gentlemen think that what is proposed is likely to work harm here, whereas as a matter of fact on the Pacific coast the very same thing is in ex- istence and works advantageously. Mr. Sweet. If I get your idea, Mr. Bradley, j^ou are in favor of what we call here the fifty-fifty idea? Mr. Bradley. I think it should be reciprocal. Mr. Sweet. That is, in reaching a conclusion on the whole subject it should be oui- endeavor to secure for the United States and for our vessels every privilege, so far as is reasonable and possible, wip- ing out all causes of irritation between the two nations for all time to come, putting them as nearly as possible on an equal basis with respect to their vessels in our ports and our vessels in their ports? Is that your idea? Mr. Bradley. That is my idea. Mr. Sweet. That is what we want to know. Dr. Smith. Would your objection that you first stated be met if Canadian vessels which were accorded privileges in our ports were subjected to the same form of license that is thought to be necessary for American vessels entering Canadian ports? Mr. Bradley. I liave a feeling, as I have stated, that as things go along there will be other matters of friction, and that we should have to go through this same hearing possibly again. Dr. Smith. If possible, you would like to do away with the neces- sity of a license for either country ? Mr. Bradley. That is the way I feel; yes, sir. INFORMATION ABOUT SALE OF GLOUCESTER VESSELS. Capt. Smith. Mr. Chairman, the (question has been asked why our vessels liere were sold. The}^ were sold because we got all or more than they Avere worth, sold because we got the value and got good prices for them. Secretary Redfield. To Avhat countries Avere they sold? Capt. Smith. Newfoundland. NorAvay, South Africa, West India Islands. We haA'e sold some in the United States. I presume you referred to those that changed flags. Dr. Smith. Any to Canada? Capt. Saiith. No, sir; I don't remember of selling a vessel to Canada. Dr. Smith. During 1917 or any recent year? Capt. Smith. No; we couldn't sell in 1917. Previous to that for the last three or four years Ave liaA^e sold A^essels and bought them, for the last 10 or 12 years, and replaced them Avith some other A^essels. There are some that have been sold by the captain or the owner desiring to get out of the business, because the vessels have not been profitable. Secretary Redfield. Do I infer correctly, Capt. Smith, that this policy of yours is a regular polic}^ ? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. Whereunder you treat your plant in what you regard from a business point of vieAv as the most profitable way? AMEKICAX-CAXADIAX FISHEEIES CONFEEEXCE. 277 Capt. Smith. We intend to keep it up. sell one and perhaps buy t'SYO. Secretary Eedfield. The sale of a vessel is not an indication of going out of the business^ Capt. S3IITH. Xot in onr case, but there are individuals Avho have sold because they Avanted to go out of business. Secretary Eedfield. It is a case of management of your OAvn plant in what you consider is a profitable way to you!' Capt. Smith. Yes. sir. Dr. Smith. Considering (iloucester as a whole, has the fleet of fishing vessels been practically maintained during the last three or four years!' Capt. Smith. Xo. sir. Dr. Smith. Has there been a net loss? Capt. Smith. I think they have diminished some. Dr. Smith. Can you state the approximate amount of the loss? (\ipt. S:\iitii. Xo. The customhouse records would show that. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. E. ARCHER BRADLEY. ^Ir. Bkadlet. Mr. Chairman, speaking about the fishing inside the 3-mile limit, at the time of the so-called treaty that was at- tempted, didn't Canada offer us the privilege of fishing within the 3-mile limit if we would admit her fishing vessels, allow them to fish within that limit ( Chief Justice Hazex. Xo. Mr. Bradij=:y. I had the impression that they did. Secretary Eedfield. We are not so informed. Dr. S:mith. Do the Canadian trawlers fish within the 3-mile limit? Chief Justice Hazex. Xo. Dr. Smith. They only do shore fishing outside of that limit ? Mr. FouxD. Yes. Secretary Eedfield. We have a number of captains here, and I suppose they can ask questions as well as answer them. We shall be glad to solve any doubts that anybody may have, if we can do so, if there is an opportunity. FURTHER STATEMENT BY MR. FREDERICK L. DAVIS, PRESIDENT GLOUCESTER BOARD OF TRADE. ]Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a few words myself. Our discussion here has seemed to tend largely to the questions of l)roducing food at an economical point, cheapening food and also at the same time increasing the volume. You must take into con- sideration the fact that, while you ask the fishermen to produce food at a low price, what he is purchasing has been vastly increasing in price, and I don't hear anybody saying anything about reducing the price of what he is consuming. I would suggest that if what is here suggested goes into operation there are other people in- terested in the fishing business, who can not be heard today, and who might be injurecl. For instance, there is the man who makes the dories and has a large number of employees who get their livelihood by making dories. If this goes into effect he will make no dories in this section of the country. That will entirely disappear. 278 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. We nuist also I'emeinber that, while we hnxe listened here to-daj^ to these gentlemen, we have not listened to the men who will be injured, or the class of fishing that will he injured, providing this should take place. The man who will be injured is the man in what we call our haddock fleet. We have not had any actual acting cap- tain of a trawl vessel who has spoken since you have had your hearings. You have had men who have been trawling but who have since adopted some other business. Therefore, his interest might be different, providing he is trawling at the present time. If we adopt these propositions, the sail-propelled vessels that take fish to Boston will not be owned in Gloucester. That may seem rather funny, but that vessel will go just where the salt banker has gone. Before the free fish we had a large banking fleet here. That fleet has diminished, until we have hardly any. We had a large number of what we termed here outside vessels, vessels owned by individuals and not by comjianies, that went fishing, salt banking. They decreased until we have only one. That one is owned by a gentleman who resides part of the time in the Ignited States and part of the time in Canada. Now, undoubtedly we avIU have a large fleet of beam trawlers, but if the Canadian beam trawler comes into our market on an even basis we won't have a great amount of extra fish in our market to supply the demands of those who have no fishing ^'essels. They will take their fish to the Boston market when they are good. If not good, they will keep them in their own market, and the man who owns a beam trawler in the United States will also own a fish plant. Therefore, the man who is suffering and woidd suffer from want of stock for the salt fish business, and for distribution through the country, is going to be no better supplied with stock than he Avas before. He is going to be in the same position. Now, relative to the cost of vessels, I am of the opinion that the cost of vessels in the United States and Canada to-day is nearly alike. But you must bear this fact in mind. Nova Scotia, after nearly four years in the war, has reached pretty nearly the peak in the cOvSt of her production. We have been in the war but one year. Our peak has not been reached yet. We have not reached the top cost of GUI' vessels. Therefore, our cost Avill increase, while their cost will pi'actically stay where it is. We produce vessels made en- tireh^ from oak, and. as has been said, they are nu)re valuable and will stand more strain. But remembei' that our best masters do not want to run a vessel when it is old. After a vessel is 5 or 6 years old our skippers; want a new one; and when a Nova Scotia vessel is 5 or 6 years old it is not a very good vessel to go on the banks with, especially in the Avinter months. It would be injudicious to take it. So, really, there is not much difference in the life of the vessels. The Nova Scotia owner builds the best he can, but he has not the timber. We know that Avhere vessels are injured and go to a Nova Scotia port to repair, they are very much troubled to get the timber to repair our vessels with, except at great cost, in a way that Avill satisfy the owner of the vessel. If it is not done right the OAvner is liable to have it built all over again when it gets back to our own country, because he Avill not accept a softAvoocl vessel. It was not many years ago AAdien ProvincetoAvn, our neighboring- city across the bay, was a large producer of fish. That business has AMERICAN-CAlSrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 279 now been given up entii'ely. There is not unj production of fisli in the salt fish line, and we have gone out of it. Horace Greeley said to the young man to ''' go West." Well, the movement of the fishing- business has been just the reverse of that. It has gone eastward, and will go still farther eastward. We will be distributors of fish, large distributors, but how are we going to increase our supplies except by beam trawlers? That is the question. As I understand it, to-day we are importing three-fifths of the amount of fish we have used in the port for the last year. If we are to make any changes let us do it for the term of the war. All other economic propositions — and this is claimed to a certain extent to be an economic proposition — are based on one year after the war. Certainl)^ the United States does not Avant to make any sharp trade with Canada ; neither does Canada want to make a sharp trade with the United States Avhich will cause friction after the war is over. There certainly will be friction if there is anything put up but half-and-half. There will be friction if there is any talk of licenses. We will not be satisfied. If your commission should think best to recommend that this should be adopted, think of it. in the same way that you do of other business and have it terminate a year after the war. Then we won't make any agreement that will be irritating later on in our lives. Dr. S:mitii. Mr. Davis, will you kindly state whether we under- stand you correctly that the decline of the great salt bank fleet from large proportions to a single vessel has taken place since 1913? Mr. Davts. Largely, quite a bit since then, but not all. It started — well, the time of reciprocity was our first starting point. The idea of reciprocity was started and defeated a year or two befoi'e we had our free trade. Chief Justice Hazex. Fifty years ago ? Dr. Smith. Xo; the proposed reciprocity of 1911. Mr. Davis. That is what I refer to. Dr. Smith. I understood Capt. Benjamin Smith to say there had been no material change in the Gloucester fleet in the last three or four years, since the establishment of free fish? Capt. Smith. The banking fleet. Our change started when New- foundland shut us out. We did more business with Newfound- land with our salt bank fleet than we ever did with Canada. Dr. Smith. What was the year of the shutting out ? Capt. Smith. I think 1905. That was because Ave couldn't go in and get tackle, bait, and ship men in Newfoundland. That is what started it, and it has gone on gradually. Congressman Li'fkin. I think right after the defeat of the Hay- Boncl treaty. Mr. Found. I think you Avill find that in 1905 the HaA^-Bond treaty Avas defeated. Secretary Redfield. Capt. Smith, are your fishing vessels insured? Capt. Smith. Yes, sir. Secretary Eedfield. What difi^erence in rates clo you pay between an American-made and a Canadian-made A^essel? Capt. Saiith. I think it is 1 per cent. Mr. Johnson, here, can say if I am not rioht. 280 AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN A. JOHNSON, BUSINESS OF MARINE INSURANCE, GLOUCESTER. Secretary Redfield. What is your name and business? Mr. Johnson. John A. Johnson, in the marine insurance business. insurance and marine insurance. Secretary Redfield. What is the difference in rates for a vessel of the same size and creAv, between an American-built vessel and a Nova Scotia built vessel of the same type ? Mr. Johnson. I do not have occasion to insure the hulls of Cana- dian vessels, but on cargoes we charge 1 per cent more on a Canadian vessel, on a trip, coming from Canada to Gloucester. Capt. SaiiTH. We have some Canadian hulls. John, that you in- sure, and you charge us 1 per cent more, on one hidl, at least, the Helen Ritcey. Secretary Redfield. The difference depends on the actual differ- ence in the hull, rather than upon the place of construction? Mr. Johnson. Yes; there is the point in regard to construction that has been brought out here to-clay, that an American-built ves- sel is much more able to stand the weather and the rocks. Secretary Redfield. In what respect? Mr. Johnson. It is built more strongly. I suppose the oak is a great deal stronger than the softw^ood that the Canadian vessel is iDuilt out of. Secretary Redfield. Is there any difference in design or in model, any difference of that sort, that might account for it? Mr. Johnson. That would not enter into it at all. Secretary Redfield. Your understanding is that there is a dif- ference of 1 per cent in the insurance? Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. The underwriters charge 1 i^er cent more, that being the point at issue, that the American-built vessel on the rocks will stand a great deal more pounding than the Canadian vessel. Secretary Redfield. Who are those underwriters? Mr. Johnson. The Boston Insurance Co. and the Providence &. Washington Insurance Co. Secretary Redfield. Do you loiow what the custom of Lloyd's is? Mr. Johnson. The English concern? Secretary Redfield. Yes. Do you know what their custom is in that respect? Mr. Johnson. Xo; have no dealing with LloycFs. Secretary Redfield. Is the firm of Lloyd's represented in Gloucester? Mr. Johnson. It is not. Secretary Redfield. Your vessels would not come under any of their specifications? Mr. Johnson. No. they are not registered as Lloyd's would have it. SIGNING OF THE HALIFAX AGREEMENT. Mr. Charles Wonson. Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Chief Justice Hazen a question. What was the objection to your collector at Halifax asking the captain of the American beam trawler to AMEEICAN-CANADIAN" FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 281 vohmtarilv sign an agreement which he was asked to observe because by-law your own beam trawlers are obliged to observe it? Chief Justice Hazex. The reason is that Ave have no jurisdiction outside of our own territorial waters, except in the case of vessels that clear from our own ports. If they are vessels from our own ports, and our own vessels, Ave can impose restrictions upon them; ijut we can not impose restrictions upon vessels clearing from other IDorts outside of our oAvn territorial waters. Mr. WoNSOx. I understand, sir: but I think you did not quite get the question. Supposing I Avas the collector of the port of Glouces- ter, and one of your Canadian beam traAvlers came in. Suppose Ave had a like law in this country and I asked him to voluntarily sign an agreement to abstain from fishing Avithin such a limit of the shore, Avhat would be the harm in that ? Chief Justice Hazex. In that case, your collector Avoidd be asking our Canadian captain to enter into an agreement Avhich the State of Massachusetts or the Government of the United States has no poAver to enforce, because you Avould have no jurisdiction outside of your territorial waters. You could ask him to do it. but there would be no means of making him do it. Mr. Woxsox. I understand, but I was asking Avhat the harm Avas. I suppose the man thought he Avas acting in the interests of his own country, and was justified. Chief Justice Hazex\ It would be an entirely useless agreement, because there Avould be no right to enforce it against an alien A^essel here. Your collector Avould haA^e no poAver to enforce it. Secretary Redfield. It aaouIcI be Avhat the laAvyers call ultra vires. Mr. Woxsox. Then you Avould take the stand that no man should do a thing for the public good unless he is obliged to ? Chief Justice Hazex^. A man should not require a thing to be done that is outside of his authority. It would really be an impertinence. Mr. Woxsox. There was no pressure brought to bear on the cap- tain. Avas there? Chief Justice Hazex^ Not that I know of. I don't knoAv Avhat occurred. Mr. Woxsox. There Avas a statement made in Boston that there was pressure brought to bear. Chief Justice Hazex. Well, the collector had no such right, any- Avay. He avouIcI be acting in excess of his authority. The regula- tion, I may say to you. Avas put into effect bj^ the Canadian GoA^ern- ment. There Avas an immense deal of opposition among our schooners to the operation of the steam traAvlers. They claim that the steam traAvlers came in and operated outside our shores, made our ports their base, and worked destruction to our fishermen using other vessels; that by contact Avith gears and nets a good deal of destruc- tion Avas caused; and, in order to protect our own fishermen as best Ave could, as far as Ave had authority to do it, we said that no steam traAvlers from our ports should be alloAvecl to operate unless they agreed to operate 12 miles outside. Mr. Wox-sox. I understand, but there has been a strong intimation that the captain of the American beam trawler Avas refused clearance, you Avill remember, and that is a thing that I wanted to clear up. 282 AMEEICAlSr-CAN^ADIAlSr FISHERIES COISrPEREjSrCE. Chief Justice Hazen. I don't think that would be possible. If so, it was through an absolute error on the part of the collector. OBTAINING COAL IN CANADIAN POETS. Mr. FiJEDEEiCK L. Davis. I would like to ask the chief justice a question. Under the general navigation laws I understand that your country will allow an American steamer, a fishing vessel, enough coal to reach its own country, without any license? Chief Justice Hazen. Under the treaty of 1818 you can not get coal in our ports. The treaty of 1818, which is the treaty that gives you rights, allows you to go into our ports for four purposes, and for four purposes only — for shelter, repairs, wood, and water. But I have no doubt if one of your vessels got into port and needed coal we would be A'ery glad to give you the right to get it. As a matter of right, however, joii can not take it. Mr. Davis. Then the collector, in order to do the thing correctlj^ Avoulcl have to get a pei-niit from the Government ? Chief Justice Hazen. Under the treaty of 1818, if such a vessel desired to get coal, word Avould have to be sent to Ottawa, stating the circumstances, and permission would have to be obtained. That would be under the treaty of 1818, which was entered into long be- fore the Dominion of Canada had existence. Mr. Marsi-iall. Will you tell me, Chief Justice, Avhether your people are desirious of exercising the privileges of our ports, in the way suggested ? Do they want that privilege, and urge it ? Chief Justice Hazen. There is a great deal of difi'erence of opinion among our fishermen, as there is here ; but, on the whole, I think our fishermen value the privilege of coming into your markets. CLOSING STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD. Congressman Lufkin. Mr. Secretary, have you any idea at about what time the finding of your board will be finally made? Secretary Eedfield. None Avhatever. Congressman Lufkin. Within six months? Secretary Eedfield. It will depend on how long we take on the Pacific. Congressman Lufkin. You plan to have other hearings on the Pacific coast later in the spring? Secretary Eedfield. Yes, sir; and the dates have not been defi- nitely determined upon with regard to the Pacific coast hearings. We plan to go to Seattle and other points on Puget Sound, to British Cohmibia points, and perhaps to Alaska points; and, while this^ matter is up, let me say that we shall be glad, now or later, through you or others, Mr. Congressman, to receive any statements of fact which anybody may consider pertinent in the matter. Anything sent to us will be given full consideration and will be made a portion of the record. I also desire, on behalf of the commission, to ex- press our appreciation of the courtesy shown to us by the Master Mariners Association, and I shall request the secretary of the com- mission to enter upon the record the unanimous thanks of the com- mission to the Master Mariners Association. If I knew that any officer of that association was present, I should be very glad to ex- < AMEEICAX-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 283 tend to him our thanks in person. As it is, we are all grateful for the courtesies shown; and we desire also to express our thanks to the officers of the city of Gloucester for their kind entertainment of the commission at luncheon to-day. We are notified in advance that our friends of the board of trade have similar hospitable intentions toward us this evening, and, as the time has not 3^et arrived, I will simply say that " for what we are about to receive we are duly thankful!"" I appreciate, gentlemen, as all the members of the commission do, that this matter comes very near your hearts and thoughts. I beg- yon to believe that there is no one of the American commissioners who does not have a keen personah feeling of pride in the history and the work of the men of Gloucester. It is one of the fine stories of American life and American history. What Gloucester has been, what her men liave achieAed and suffered, forms one of the finest pages of our story. We are not likely to take any step which we would conceive to be harmful to such a community, with such a rec- ord and such deserts. The magnificent story of Gloucester makes a strong appeal to the hearts and minds of the American people. Of course, we are all bound to consider the interests of America, for, after all, we have only the right to exist and prosper as we serve the American people. The moment you and I serve ourselves first and the American people second.^ we have begun the process of self- elimination and we shall inevitably be eliminated out of existence through the normal processes of economic life. The parties at in- terest in this matter live all over the American Continent, and are not confined to any part of it. Some of the parties in interest are not yet born ; others are j^assing to a higher sphere. But Ave are here on behalf of the American people, and the men without whose pur- chases and the women without whose cooking Gloucester would starve to death are the primary people to be considered, of course. Without their support, without doing for them supremely, Gloucester must wither up and die. It is because you have serA^ed them well in the past, and because they look to you to serve them well in the future that Gloucester has been great, and in the future Avill continue to be great. I again assure you of our appreciation of your goodness to ns. In behalf of our friends from Canada, I thank you for your services to them. We knoAv perfectly Avell Avhat the past has had of annoy- ance, troubles, anxiety, and uncertainty to you on their account. They noAA^ come here in the most cordial spirit of helpful good will. We Avho haA^e had the privilege of living with them, so to speak, for days, liaA'e drunk deep at the fountain of kindliness and helpfulness Avhich flows from them in every Avay. I ask you to belieA'e of them that their every thought is to be helpful. It has been suggested to me, as it Avas suggested by a gentleman here to-day, that this thing should, if possible, b^ arranged on a continental basis, that we ought no more to have jealousy and friction across an imaginary line, any more than there should be jealousy existing betAveen Massachusetts and New York, between Kentucky and Tennessee, or betAveen Texas and Ncav Mexico, to-day. Such jealousy and friction did once exist, a^ou know, between people of those sections. There Avas a time Avhen Massachusetts did not get on Avell Avith XeAv York, Avhen Vermont and New York squabbled, when 284 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. even Tennessee sought to impose a tariff on the rest of the country; and I myself, a commercial traveler, had to run out of the State of Virginia because I did not have a license to do business in the State of Virginia. Those things, as Ave look back on them to-day, seem strange, as belonging to days of small things. So let us hope that in some way, however partial, Ave may be able to live a larger life in the days coming, as an outcome of problems confronting us to-day. I Applause.] CLOSING STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. Chier Justice Hazen. I simply wish to say, Mr. Secretary, that I thoroughly agree Avith the Avords so Avell expressed by yourself with reference to the courteous treatment that Ave liaA'e receiAed at the liands of the ])eople of the city of Gloucester. We are especially in- debted to the Master Mariners Association. Avho ha\^e placed this hall at our dis))osa] to-daA^ and haA'e done all they could to proAdde us Avith \ery facility for having a Avell-conducted and interesting- meeting. We are also indebted to the mayor and city council of the city of (irloucester, not onh^ for the cordial nature of the reception they ga\'e us on our arriA^al in the city this morning but also for the verv charming hospitality they extended to us at the noon hour ; and Ave shall be further indebted to the members of the board of trade for the entertainment that Avill be given us to-night. In fact, I think if my colleagues and myself stayed longer in the United States we Avould l)e killed Avith kindness. It Avould be a very pleasant death to die, you knoAv, but, still, Ave don't Avant to be put to that death until Ave haA^e finished our labors and have made a report, Avliich I hope Avill be acceptable to both countries. I Avish to say that from the very outset the Secretary of Com- merce and the gentlemen associated Avith him liaA^e vieAved this matter from a very broad, liberal, and statesmanlike standpoint. They realize, as Ave Avho live to the north of you on this continent realize, that Ave and those Avho come after us are going to be neighbors on this continent as long, I trust, as time endures. We all like to live on terms of amity and good Avill Avith our neighbors, and, as you are our neighbors and Ave yours, Ave desire to live on terms of amity and good Avill Avith you. We have different political institutions, liA'-e under different forms of gOA^ernment. Each has a good deal to recommend it: each does not contain everything desirable; each is not the best in cA^ery respect. There are features in our form of government Avhich Ave prefer to yours; there are features of your form of government that you prefer to oiu's. But I think there is ample room for the friendly and neighliorly development of our tAvo great communities on the North American Continent. In trade matters Ave must ahvays be actiA^ely associated, as Ave are in social matters to-day. EA'ery day there is marrying and giving in marriage betAveen the countries to the north and the south. We have acquired an annexed many of your best citizens in that Avay. in the same Avay that you have an- nexed and acquired many of the best of ours. The same blood runs in the veins of many of the people of this country and many of the people of ours, and, AAdiile you have many things Ave desire. Ave also have many things that you desire. There ought to be the best AMEBICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 285 of mutual respect and good feeling between us ; and in all our nego- tiations I am sure we shall be animated not by the narrow desire on the i^art of each to trj^ to take advantage of the other, but b.y the broader and bigger desire of trying to do what is best for hu- manity, what is best for the progress of the people of both coun- tries and of the world. I shall remember for a long time, with feelings of the deepest pleasure, my visit to Gloucester to-day. Gloucester has been known to me, as to many on this continent and outside of this continent, as one of the cities of the old Bay State whose sons from the time of the earliest settlement of the country have gone forth to reap a harvest from the seas. They have done much in the Avay of pro- viding food products for the people of the community in which they live and have also in the past been in a large measure the nursery of the Xavy of the United States. Living myself in a maritime community, down by tlie Bay of Fundy, not very many miles from the State of Massachusetts, and being tiie descendant of men who came from England to this Bay State, as the Puritan ancestors of many of you did, because they wanted to live in a better and freer atmosphere than that of the old land, who subsequently left this Bay State and went and settled on the rocky shores of the Bay of Fundy, I feel that I am connected with 3^ou and that I and my family have been connected with you through many generations, because before the war of the Ameri- can Revolution, before the slight difference of opinion that occurred between George Washington and George III, my ancestors were living at St. John, carrying on business there, shipping fish, lumber, masts, and other commodities, to their firm in Newburyport, where they Avere established, as well as in the city of St. John. I am delighted to have met you here to-day. I have heard things that have placed questions concerning the fisheries before me ina light that I did not understand before. I think Ave members of this commission are all learning as we go along from day to day. The questions before us for discussion and the views of genetlemen in- terested in these fishing questions have been presented to us in a fair, moderate, gentlemanly, and admirable manner in every respect. We are going to take the American commissioners on to Canada, leavino- here Saturday night. They Avill first go down to St. John, Avhere they will have an opportunity to meet the representatives of the fish- ing interests in the maritime Provinces, and no doubt views will be expressed on this question that are diilerent from the view^s ex- pressed here. I- only hope they will be -expressed as moderately, as fairly, as intelligently, and as Avell as they have been expressed in Boston and here to-day. A little later on, as has been stated by Secretary Redfield, we Avill go to the Pacific coast, to hear at first hand about the conditions along that coast. We will first proceed to Washington, then to British Columbia, hearing from the American and the Canadian fishermen, and A^^ll no doubt go as far north as Prince Rupert and Ketchikan, and perhaps to other ports of Alaska, for the purpose of obtaining the vi^Avs of the people there, as Ave are noAv obtaining the vieAvs of the people in the East. After that Ave Avill sit down to meditate upon and digest what Ave have received, and, while no man 286 AMEEiOAN-OANADIAN PISITEEIES CONFERENCE. cjin (ell whether or not we shall arrive al an arraiij- at a conclusion which shall remove some oround for in-itation that has occurred between yourselves and youi- less ])opul()Us neighbor to the north. I Ihank you, oentlenien, very heartily and cordially, in behalf of the Canadian meml)ei's of this conmiission, for the very kind re- ce|)ti()n you have accorded to us in this ancient and historic city of Gloucester. | Applause.] Mr. W. A. Eeeo. Mr. Chairman, I feel that your records would iu)t be complete if 1 did not at this time, as secretary of the Glouces- ter Boai'i-nns\viclv. i-epresentinp.' tlie seneral fishinfr ofhces. .1. C. Chesley. local a.iient of the Marine and Fisheries r)p])artnient. Havel<)Cl< Wilson, St. .John, in.spector of pickled fish. Walter Leonard, president of the Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.). F. S. Warner, Xew Yoi-k. piu-chasing a.aent foi- the Booth Fisheries. .T. F. Calder. of Canipobello, inspector of fisheries. M. M. Gardner, of Ltmenbvu'g, Nova Scotia. B. A. Smith of Oloiicestei-, representinfr the Gorton Pew Fishing Company. Alfred H. Brittain, managing director of the Maritime Fishing Cor- poration (Ltd.), with general offices in Montreal and branch offices in Cau.so, Digl)y, Nova Scotia. R. E. Armstrong, secretai-y of the Board of Trade. Harry A. Belyea. Hilton Pielyea. Robert E. Wilson, W. A. Spence,~ Percy Lomax, .]. .L Melanson, of St. .John. .John .Jackson, of St. .John. Howard EUeson, St. .John. Elmery I^ambert, Deer Island. New Brunswick. Snmner Hartford, Deer Island, New Brunswick. T. R. Ferguson, chairman Canadian Board of Steamships, Ottawa. H. B. Short, manager Maritime Fish Corporation at Digby. Fred L. Davis, president Gloucester (Mass.) Board of Trade. Scott E. Morrill, attorney. Hon. Mr. Redfield made the folloAving statement: Mr. Commissioners and gentlemen, it is at the unanimous request of the commissioners from the T'nited States that our friend and colleague. Chief Justice Hazen, will preside at all the meetings of the commission held in the Dominion of Canada, and I wish to make it known that it is because we earnestly desire that he do so that he is presiding to-day as chairman. 287 288 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. OPENING STATEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE HAZEN. Chief Justice Hazex. At the meetings which we huve held in the United States our friend Mr. Redfield, Secretary of Commerce for the United States, has acted as chairman at my suggestion. I am sorry that he will not continue to act as chairman, because the way in which he has presided has been most satisfactory in every respect. It is hardly necessary for me to outline the object of this confer- ence or the meeting here to-day. You gentlemen of course are aware that under the treaty of 1818 the only rights which American vessels possess in Canadian ports are the riglit to enter these ports for shelter, for having repairs made to their vessels, for obtaining Avood, and for obtaining water. These are the only four purposes for which an American fishing vessel has the right to enter a Cana- dian port. An attempt was made to extend that right by treaty about 30 jenrs ago — or over 30 years ago. Commissioners ap- pointed by both countries entered into an agreement under which if the United States would give free admission to Canadian fish in American i^orts, Canada would give American fishing vessels in her ports practically the same rights as the fishing vessels of her own country possessed, i. e., the right to come in not only for the four purposes mentioned but for buying bait, supplies of all Idnds, of shipping their creAvs, of transshipping their fish back to the United States, and for other purposes. This agreement entered into Avas not to be in the form of a treaty, and did not meet Avith the approval of the Congress of the United States and therefore became ineifective. But Avhile the matter was under consideration b}' Congress, the Parliament of Canada passed legislation under Avhich they had the poAver to issue licenses to American fishermen — Avhat haA'e been knoAvn as modus A'ivendi licenses. This Avas passed as a temporary measure, pending the ratification by Congress of the agreement, and for 30 years the GoA''ernment of Canada has gone on year by year passing an order- in-council extending for the next year the power to grant these licenses. Under that, American fishing vessels have had the right to take out Canadian licenses, paying therefor $1.50 per ton of the registered tonnage of their A^essels, and haAdng taken out that license could come into our ports for the purposes outlined, shipping crews, buying bait, transshipping their goods through our country in bond. That has been merely a temporary matter and this priAdlege has been granted to the fishermen of the United States year by year by the grace o'f the Canadian Government for a period of 30 years. That is only giA^en to A'essels propelled by sails. Vessels driven by steam or propelled by motive poAver of any sort other than the Avind have no right to take out that license, and to-day Avhen fishing A^essels more and more eA^er}^ year are being propelled b}^ steam or other motlA^e power it will be seen that the advantage to be obtained from these licenses by the American fishermen are getting gradually less, as they are confined as I have said to vessels ]3ropelled by the Avincl. In 1913 the Government of the United States, under the Under- Avood tariff, placed fish upon the free list. That was the considera- tion that the Government of the United States Avas to give under the treatj^ of 30 years ago, in consideration of our giAdng them the AMEEICA]Sr-CAN"ADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 289 privileges of our ports; and having placed fish npon the free list a few years ago the Government of the United States connnnnicated with the Government of Canada and snggested that as fish had been placed upon the free list in the United States, and Canada had obtained practically what was sought in the treaty of AVashington 30 years ago, that Canada might in return give to the American fishermen the extended privileges in our ports that would have been given them in that treaty. In reply to that the Government of Canada pointed out that this right of admission of free fish was not given as any special favor to Canada, but was a matter simply of tariff policy on the part of the party then in power, that there was no guarantee of its being permanent — it might be decided ;is a matter of domestic policy to change the tariff and to place duty upon fish going into the United States — and that the matter was simply one of domestic policy and adopted by the United States from its own standpoint and not as the result of any treaty with Canada and Great Britain. We also pointed out that while for 30 years we had l>een giving admission to the American fishermen to our ports, and now the United States was giving our fish free admission to their markets, that our fishermen were not getting the full advantage owing to certain navigation and customs laws prevailing in the United States ; that while we had free admission for fish, our fishing vessels could not take their catches to an American port from the fishing- grounds — they were compelled by the United States laws first of all to come to a Canadian port and transfer their catch into a merchant ship, or else the fishing vessel having come into a Canadian port was compelled to register as a commercial vessel before proceeding to the port of the United States and there sell its catch ; and that this to a great extent delayed and hampered our fishermen, and that more than that, having sold their catch in a port of the United States, our vessels could not clear directly for the fishing grounds — they were unable to go by the shortest cut — but had to clear to a Canadian port and clear from there to the fishing grounds, thus practically going by way of the two sides of a triangle rather than by the short cut- by way of the hypothenuse; that in endeavoring to preserve our lobster fisheries by close seasons along our coast Ave were hamj^ered by the fact that American fishing smacks came across during the close season and just outside of the 3-mile limit, which is the extent of our jurisdiction, they there caught lobsters, came into our ports at night for shelter as they had a right to do under the treaty of 1818, and that our fishermen had the pleasure of sitting on the shore and looking across the 3~mile limit and seeing the American fisher- men catching the lobsters that we were endeavoring to protect by our legislation. I uiay say that we had hardly stated this fact at the first of our conferences before the Secretar}^ of Commerce said that the Con- gress of the Ignited States would, in his opinion, pass legislation which would make it impossible for American vessels to engage in this jn-actice in the future. We pointed these things out to the United States, and as a result of that the Government "of the United States suggested that a commission be appointed of representatives of both countries for the purpose of holding a conference and dis- 51950—18 19 290 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES COiSTFEEENCE. * cussing these matters and all other matters outstanding with regard to the fisheries between the two countries, and in compliance with that request of the Government of the United States, they having appointed a member of President Wilson's Cabinet, the Assistant Secret a I'v of Commerce. Mr. Sweet, and the leader of their fishery department, Dr. Smith. I Avas appointed by the Canadian Govern- ment, and associated with me are Mr. Desbarats, the deputy minister of naval affairs, and Mr. Found, the superintendent of fisheries. I am sorry that Mr. Desbarats is unable, in consequence of illness, to be here in St. John and was not with us in Massachusetts during the last week. This conference commenced its sessions in Washington some weeks ago. We spent about 10 days in that city. We had a good deal of information submitted to us, and I may saw that we have not come here to teach the fishermen; we have come to get instructions and to find out what their views are with respect to these questions. As was natural, in the United States Ave found a difference of opinion. There were people engaged in the fishing trade there most anxious that the door should be opened as widely as possible — that no restriction should be placed on any Canadian vessel taking fish into the United States; Ave found others Avho feared that if these i-estrictions Avere removed the fishing interests AYould practically be transferred to Canada and injury done to the fishing interests of Gloucester and other places in the United States. Some Avent to the extent of saying they ])referred to have the privi- leges cut off altogether of admission into Canadian ports rather than giA'e to Canadian vessels the I'ight to come unrestricted into their ports. The whole matter Avas discussed most fairly — there Avere differ- ences of opinion and honest differences of opinion. Having obtained as far as Ave could the vieAvs of the fishermen in Boston and in Gloucester. Ave haAe come on to St. John for the purpose of hearing the vieAvs of those who are interested in the industry in this part of the country, and if necessary to do so Ave can hold further riieetings in the Maritime Provinces. This is only a part of the duties of the counnission. as Ave have to deal Avith questions on the Pacific coast, to a great extent similar to the differences existing here. Very large fishhig operations are carried on in the Avaters to the north. I may say, that Avliile on the Atlantic coast Canadian fishing vessels can not clear directly to the fishing grounds from United States ports, I find rather a different construction placed on the laAv on the Pacific coast, and Canadian fishing vessels Avhich on the Avay to the north come into Ketchikan from that port do clear directly to the fishing grounds. They are cleared by the collector of customs. So that a different policy prevails on the Avestern coast from the policy that prevails on the Atlantic coast. But apart from those questions on the Pacific, Avhich are of as nnich interest there as on the Atlantic coast to-day, British Columbia being the greatest fish-producing ProA'ince in Canada. Ave have questions in regard to the protection of the halibut industry on that coast. No halibut are noAv caught Avithin the territorial Avaters and the fishermen have to go farther north. The industry is being overfished and there is great danger of it being destroyed. The matter can only be regulated interna- tionally, because the fishing takes place beyond the jurisdiction of AMEEICAN-CAISrADIAISr FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 291 the United States and Canada, and the matter can only be controlled by an arrangement between the Governments of the two countries. Then the important question of the fisheries of the Fraser River, the breeding ground of the sock-eye salmon on the Pacific coast — the most valuable fisheries on the coast. These fisheries are being de- pleted very rapidly and unless something can be done by agreement between the two countries there is every probability that the salmon fishing on the Fraser River will in the course of a few years be a thing of the past. The salmon going up the Fraser River to spawn die before returning to the sea — that being one of the laws of Nature. In going up the Fraser River the salmon pass through American territorial Avaters along the coast of the State of Washington below the British Columbia boundary line, and along that coast all sorts of traps have been set for the purpose of catching them, w^th the result that you can hardly conceive how it is possible for a salmon to get past at all, and the salmon who do get past and get to the Fraser River are met there in a season when drifting is permitted — - with boats and nets that cross and recross one another — practically all the way from the estuary of the Fraser River up to the bridge at New Westminster, and the only chance for the fish to pass is during the weekly close of 42 hours. The result is that it will be only a matter of a few years until that industry disappears, unless regulations and laws are framed and enforced by both countries for the purpose of protecting these fish on their way to the river and in the riA^er, and one of the duties we have to perform is to consider that Avhole question — go to British Columbia, get the advice of peo- ple in Canada and the United States, and consider what is to be done for the preservation of that industry Avhich is of A^ery great importance to the people of the Avestern country. We have also had brought before us questions of other fisheries, and we want to say to 3^ou gentlemen interested in the fishing indus- try we will be very glad to hear your views regarding ixnj subject relating to fisheries, in Avhich you may be interested. We have vieAvs regarding the sardine fishery, and the fisheries in Lake Champlain, where it appears that the States of Vermont and NeAv York have abolished seining, and the Canadians are continuing the practice. It is almost the converse of what has been done Avith lobster fishing on our coast. We have eA'^en had questions brought before us Avith regard to the seal industry in the Pribilof Islands, and T think it Avould be Avell to hear the vieAvs regarding the shad fisheries, which have been growing less of late years, and which have not shoAvn the increase which I hoped they Avould from the establishment of the shad hatchery along the River St. John. The shad is a very delicate fish and there has not been the same effect in replenisliing fisheries with it as with the salmon. I think it is the first time in the history of diplomatic relations that a comniision composed of citizens of both countries has met in joint conference. As Secretary Redfield has described the matter it is open diplomac}^ We are not trying to get the advantage of the United States and they do not wish to get the better of us. We desire to come to an arrangement fairly in the interests of both coun- tries, in the interests of that great heritage given to us m the seas, and in the interests of the conservation of food so much desired at the present time. We Avant an arrangement — as a gentleman in 292 AMEKICAN-CANADIAN PISHEEIES CONFEEENOE. Boston said — on a M)-M basis wliicli will be an achanlago to both countries, from which both countries will reap advantage, and one which will be on the whole to the nnitual advantage of both. I might say that both in Boston and Gloucester I extended an invitation to fishing industries there to come to St. John and 1 see that Mr. Smith, Avho is a representative of the lai-gest lish distributing house in the Ignited States, has accepted that invitation. I will be very glad if Mr. Smith will himself take any part in the i)roceedings that he thinks desirable. STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM C. REDEIELD. Secretary Kedfield. On behalf of the commissioners of the X"^nited States, I verj^ cordially concnr in the views submitted by Mr. Chief Jnstice Hazen. Wo feel very strongly that it is more than desirable that some arrangement l)e permanently made whereby the officers and crew of a Canadian \essel shall feel at home and welcome in an American port, and that our officers and crews shall in their turn feel perfectly comfortable and hapi)y and welcome in a Canadian port. It ,is impressied npon us that the whole world to-day is in need of food ; that the question of the food snpply is one npon wdiieh people are thinking as they have never thought before; that the meat snpply of the world is menaced, and it may be long years before we shall get back, if we ever do. to Avhere the Avorld stood five yeai's ago as regards the supply of meat; that under these circumstances it may be a necessary part of onr fntnre life to look more largely to the sea than ever before. That c(mdition is impressing itself not only npon the mass of the people of the Ignited States and of Canada, but npon the people of Great Britain and France and the other continental countries of Enrope. Furthermore, you of Canada and we of the United States are en- gaged in the same great cause — our sons are fighting on the same battle fields for the same ideals, for the same puri)oses with one conunon aim — one connnon great enemy threatens us all. If (Jer- many shall secure, as (lermany avows her desire to secure, dominion over the Avorld's sea, then (xermany will threaten Halifax and St. John and Boston and New York alike. Thus being united in the greatest of all struggles, it seems to us normal and right that we should learn what the relatively small things are which cause to one or another of oui- fellow citizens ex- jiense, trouble, and annoyance, in order that we may if possible remove those causes of friction and live together in oui- daily occu- pations in that way which shall be most profitable to everybody, most productive to everybody, having in mind the people of both conntries rather than any interest in both conntries, ha\'ing in mind the common need of the connnon man and woman all over the two great nations for food, for abnnchince of it at a reas(mable price. We recognize, of course, perfectly well that a great purchasing and distribnting business like that must bring to those engaged in it a righteous and a proper and a continuous, and as far as may be in human affairs, a certain remuneration, but Ave also recognize that it is a business in which all the population of all the conntries are inter- ested snpremeh'. It is a matter which affects the very national life itself mnch more so than it has e\er affected it in the past, and our AMERICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 293 desire is to look at it in the broadest possible way and deal with it in the most generous spirit of common good fellowship. Chief Justice Hazex. When we were in Boston and Gloucester, it was contended on behalf of the fishermen there that the men who fished from the ports of Xova Scotia could carry on their business more cheaply than the men who fished from Gloucester — that their vessels cost less, they paid less wages, and their supplies cost less: and in consequence of all that they would be in a position to under- sell the American fishermen or cause them to transfer their business to Canada. It was contended at Gloucester that an American fishing- vessel of 100 tons would cost very much more than one built in Canada. The claim was put forward that it would cost more, because it was better built — built of oak. Avhile ours were built of soft wood — and the first cost would be very much greater to the inhabitant of the Ignited States than to the inhabitant of Canada. There also was informati(!n that the American vessel would last longer than a Canadian vessel — that the latter was considered old at six years, and an American vessel uiight be cheaper in the long rmi. What I want to get is exact information regarding the cost of vessels in Canada, the wages that are paid, and the cost of supplies. Mv. Gardner, as a representative of the fishing industries of Lunenburg, could yon give us some infonnation on these points ? STATEMENT BY MR. M. M. GARDNER, REPRESENTING FISHING INDUSTRIES OF LUNENBURG. ^Ir. Gakdxei!. I can give you information as the questions come; us to the cost of vessels. Mr. Chairman, we pay a contract price for a vessel's hull and spars in our shipyards of $18,000 to $22,000. I do not know how that compares with the American cost. There is no doubt about it that the oak put in some of the American vessels may be of bettei- quality than the wood that we have, although we desire to get as much of the hard wood as we can get into the vessels. It has also been contended that our vessels at six or nine years are old. Well, some of the American vessels have been lasting longer — those are well-known facts. Chief Justice Hazex. You say the cost to-day of building a 100-ton schooner with its masts — that does not include sails — would be from $18,000 to $22,000; what would that be built of? Air. Gardxek. The floor timber would be of hardwood^of oak and beech. Her top planking would be of soft wood. Chief Justice Hazex. Hardwood obtained in Canada ( Mr. Gardxer. Yes. Chief Justice Hazex. What is your opinion as to the life of a ves- sel of that sort as compared with one constructed of oak? Air. Gardxer. I presume the American \essel would have a Longer life, although some of our vessels at 9 years of age appear to be as good as a vessel quite new. Some of the wood seenis to be more lasting than some of the vessels built of the same material may be at <• years. Chief Justice Hazex. When you speak of the price do you mean the price to-day or before the war? Air. Gardxer. I am speaking of to-day — vessels in which we are interested which we have contracted for for $22,000. 294 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONPEEENCB. Chief Justice Hazen. Has there been an advance in the cost of late years? Mr. Gardner. Yes, indeed; that same vessel could be contracted for for $12,000 in 1912 or 1913. Chief Justice Hazen. Now, with regard to wages, will you tell us the system that prevails in Lunenburg for the payment of wages ? Perhaps you had better tell us first about the outfitting of the vessels. Mr. Gardner. The sails — Ave use the imperial cotton duck made in American markets. At the present time our wire rigging is all })ur- chased in Canada. Before the war we got the English wire. At that time the wire manufactured in Canada wasnot as good as that manufactured to-day. I am informed that they now have English wire makers who have given them the way of nniking the wire simi- lar to the English make. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know how the cost of wire goods to- day compares with what is paid in the United States? Mr. Gardner. No, I do not know, sir. I know that the cost of wire to-day is just about double what it was before the war. The dories which the fishermen use are most of them built in Shelburne and Lunenburg. I understand that the greater numbei of the American vessels buy Shelburne dories. I do not think am of them come to Lunenbui-g. As to the wages, Mr. Chairman, our men are paid on Avhat we call one-half lay — that is, half the stock of the vessel. They deduct from the gross stock of the vessel the charges for bait and of the curing of the fish, and one-half of the net stock is divided to the men and to the vessel. Chief Justice Hazen. Hoav about the officers? Mr. Gardner. The captain receives 5 per cent of one-half of the net stock, together with 24 per cent from the gross stock. The cook is paid by the men from their share wages from $100 to $125 per month. Chief Justice Hazen. Who pays for the provisions ? Mr. Gardner. The vessel OAvners. The vessel OAvners supply every- thing that goes on board the vessel. The men simply go on board the vessel and catch the fish. Chief Justice Hazen. First of all they deduct the expenses of the vessel ? Mr. Gardner. No, sir; only these charges — the bait, the cost of drying the fish, 2^ per cent commission for the captain and the Avages of two young men or boys — probably 18 or 19 — they take Avith them to dress the fish. Those are the charges deducted from the AA-hole catch of the vessel. Then it is divided in two and the men take one-half and the vessel one-half; but the vessel must pay out of its one-half for the food, dories, lines, hooks, and anything that goes on board for the equipment. Chief Justice Hazen. Can you tell us under that system what Avages the men earn? Mr. Gardner, The men earned this season from March until about the first of September Avhen the vessels returned, anyAvhere from $800 to $1,000. Chief Justice Hazen. They average about $150 a month? Mr. Gardner. That Avould be about it. AMEEICAN'-CAN'ADIAX FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 295 Chief Justice Hazex. With regard to the nets that are used — where are they bought? Mr. Gardner. They are cotton lines bought from the American Linen Thread Co.. in the United States. Ours are all traAvling ves- sels except half a dozen. Chief Justice Hazen. The lines are similar to those bought by American fishermen ? Mr. Gardner. I think the very same. Chief Justice Hazen. With regard to the food given to the men on board these vessels, are you familiar with the Avay in which the American vessels are supplied? Mr. Gardner. I do not know that I can say I am exactly familiar ; I have been on board. Chief Justice Hazen. In a general Avay you have a knowledge of the way in which the American vessels are victualized? Mr. Gardner. I have. Chief Justice Hazen. First of all. I would like to ask you how the food and supplies furnished to the Canadian schooners compares with the food and supplies in general character, and so on. furnished to the American fishing vessels? Mr. Gardner. I think in comparison with the fishing vessels that go to the grand banks our food compares favorably Avith theirs. It seems that they get the very best. I understand that some of their vessels that do fresh fishing are perhaps supplied with articles some- what better than ours. Chief Justice Hazen. Better, or some articles in the way of lux- uries ? Mr. Gardner. Luxuries. The grade of goods on board our vessels is the very best: for instance take beef; we do not supply a cheap beef ; we supply the American Clover Brand. Chief Justice Hazen. The principal articles you would supply would be beef, flour, and pork? Mr. Gardner. I might just say, Mr. Chairman, that the beef, pork, lard, oil, and sugar are bought from the American markets in bond and put on the vessels free. We pay just what the Americans pay for them. I have a list of goods placed on board at American ports. [List produced and given to chairman. ] Chief Justice Hazen. You are with W. C. Smith & Co.? Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. You made this list out yourself? Mr. Gardner. I did. sir. Mr. Smith is indisposed, has been con- fined to the house for about two weeks. Chief Justice Hazen. These articles are all of the best? Mr. Gardner. All of the best. Chief Justice Hazen. I will enter this list in the record. [List entered is as follows :] JiUl. (tiitfiticr^ sui>i)1i('s foi' ,3 nioiiilif^. [Schoouer Glacier.] M;ircli-.Jnue order is dnijlicnteil in June. Bonded goods : 4 barrels beet'. 1 barrel pork. 160 ponnds lard. IJonded goods — Continued. 6 bags grnindated sugar. 4 cases oil. Yellow sugar. 296 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 1'4 galldiis molasses. biinvls special flour. Our chief flour. 175 pounds butter. 9 bushels turnips. 40 bushels potatoes. 122 pounds biscuits. ."> Imsliels Y. E. beans. A\'bite beans. ."lO pounds raisins. Beets. Case goods : Beef. Tomatoes. 3 cases peas. 3 cases beans. 2 cases corn. 2i cases millc. 1 case apples. 1 case pumpkin. 2 cases blueberries. ■ 1 case clams. 1 case peaches. 40 dozen egjis. 2;'> pounds i;reen peas. Split peas. 3 poinids cocoa. 2 pounds chocolate. Pulverized su.tiar. 2 boxes yeast cakes. 2 ]>onn(ls hops. (JO pounds onions. 4 buckets jam. 2 i)acka,ues macaroni. () paclvTa.ues cornstarch. 10 pounds bakin.ti' poM'der. jMunids cream tartar. 6 IMiunds bakinii' soda. 14 pounds rolled oats. 6 packages civam of wheat. 10 pounds co]-n meal. 5 gallons vinegar. 20 pounds tea. 30 pounds coffee. i pound picklin.f;- spice. W. I. peppei's. i pound nutmegs. i pound ginger. i pound cassia. 7 pounds pepper. -1 pound allspice. 1 pound jM. spice. 1 i)Ouud cloves. Currants. I)ounds barley. FisJi. 2(im ounces lemon. 24 ounces vanilla. 20 pounds tapioca. Dry mustard. 6 bottles nuistard. 9 bags table salt. 2 bottles savory. Celery salt. Currie powdei". 22 bottles Worcester sauce. 36 bottles catsup. 1 case canned strawben-ies. Wood, sawed. AVood, long. Gi'oss matches. Cold Dust. Soai). Pale yellow .soap. Stove polish. Baskets. Dinner plates. Soup plates. Pie plates. Dessert plates. Teaspoons. Tablespoons. Dessert si)oons. Knives and forks. Glasses. Lantern. Lantern globes. Lantern cones. Lantern burners. A. burners. B. burners. A. chimneys. B. chimneys. Corn brooms. B. brooms. Wit brooms. Red table linen. White table linen. >ilcloth. Toweling. Pairs towels. Torch wicking. Candles. Wicks. Stove brush. Scrub brush. Buckets. Store bags. Brick bath. Scrubbers. Mugs. 10 pounds rice. You will note that I have only given a list of the food. You can see the other numerous articles'^ that must be supplied to complete the outfit for the crew, to sa.y nothing of the stoves and cooking utensils Avhich have to be supplied by the hardware department. W.C.S.&Co. AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAN' FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 297 This outfit represents something over $700 worth of goods and in- ckides only foodstuffs. W. C.S.&Co. Chief Justice Hazex. It woukl be quite correct to say tliat the men who go from Lunenburg are supplied with food just as good as any- where, and that a portion of those articles — beef, pork lard, sugar and oil — are bought in the United States? Mr. Gaednek. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. Why not buy them in Canada? Mr. Gardner. I can buy more cheaply in the United States than in Canada. AVe get better beef and heavier pork in the United States. Chief Justice Hazen. And in your experience you say that they are equipped with just as good articles of food as the American schooners are, but they may have some more delicacies? Mr. Gardner. Yes, I think they go in for ham and eggs and cheese. Chief Justice Hazen. This does not give the prices you pay I Mr. Gardner. I might mention that the crew inform us that there are case eggs placed on the American vessels which are paid for by the crew — not furnished by the vessels. Chief Justice Hazen. Mr. Gardner do you know how the oihcers are paid? Mr. Gardner. The only officer we have sir is the captain on board those vessels — our skipper as he is known. He gets a share with the men. Chief Justice Hazen. You are speaking entirely of the schooners. Have you any trawlers? Mr. Gardner. Steam trawlers. Chief Justice Hazen. The otter traAvler or the beam trawler? Mr. Gardner. No, sir. Chief Justice Hazen. Do your vessels carry as many men as the American vessels? Mr. Gardner. They carry seven boats — two men to a boat for fishing — T to 8 boats. Chief Justice Hazen. About the pay of the cai)tains — what have you to say with regaixl to that ? Mr. Gardner. The captains get a share with the men — he shares with them — then he gets a commission of 2^ per cent on the stock of the vessel and a commission of 5 per cent on that half which goes to the vessel owners — 2^ per cent on what the vessel stocks, 5 per cent on what goes to the oAAners of the vessel and an equal share with the men. Chief Justice Hazen. Do you know how the rates that are paid on the Canadian fishing boats compare with what is paid on the American boats, or is it according to the same system? Mr. Gardner. I do not know exactly but I understood a 5 per cent straight commission to the captain. I may be wrong — I am not sure about it. Chief Justice Hazex. How are the men paid on the American schooners ? Mr. Gardner. They have different lays I understand. I am not familiar with them. 298 AMERICAJSr-CANADIAISr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Chief Justice Hazen. There is a one-fifth hiy? Mr. (lAKDNER. A one-fifth lay and a one-fonrth lay and a one-half share. Chief Ju.stice Hazen. But with vou at Lunenburg there is just the half lay? Mr. (iakdnior. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. You have been engaged in the fishing busi- ness for a good many years? Mr. (tardnek. I have been connected Avith the firm for 10 years. Chief Justice Hazen. What is your opinion in regard to the value to the fishing vessels of the United States of being allowed the use of Canadian i:>orts under the modus vivendi — do yon consider it an advantage to them ? Mr. (Jardxer. I think it would be a great advantages to them. Chief flustice Hazen. They use them at present — vesssels pro- pelled by sail. Do you think it is an advantage to them to do it now and pay the $1.50 per ton for the trouble? Mr. (tardmer. I would think so. Chief Justice Hazen. You would think the advantage would be very much greater if they were allowed to do it at a nominal rate and if vessels driven by steaui and power of different sorts were allowed to do it? Mr. (tardner. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. You would consider tliat an a(hantage? Mr. (tardner. I would think so. Chief Justice Hazen. Where do you buy your bait? Mr. Gardner. From the Provincetown Cold Storage Co. in Massa- chusetts. Chief ffustice Hazex. AVhy do you not get it in Xova Scotia? Mr. (tardner. We can not secure it — not the frozen bait. That is the bait which they use for the first trip out — they go out in March. We get the frozen l)ait. Chief Justice Hazen. Is there no plant in Xova Scotia Avhere they freeze this bait? Mr. Gardner. They freeze it at different plants but not in suf- ficient quantity, and the plants that supply frozen bait also purchase in the Auierican markets and then sell it to the Lnnenburg A'essels. Chief Justice Hazen. Do not Amei'ican vessels come into Nova Scotia ports and i)nrchase bait? Mr. (lARDNER. When they come for heri'ing in a later time of the year. That is when the vessels can get through to the Magdalen Islands. I am referring to frozen squid for the March baiting, but in June they get herring and buy them at Queensport and at Guys- boro ancl at different ports, while in the summer when they are fishing from the Banks of Newfoundland if they are not able to get the fresh sqnid they go into Newfoundland ports and buy herring. Chief Justice Hazen. Where is it vou buv this bait in the Ignited States? Ml". Gardner. The ProN'incetowu Cold Storage C^o. Chief Justice Hazen. At what time of the year? Mr. Gardner. We bought ours in the month of December this year. Chief Justice Hazen. When do your vessels go to the fishing grounds? Mr. Gardner. In the month of March. AMEEICAN-CAlSrADIAX FISHERIES COISTFEEEXCE. 299 Chief Justice Hazex. Is that the only season of the year when you buy it ? Mr. Gaedxee. Yes. Chief Justice Hazex. Where do you sell 3'our fish, Mr. Gardner — after one of your schooners gets its load of fish what does it do then? Mr. Gaedxee. In most every case the fish is landed at Lunenburg and dried to make salt cod. There are a few exceptions. Chief Justice Hazex. Do you sell any fresh in tlie Ignited States? Mr. Gaedxee. Xo, sir. Chief Justice Hazex. You do not take anvthino- into the United States? ^Ir. Gaedxee. Xo. Chief Justice Hazex. You would not be prepared to speak with regard to what advantage it would be to a Canadian fishing vessel to go directly to a port in the United States ? Mr. Gaedxee. Xo. Chief Justice Hazex. Yours is the cured fish trade? Mr. Gaedxee. Yes. Chief Justice Hazex. Where is your market^ Mr. Gaedxee. It is mostly in the West Indies — Trinidad. Cuba and Porto Eico. Chief Justice Hazex. You sell nothing in the way of fresh fish in the United States? Mr. Gaedxee. Xo, unless some of the vessels desired to take up that business. Chief Justice Hazex. Is that true of the Lunenburg fishing fleet generally ? Mr. Gaedxee. I think it is because they are about all salt fishing. Chief Justice Hazex. They are not engaged in the fresh-fish busi- ness ? Mr. Gaedxee. Xot at the present time. Chief Justice Hazex. How many vessels are sailing out of Lunen- burg ? Mr. Gaedxee. Last year about 102. Chief Justice Hazex. About 100 tons each? Mr. Gaedxee. Yes sir. standard size. Chief Justice Hazex". Have you had any difficulty in getting men to man your vessels? Mr. Gaedxee. Xo, sir, particularly this year — I think we have more men than ever. Chief Justice Hazex. How do you account for that with the war on? Mr. Gaedxee. I suppose on our records may be found 50 to 100 letters — men from Lunenburg west as far as Yarmouth — asking for permission to go on our vessels this year. Chief Justice Hazex. Has that affected wages at all? Mr. Gaedxee. Xo. I do not think it has. Chief Justice Hazex^ The wages are as high as previous years? Mr. Gaedxee. The only wages are for the cooks. Chief Justice Hazex. How are they? Mr. Gaedxee. A little bit higher than thev have been — $125 to $130 a month. Chief Justice Hazex. How many vessels do you say there were last year sailing out of Lunenburg ? 300 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEREIsrCE. Ml-. (Iai!1).nki!. 10-2 I think. Chief Justice Hazen. Is that more or fewer than usual? Mr. Gardner. Fewer. I think the year before the number was 112 and tlie year before 126. Chief Justice Hazen. That to some extent woukl account for the fact that it was so easy to get men hist year? Mr. (lARi)NEi!. I am referring to the year coming. Last year we had some little difficulty in getting men. Cliief Justice Hazen. How many vessels will you have this year? Mr. Gardner. Twenty more vessels added to tlie fleet tlian last year, still there are plenty men. Chief Justice Hazen. Hoav do you accoimt for that, in view of the fact that there is complaint in regard to the scarcity of labor? Mr. Gardner. One great reason is that a number of fishermen are not going to (xloucester or Boston to fish. Chief Justice Hazen. What is the reason they are not going this year ? Mr. (tardner. We have had one or two vessel creAvs — men who have fished out of Gloucester and Avho fished out of Lunenburg last year and the crews fared so well and made such a successful year that they have gone home and told their friends and they want to come to Lunenburg to fish. Chief Justice Hazen. Is that due to the fact that the lay that you have in Lunenburg gives the fishermen better residts than the arrangement in Gloucester? Mr. Gardner. I am not prepared to say that, but I know it was because of the high prices they got for the fish last year. Chief Justice Hazen. The price of fish has advanced very much in the last few years? Mr. Gardner. Yes, of all fish. Chief Justice Hazen. The price of fresh fish in the American markets is a great deal higher than a few years ago? Mr. Gardner. Yes. Chief Justice Hazen. And the same with salt fish? Mr. Gardner. The salt fish which we formerly sold for $7 a quintal last year sold at $12. Even with the extra charges the owners got the advantage of the increase in the price of fish. Chief Justice Hazen. You are familiar with the situation in Lunenburg. Provided a fair arrangement could be made Avith the United States so that our vessels engaged in the fresh-fish trade would be able to sell their fish in the markets of the United States without being hampered by restrictive navigation laws or restric- tive custom laAvs, would it in your o]:)inion be a fair thing t() nud<:e the modus vivendi arrangement of a more permanent character so as to give the American fishermen privileges in our ports on pay- ment of a merely nominal amou.nt. say $1 a year, or entirely free? Mr. Gardner. That would all depend upon Avhat number of ves- sels would take advantao'c of o-oino- to American i')orts to land their fish. ^ - . Chief Justice Hazen. I am asking you Avould there be any objec- tion to that from the Lunenburg standpoint — any objection to al- lowing American vessels to come into our Canadian ports and using them as freely as our OAvn people use them, provided Ave get a re- turn in the nature of more liberal laws? AMEEICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CO:NtFERENCE. 301 Mr. Gardner. I would saj' in answer to that that anything that would be done sa}^ on a fifty-fifty basis I think the people of Lunen- burg would be satisfied with — would be Avilling to be quite mutual over it. Secretary Redfield. Where do you insure your vessels? Mr. Gardner. With the local insurance house at La Havre — also with Gale & Co., a branch office at Halifax. Secretary Redfield. Do you know the difference in rate, if any. between what you pa}^ and the Gloucester schooners pay ? Mr. Gardner. No, sir. Secretary Redfield. Do you know that tliere is a diiference? Mr. Gardner. No, sir; I do not. Secretary Redfield. Are these vessels built in Lunenburg itself? Mr. Gardner. The greater number of them are built in Lunen- burg — not exactly in the town — 4 or 5 miles out, perhaps along the La Havre brook — a number are built at Shelburne and Lunenburg. Secretary Redfield. Is this wood locally obtained? Mr. Gardner. Locally obtained. Secretary Redfield. How is it seasoned? Mr. Gardner. It is not seasoned any more than — it is taken from the woods and put right onto the vessel. Secretary Redfield. It is not kiln-dried lumber at all? Mr. Gardner. No. Secretary Redfield. It is not air-seasoned lumber, then? Mr. Gardner. No. Secretary Redfield. Then would it be correct to say that the ships are to some considerable extent built of green lumber? Mr. Gardner. Yes. Secretary Redfield. Do we understand that the keel is of oak? Mr. Gardner. No I do not think I said that — of beech or birch. The stern post would be of oak and the stem is generally of beech and oak. Secretary Redfield. Your planking? Mr. Gardner. The planking is of birch and beech — mostly beech. Secretary Redfield. And the floors? Mr. Gardner. The floors are of hardwood of the same material, and the top timbers and stanchions of soft wood — spruce. Secretary Redfield. But this is neither kiln dried nor air dried Avood ? Mr. Gardner. Neither one. Secretary Redfield. Have you any knowledge as to the relative cost of repairs upon those vessels as compared with the Gloucester built vessels? Mr. Gardner. No, not in comparison with it. Secretary Redfield. What do you estimate the normal life of such a vessel in active service? Mr. Gardner. There have been Lunenburg vessels probably that have seen actual life and have good life up to 15 years. Secretary Redfield. That is an extreme case? Mr. Gardner. That may be an extreme case. The Lunenburg skipper thinks that the life of his vessel — 8 or 9 years is about good enough for it — they are generally sold then for freighting. The Lunenburg people like to have new vessels. 302 AMERICAN'-CANADIAN FISHEBIES CONFEEEISrCE, Secretary Redfield. Would it or would it not be an advantage to dealers in supplies of various kinds for vessels if the American fleet were permitted free access to Canadian ports — I mean of course the local Canadian dealers in the ports? Mr. Gardnepv. We have to buy the articles of beef, pork, and lard and things like that in American ports — they can buy them cheaper there than in Canadian ports — there might be other articles advan- tageous to us to have them come and buy. Secretary Eedfielu. Do you know of your oAvn knowledge whether the American vessels now buy certain supplies in Canadian ports ? Mr. Gardner. There are certain times when they come in short of food and have to buy a good supply — enough to last for several weeks. Secretary Redfield. The point I want to clear up is whether there is not a mutual bond of interest there — a point of mutual interest on the part of the American vessel to be able to buy its supplies and on the part of the Canadian dealer to sell, so that by opening the Cana- dian port to the power boats there would be an enlargement of a mutual interest. That is the whole object that I wished to bring out there. Do you regard this reluctance of men to go to Gloucester or Boston to fish as a permanent change? Mr. Gardner. No, I do not, sir. I think it is only due to condi- tions in existence at present. Secretary Redfield. Arising from certain current local condi- tions ? Mr. Gardner. Yes. Mr. Sweet. Has that some relation to the war or the draft or any- thing of that kind? Mr. Gardner. I suppose it has relation to the war in this respect — there is a great demand for food and the shortage of tonnage to get food to our allies. Mr. Sweet. The motive for fishermen going to Gloucester and Bos- ton to get work was that thej could make better wages there? Mr. Gardner. I think in some respects that they have been making better wages, and I think that probably has been the greatest thing that has drawn them there in previous years. Mr. Sweet. You said, I think, that there were about 102 vessels in the Lunenburg fleet that went out last year? Mr. Gardner. I think that is the report of the Customs — of the 99-ton regulation size. Mr. Sw^EET. J^j how many clifi^erent persons or companies were they owned? Mr. Gardner. The ownership, sir, of vessels in Lunenburg is dif- ferent — it is the cooperative system — a vessel is composed of 64 shares, and if a skipper or man is going to get a vessel he gives 4, 5, or 6 of his men who are with him one or two of those shares, or sells them to them. In that way the men have a double interest in the fishing. Mr. Sweet. They are part owners. Mr. Gardner. I do not know that a system of that kind exists in any other part of the Dominion. They have a double interest. You asked me about the number of firms — of course in Lunenburg there are four or five of the outfitting firms who deal in supplies, and Avhen we speak, say, of the /. D. Hasen, we refer to her as being AMERICAIsT-CANAmAN" FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 303 one of the vessels of the W. C. Smith Co., while she is not owned by them. They own 4, 5, or 6 shares in her, Avhile other people own the remaining shares, bnt these vessels are sent out and fitted out by the five or six outfitting firms' existing in Lunenburg. Mr. Sweet. I understand that your firm has an interest in a con- siderable number of vessels ? Mr. Gardner. An interest in all that we outfit. Mr. Sweet. But not the entire ownership of any? Mr. Gardner. ISTo. Secretary Redfield. So that the fisherman may get not only his share of the fishermen's lay, but also participate as a part owner ? Mr. Gardner. That is the idea, sir. Mr. Saveet. In figuring the amount the fisherman is entitled to on the one-half -lay plan that j^ou have described, how do you get at the value of the catch— are they actually sold or are they estimated under the curing system j^ou speak of ? Mr. Gardner. Under the curing system — when the fish are brought home they are taken from the vessel and placed with different men who engage in that business of drying and curing the fish. We know of them as fish makers. They are paid 50 cents a quintal for drying, and they deliver them to your wharf or warehouse. When the fish are brought in they are weighed and we get the number of quintals. We pay 50 cents: for the expense of curing. Only three years ago we paid 25 cents, then 3.0 cents, then 40 cents, and this year we are pajdng 50 cents. Mr. Sweet. From the value of the cured fish you deduct the cost of curing? Mr. Gardner. Yes. Mr. Sweet. The balance would represent the value of the fish upon which to form a basis for figuring the remuneration of the fishermen? Mr. Gardner. After the charges are taken off, the cost of curing and the bait and the wages of the two boys, one-half of that is taken and divided into 16 or whatever number of men there are on the vessel, share and share alike. Mr. Sweet. AVith regard to the green material that you use in A^our vessels, does that afterwards shrink and give you trouble? Mr. Gardner. No ; I do not think that it does, sir. We never seem to have serious trouble from it. Mr. Sw^eet. Does it give as good satisfaction as well dried lumber — - air dried ? Mr. Gardner. I do not know that any of the vessels are built of air dried — I often hear them say that a vessel built in the winter time is not as good as one built in the summer time. I have not seen any actual proof of it — the material is all green — right from the stump, you might sa}^ Mr. Sweet. Do they have to use an unusual amount of calking and that sort of thing — do the seams open ? Mr. Gardner. No ; I think that probably the Lunenburg vessels will stand as well as any of the vessels as far as calking is con- cerned — we have had vessels that have gone two or three seasons before needing calking. Some vessels will want more than others. Mr. Sweet. I am asking these questions because we have had the subject of wooden vessels up for war purposes and the question of seasoned material has been discussed to a considerable extent. I 804 AMERICAN-CANADIAN nSHERIES CONFERENCE. ihoiioiil it niiiiiil he iii( cresting to know what your experiences had slioAvn. Ml'. (lAKDNKU. I do not think there has heen any diffieulty as far as Lunenburg is eoncerned. Dr. S:\irrii. Will you ])lease give a little more information about this tirst squid bait which you obtain from Provincetown. What is the usual amount of bail carried on a vessel for that first trip? Mr. (lAifONioij. AnywJKM-e from 1'2,00() to 1T,()()() pounds. Dr. SiNiiTii. AVhat is the cost of that bait? Mr. (tai{I)nki{. The retail cost is from 4:| to 4i cents a pound when W(> get it at Tjunenburg. Dr. SiMrrii. What is the length of the trip which this first bait! sup])lies? Mr. (iai!1)m:i!. Al)out one month. Di-. SiviiTii. Subse(|uently you depend on local stores? Mr. (taudnrr. Yes; get through and get the heri'ing. Di'. SMrrrr. You have no further occasion to send to Provincetown or anywhere else in the United States for bait? Mr. (tardnrr. No, sir; not after that. Dr. Smith. All of the vessels at Lunenburg obtain this squid bait from Provincetown ? Mr. (Iardner. Not all, altiiough I understand they purchase from the Canadian houses. They purchase from some of the cold-storage j)lants but I believe they bring it from Provincetown. Dr. S^rrrii. Is it more con^•enient for the Canadian cold-storage plants to obtain that squid from Provincetown than from NeAvfouncl- land? Mr. Gardner. I do not know that it is more convenient. It may be that they are not able to obtain it — I could not go into that ver}^ well. I think there are gentlemen here Avho can go into the matter of frozen bait much better than I can. JNIr. Wils(m no doubt Avould be very pleased to go into that. Dr. SivriTH. I would like to ha^e you verify in regard to the wages on board your vessels; the cooks are very important, and the wage Avhich I undei'stood you to say you paid was $120 or $125 a month? Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir, sometimes there is $10 difference. Dr. Smith. And that expense is borne by the crew? Mr. Gardner. Yes — borne b}?^ the crew^ Secretary Kedfield. Is that cook employed elsewhere, so that he has emi:>lovmont throughout the year at that wage? Mr. Gardner. lie is not employed at that rate if going freighting. The regular freighting wage would be from $70 to $7;") a month. After September when those vessels come home — this year and last year every one of our vessels that went out, with one or two excep- tions — were all placed in what we would call the freighting business — w^ould go to Halifax and take a load of flour to Newfoundland, and take a load of fish from there to the Barbadoes — and these cooks at that time would be paid a wage of $75 — they are only cooking for 7 men. while in the summer they are cooking for 18 to 20 men. Chief Justice Hazen. We are very much obliged to you for your information. Is there anything you w'ould like to add yourself? Mr. (tardner. Nothing that I know^ of, Mr. Chairman, at the pres- ent time. AMEEICAN-CAIsrADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 3C6 Chief Justice Hazen. I would say to you and other gentlemen here, it will be some time before we meet to consider our recommen- dations and if in the meantime anybody interested in the fishing busi- ness in this country or anywhere else has anything they wish to bring before us, if they will submit it in writing we will be very glad to give it the very best consideration in our power. They should communi- cate with Mr. Found, and he will see that each of the commissioners is furnished Avitli a copy. Mr. Sweet. Upon the main point, as to making an arrangement such as we have spoken of — whether or not I get the right impression from what you said. I inferred that you did not consider it neces- sary to go into every little detail with regard to whether Americans would get a little more advantage in your ports or Canadians a little more advantage by selling in American ports — that you did not think it necessary to strike a very close balance, but an equitable basis — a fifty-fifty basis? Mr. Gardner. That is my personal opinion. An equitable arrange- ment, as nearly a fifty-fifty basis as possible would be a good thing for both. We have no other end in view but to work out things to the mutual satisfaction of both. STATEMENT BY MR. BENJAMIN A. SMITH, GORTON-PEW FISH- ERIES, GLOUCESTER. By Secretary Redfield : Q. You have heard the statement of Mr. Gardner? — A. Yes. Q. In what respect does the construction of those vessels made for you in Gloucester differ from the statement of Mr. Gardner? — A. The frames of our vessels are of white oak. My impression is that Mr. Gardner said his were of soft wood, and 90 per cent of our planking is seasoned oak — it comes from Ohio. Q. Is that kiln dried? — A. No, sir. Q. Air dried? — A. Just seasoned. Q. And your keels and keelsons? — A. What we call soft wood — they are not oak — we prefer not to use oak, but to use birch and maple. Q. What do you consider the normal life of one of these vessels? — A. We have them going 20 or 25 years — we have one vessel that was built in 1899. Q. Still in use ? — A. Yes, sir — she was not recalked until year before last. Last year she took a cargo of fish to the Mediterranean — the schooner ./. /. Flaherty — and brought a cargo of salt back. At the present time she is carrying fish back and forth to Newfound- land — from Bay of Islands to Gloucester. She is a vessel of 160 odd tons. Q. What would a vessel of 100 tons cost to-day? — A. A vessel of 100 tons with hull and spars would- cost about $16,000 — that is with- out the rigging, without the sails, without any equipment — ^that is just the bare spars and the beams and the hull, but that vessel all rigged for our salt fish business as the Lunenburg vessels are would cost about $22,000. Q. All rigged? — A. All rigged but no ballast— if she was rigged the same as we fit our fresh fishermen it would cost about $25,000. 51950—18 20 306 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Q. What we Avant to get if we can is a comparative statement. Mr. Gardner spoke of a vessel, as I recall his statement, with the spars, hull and spars, at a cost of from $18,000 to $22,000. Am I correct in understanding that you say it would cost about $1G,000? — A. Yes, sir; hull and spars — no rigging. Q. Seasoned Ohio air-dried oak for planking and for frames? — A. Yes, sir — we have just contracted with Mr. Davis whom you met the other day — he is paying us $14,000, but he is furnishing the spars. By Chief Justice Hazen : Q. Do I understand, Mr. Smith, that you have a contract to-day for a vessel — the hull and the spars — built as you build them in the Xmited States and that your contract price is $16,000? — A. Yes, sir. Q. One hundred tons ? — A. One hundred and twenty tons gross. Q. You heard Mr. Gardner's statement that he has a contract for liis firm for a vessel of 100 tons with spars for $22,000? Mr. Gardner. I said it would cost from $18,000 to $22,000. Chief Justice Hazen. What is your contract price? Mr. Gardner. $18,000. I know'of contracts that are $22,000. By Chief Justice Hazen: Q. So that Mr. Gardner's vessel is costing $2,000 more to build? — A. The prices in Lunenburg have advanced more than they have advanced with us. Eight or 10 years ago, before the war, conditions were such that Lunenburg vessels would cost much less than that. Q. These gentlemen who appeared before us in the United States and told us that one of the handicaps the fishermen there would en- counter would be the less cost of vessels in Canada were basing that on what had been the case years ago? — A. They cited the Clentonia^ and the facts given you on that were true but conditions have changed. STATEMENT BY ME. ALERED H. BEITTAIN, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE MARITIME FISHING CORPORATION (LTD.), MON- TREAL. Q. You are managing director of the Maritime Fish Corpora- tion? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Where is your head office? — A. Our executive offices are in Montreal, our plants are in Digby and Canso, Nova Scotia. Q. What branch of the fishing business does your company engage in« — A. We are vessel owners and we buy fi4i from the fishermen. Q. And where do you sell that fish ? — A. We put the raw material into the markets that we consider will give us the best returns. A large part of our business is the fresh-fish business. We also dry and cure fish. Q. Where do vou sell your fresh fish ? — A. In Canada. Q. Do you sell in the United States at all?— A. Very little. Q. Yoii find a market in Canada for all the fresh fish that you g-et? — A. We have been exporting some frozen fish to Europe — a matter of Avar conditions, but speaking to the point I would say that our fresh fish is sold in Canada. Q. Do you find it an increasing market in Canada ? — A. Yes. Q. Are you able to supply all the fish that there is a demand for?— A. Within the past six months the demand for fish, through in- AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 307 creased publicity, has increased considerabty. I think the same thing prevails in the United States and I would say that our conditions are perhaps the same as theirs. While there are no figures that we could arrive at, there has been an increase of easily 100 per cent. Q. We were told in the United States that the statistics show that the consumption per head of fish in the United States is 18 pounds — • the consumption per head in Canada is 29 pounds, and the consump- tion in Great Britain before the war was 58 pounds per capita. You are vessel owners? — A. Yes. Q. Where do you get your vessels built? — A. We have had our schooners built in Shelburne, I think. Q. What is the size of the schooners? — A. One hundred tons. Q. Have you had any built lately ? — A. None. Q. None since the outbreak of war? — A. No. Q. What were you pa.ying for a 100-ton schooner when j^ou last purchased ? — A. I am not in a position to give you that information, Mr. Hazen, at the present moment. Q. Do 3^ou know how the men are paid on board your vessels? — A. Our schooners — on the lay — 1/5 lay. Q. Will you lell me how that is worked out? — A. If you would just leave that part to Mr. Short — he will be able to give the complete information. Q.. Have 3^ou steam trawlers ? — A. Yes ; we own one steam trawler, O. Is that the Balleinef—X. The Raindore. Q. How are the men paid on that? I will tell you the reason I ask that. X gentleman in Boston who made a statement before us told us that on the American trawlers the men are paid $40 a month wages and that an additional smn of $7 on every thousand pounds of fish caught is divided among the men. He understood that in Canada the men got only $30 a month and $7 a thousand on the fish caught. We were also informed that the officers in Canada were paid larger sums than the officers in the United States. We want to see how it would work out as having a bearing on the expense of producing fish. — A. Steam trawling in this country is not worked out yet on the same basis as in Boston, which is the steam trawling port of the United States. In Canada diiferent individual firms own one boat. I do not think one firm owns more than one boat, and the lay under Avhich these men are paid is different be- cause they have not got down to any basis to work on. ■ I think I am safe in saying we are the first operators of steam trawlers in Canada. We owned the old steam trawler Wren, which we pur- chased from England. We purchased equipment for her, thinking we would nnike a success. We lest $15,000 or $-20,000 in the first year and sold the boat to the highest bidder. We later chartered a couple of boats from England on a purchase price for fish — they ov,nied their own vessels and we paid them so much a pound far" the fish, and a year and a half ago we purchased this ship our- selves outright. The lay in comparison between the United States and Canada" I think would boil dovrn to this — that the Boston men made about the same amount of wages as our men make. Our men may make a little more than the men on the Boston ships. _ The skipper on our ship makes a great deal more money than the skipper on the American ships. 308 AMEEICAF-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. Q. The details of this matter can be given to us by Mr. Short '. — A. He is not familiar with them. Q. Do yon pay your men a certain snm per month and a certain amount per thousand of fish caught ? — A. Yes ; we pay the same as the United States. We pay the men a certain Avage and we pay the captain a certain wage, but their principal remuneration is de- rived from the commissions Avhich they get. Q. We were told in Boston that they paid their men $40 a month and $7 per thousand for every thousand of fidi that were caught and that amount was divided among the crew equally, while the assertion was made that in Canada the steam trawlers pay $30 a month and a bonus on the fish caught. — A. In answer to that, Mr. Hazen — in the first place we originally started off paying our crews on the same lays as they paid in Grimsby, England. They pay their crews on what they call the net return from the vessel after paying expenses, whereas in the United States they pay their men a com- mission of 7 per cent on the gross stock of the vessel. In other M^ords, they pay their men on the gross stock of 7 per cent on the vessel, whereas in our case and in some other cases where it has nor got down to a standard basis yet we have paid, as in England, on the net stock of the vessel after deducting expenses — the grub and ether fixed charges — because our men on our boats are largely men from Norway and Denmark, where they are in the habit of v,^orking under that particular law, and rather than take them away from it and upset conditions we have more or less adhered to that particular lay of wages in connection with the men. Q. And you say that under your system you are paying about the same wages as on trawlers sailing out of Boston? — A. Our men to-day will average a little more — within perhaps $8 or $10 a month, than the men in Boston, and our skipper wall average a great deal more than the skipper in the United States, so much so that the skippers of our boats are something like the Lunenburg fel- lows — they perhaps make more money than the proprietors of the business themselves. They earn every cent that thej^ get, and a large percentage of their business is on a commission basis, according to the stock they^ bring in. Q. It would be correct to say, Mr. Brittain, having regard to the pay of the captain and the pay of the crew, that the wages paid on trawlers operating from the Nova Scotia ports are greater than the wages on the trawlers operating from the port of Boston % — A. Yes. Q. Well, now, what do you say about the supplies — the food that is supplied on board these trawlers? Do you know that end of the busi- ness? — A. Yes. Q. Have j^ou sufficient knowledge to make any comparison between the food on a Canadian trawler and that supplied on an American trawler, as to quality? — A. Generally speaking I can say that the quality of the food on the Canadian trawler is of the very best. There is no limitation put on what food they will have, whether delicacies or luxuries — pickles, olives — in fact they live better than I live at home, as a general rule. Q. I suppose as a matter of fact, Mr. Brittain, you could not get men on your trawlers unless you feed them well? — A. With the very best. If they want anything at all in reason, outside of liquors or things not allowed, they can have them, if it is a ques- AMEEICAISr-CAlSrADIAIsr FISHEEIES COlsTFEREISrCE. 309 tion of food to keep them satisfied and get the very best out of them as to work, we let them have it. Q. You believe Napoleon's idea that an army travels on its stomach, applies to fishermen? — A. You take our boats starting off for the grounds — they may be fishing for two days. There are many, many occasions when those men have not had two hours' sleep. These boats are operating night and day. They stay on the ground and have got to keep working night and day on double shifts — it may be every two hours or every hour they haul this gear — it depends on the quantity of fish. They have got to be dressed and put in the hold. There are many times when the only slee]? these men get is going to the fishing grounds and coming home. We get them away from the dock about as quickly as possible. Q. Is it possible to obtain beam trawlers from Great Britain now i — A. Nothing that is modern at all. Q. Why is that, Mr. Brittain? — A. I understand from the infor- mation I have received from Ottawa from time to time that it is Admiralty orders. Q. Because the trawlers are taken for naval purposes ? — A. Yes. Q. And a great many trawlers have been destroyed by submarines and mines? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know the relative cost, taking it now, of a trawler in Great Britain and the United States — I mean the beam trawler — the otter trawler? — A. In England there have been no trawlers that I know of that there have been contracts let for immediate delivery because the Admiralty has taken charge of the shipyards. Q. It is impossible to get a trawler built for a private corporation or to obtain one in any way there? — A. Yes. Q. I think you said that you sold all your fish in Canadian mar- kets except a certain quantity you are sending overseas — frozen fish. I suppose that market overseas is not regarcled by you as a perma- nent market. I presmne after the war when fishing conditions be- come normal in Great Britain it will be impossible to send fish from Canada in competition wdth the British fishermen? — A. We hope that we will be able to still continue to ship. Q. To be able after the war to send fish over there? — A. That is our idea; we hope to be able to send certain kinds of fish. Q. What fish will you be able to do that with ? A. There are fish — take the cod — the cod at times is sold at comparatively low figures here and at extremely high prices in England. It is a question if we can educate the people in England to the fact that a good frozen fish is about as good as a fresh fish that has been caught in Iceland or somewhere else and been away from the water for two or three weeks. Personally I see no reason why we can not sell frozen fish to a good extent in England and eventually build up a big business. They have been selling frozen rabbit in England, and formerly they bought fresh rabbit from Lord So-and-so's estates, and there was a prejudice against frozen rabbit. Q. You are removing that prejudice? — A. Yes; we are doing that now. Q. Where do you ship your fish from — Digby?^A. She lands at Canso. Q. And you ship your fish from there to the markets of Quebec and Ontario? — A. Yes. 310 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. Q. Do you send anything to the United States? — A. Ver\' little. We have always catered to onr Canadian market. Q. What little you have sent to the United States, how have yon sent it ? — A. By rail. Q. A very limited quantity ? — A. Very limited. We have no other way of getting it — either by rail and steamer or all rail. Q. And you believe there is still a large market that can be devel- oped for fish as a result of advertising — that the Canadian market can be still further developed? — A. Yes. Q. Do you go in for lobsters at all, Mr. Brittain ? — A. No. Q. What would be your view with regard to extending the priv- ileges that are now given under the modus vivendi to vessels owned by American citizens, propelled by steam or other motive power? — A. My view is very much as Mr. Gardner's view is. That is to say^ as far as my company is concerned, we feel that this is the opportune time, if it is ever going to be done, to work out arrangements that are going to be permanent and lasting, and while it may be a disadvan- tage to us or it may be a disadvantage to the United States, the way I figure it out this is the time to tackle the job and let us adapt our- selves to circumstances. We are quite willing, as far as we are con- cerned, to adapt ourselves to conditions which may exist in connec- tion with this landing fish in the United States. It is going to affect my business quite considerably, just as the men in Boston feel. We are in the fresh fish business, and it is a commodity Avhich has to be handled quickly. There may be an advantage in having our vessels go into Boston ports, and I believe a considerable advantage at times in American vessels having the privilege of landing in our Canadian ports. The vessel property is practically the basis of the industry, and the next is the consumer — the man in between generally fig- ures out his margin of profit, but whether it will be an advantage to our consumers all over Canada, that is a question hard to answer. You know, gentlemen, that the price of fish has been higher in the United States — excepting at times when there is a glut — than it is in Canada. It may take away from our Canadian people a certain quantit}^ of our own fish — all that will be necessary will be to steam another 100 miles and land in Boston and give the American people that extra food. It may take it away from us, but on the other hand I think that perhaps we can adjust this matter and get it down to an equitable basis. We are small here — it is a 100 to 1 shot. You have 100,000,000 and we have 10,000,000. It gets back to the old reciprocity pact. I remember speaking to Mr. Fielding at the time and I asked him what our privileges were to be in the event of reciprocity — we would have to put a desk on some wharf around Boston to look after our vessels. Would our vessels then have the privilege of going to the channel somewhere between Yarmouth and Boston and fishing side b}^ side with American boats, or would he have to go to Yarmouth and clear and go back and find his friends — it made two trips to his one. He said it would be fixed up afterwards, but I saw where it would be a detriment to us. It gets dowii now to the question as to whether it is going to be an advantage to Canada or to the United States. We will have to adapt ourselves and wake up and see that the United States boys down on the pier in Boston do not get up earlier than we do. I can assure you that we have had to be trained in about four different branches of the business and I AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHEEIZS COXrEEEXCE. 311 think that perhaps one of our men can do the ^vork of perhaps two of the boys orer there. By ^Ir. Svi-EET : Q. On the American side T\-e have heard some objection on the ground of opening up a Terv htrge market in exchange for a small market. Some of our people in the business think that is not fair, when we are giving a market of 100.000.000 people where yon give a market of 10.000.000. Suppose this plan were carried ont in abso- hite good faith for the consumers of both cotmtries. Don't von think that there would be a decided advantage in making this arrangement ? Woidd not the tendency of this j)roposed plan be to increase produc- tion, to elhninate waste of time, and so forth i — A. I believe it would. sir ; and furthermore I believe that the American fisherman will still land his boat at the South Pier in Boston. He may have occasional times when he has to go for a long way off to sea — ^where the fish are moving from one ground to another — or in the hot sttmmer day- he may think it advantageous to land at some Canadian port, but gen- erally spealdng I think you will fimd that the American steam trawler and perhaps the schooners also which are in close proximity to the ITnited States will land their boats in the United States. Q. About American steam trawler- — they have no right now to come into Canadian ports ? — ^A. Xo. Q. Do they ever come in to yotir knowledge for ptu'poses of shelter, repairs, wood, and water ? — A. There were two steam trawlers into Canada last year fi-om the United States, under special arrangement with the Canadian Govermnent. for an extra quantity of food. Q. Is it your opmion that it would be an advantage to them to have the right to come in ■ — A. I believe it would. Q. For the ptirpose of supplies and other purposes ? — A. I believe so. sir. Q. As nearly as you can estimate, withotit. as I said to Mr. Gard- ner, striking too close a balance — ^just speaking rotighly. would you think that the advantages and disadvantages wotdd be nearly enough on the fifty-fifty basis to make a fair arrangement for both cotm- tries ( — A. I think that is the proper way to figure it out myself. Q. You think the plan we are tallring about would be near enough to justify its being made ? — ^A. Provided the Canadian vessels in ex- chano:e for that had no handicaps in connection with the coasting privilege or with the ctistoms. Q. Ihe right to clear for American fishing grotmds and return — - if that right were gTanted to Canadian boats ancl corresponding rights to American boats, then I ask you whether you think such an arrange- ment woitld be a fair one. and one that might be called a fifty-fifty basis -. — A. I think it would, sir. STATEMENT' BY ME. S. Y. WIISOTT. OF THE LEONARD FISHERIES OF HALIFAX. By Cliief Justice Hazex : Q. You are associated with the Leonard Fisheries ? — A. Yes. sir. Q. You reside in Halifax ? — A. Yes. sir. Q. I stippose Halifax might be described as tlie center of the fi-li trade, for your i^rovince i — A. Yes. sir. They feel rliat this com- 312 AMERICAN-CANAmAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. miHsion should have eonie to Halifax to get the views of the ]Deople, because they think it a matter that inoi-e directly beai's on Nova Scotia than any of the other Maritime Provinces. Q. I am glad there are so many Nova Scotians here to-day. If necessary later on perhaps Ave can go to Halifax. — A. I think that ought to be considered. Probably you would get a broader range of information in that way. The men from Lunenburg had to leave on Saturday toi, be here to-day. I know several of the captains to whom I spoke would have been very glad to go to Halifax if they could have had the sitting there. Q. We have got very valuable information from Mr. Gardner and Mr. Brittain — that can be considei'ed later. I want to ask you, Mr. Wilson, what line of fish you handle? — A. Principally fresh and smoked fish — Ave do some curing. Q. Where do you sell your fresh and smoked fish? — A. In the United States and the Canadian market — largely in the Canadian market. Q. Do you oAvn vessels? — A. We ha\e some steamers and vessels that are used for smacking purposes. The steamer Balleine is fit- ting out as a steam traAvler. Q. You heard Mr. Brittain's statement Avith regard to the system under Avhich the men are paid? — A. Yes. Q. You are operating that system? — A. As far as I knoAV the captain is hiring his crcAv — paying the same wages as in Boston, the same percentage — Avhile he is getting a higher. Q. The same Avages and the same percentage paid as in Boston? — A. He is given a free hand and I understand that is Avhat he is doing. Q. The Avages being paid are similar to those paid out of the Port of Boston ? — A. Exactly, as far as I knoAV — as far as the steamer Bal- leine is concerned— but I understand the captain himself is getting a higher percentage. Q. That would be Capt. Spinney ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. With regard to the supplies on board Canadian fishing vessels generalh^ — you have heard the statements made by Mr. Gardner and Mr. Brittain? — A. I think they are absolutely correct. There may be a greater variety — the quality can not be any different. The goods are the A^er}^ best and the only difference is in the luxury end of the thing. The United States fishermen are taxed back for that Avliere the Canadian fishermen are not taxed at all. Chief Justice Hazen. I think the Avitness means that Avhere certain luxuries are supplied on board American fishing A-essels they are charged up to the creAV and taken out of their share of the lay. Q, The fish that you sell in the United States — hoAv do you send it there? — A. Mostly by express, or previous to this year Ave shipped by the Plant Line and by Yarmouth — they have a daily boat in the summer season — tAvo boats a Aveek noAv and sometimes four. Q. You do not catch fish yourselves — you buy them? — A; Yes. Q. Then you reship them into Boston by the Plant Line or some other AvaA^? — A, The}^ are repacked. Q. You have had no personal experience Avith the catching of fish in your oAvn vessels and sending your vessels on to Boston ? — A. No, not exactly. Q. Yon understand the business thoroughly — take a vessel from Nova Scotia that goes out to the Banks and gets fish and desires to AMEEICAX-CAXADIAK FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 313 sell that load in the United States — explain to us what it has to do? — A. To be marketed as fresh fish? Q. Yes. — A. The}" would have to be landed in a Xova Scotia port or have to come to a Xova Scotia port and become a common carrier and then go to the United States. In leaving the United States he is bound to clear as a common carrier for a Xova Scotia port before running to the fishing ground. Q. Would it be a marked advantage to our fishermen if they were able to go directly from the fishing grounds to the market in the United States, and to clear from the United States again for the fish- ing grounds ? — A. That could hardly be answered yes or no. At dif- ferent seasons of the year it would probabh^ be an advantage, while ;at others it would not be any advantage. It is a problem. Q. On the whole, would it be an advantage or not? — A. I do not know until we have had actual practical experience. It would cause a derangement — it would cause a decrease in the ])rices at the United States ports. It is a matter of supply and demand. Q. As a matter of fact, to-day the great majority of vessels are steam vessels or motor-propelled vessels, are they not ? — A. I do not think that is correct. It would be with the shore fishing people, but with longer voyages that is not true. Q. That is, the vessels that go to the Banks. AVe were told that the majority of vessels going out of Gloucester were steam. — A. That is shore fishing. Q. Those that go off to the Banks as well, we were told, were steam. — A. I believe that is true more generally of Gloucester. Q. As a matter of fact the number of steam vessels is increasing, is it not? — A. Yes — they are using i30wer vessels to a far greater -extent. Q. The practice of using power vessels is increasing, and will in- crease, I suppose? — A. I would imagine so — they are finding it more successful. Q. So that gradually the sailing vessels will disappear and the steam vessels will take their place — that will be the trend ? — A. That will depend on the S3'stem of fishing pursued. Going to the Banks :and lying at anchor it would appear to be no advantage; going for fresh fish the power is important. Q. In the fresh fishing ? — A. The sailing vessel will be superseded entirely by the steam or motor. The experience of other countries has been that they have longer distances to go as the grounds are de- pleted and they haA'e to employ the power vessels. Q. In the fresh-fish business that will be the tendency? — A. I would think so. Q. Having regard to the fresh-fish business, would it be an advan- tage to those Canadians who are engaged in that business if these restrictions that exist — the restriction that compels them to go to a Canadian port and to either transfer their catch to a trading vessel or to register as a trading vessel before they can go to an American port, and the restriction which compels them on leaving an American port to clear for a port in Canada — if this restriction were removed? — - A. Generally speaking — not always. Q. I understood you to say that perhaps the result might be to lower the, price of fish? — A. You can readily understand that if there was an increase in steam A^essels such as there has been — suppose there 314 AMEKICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONPEEENCE. were a dozen or more added to the fleet already in Boston and these were all to go to the Boston market — it would flood the Boston and New York markets and leave the Canadian market bare. Q. Have you oiven consideration to the development of the fish marlcet in the United States ? — A. Just what does that imply ? Q. In the United States to-day the consumption of fish per head is 18 pounds; in Canada the consumption of fish per head is 29 pounds; in Great Britain the consumption of fish per head is 58 pounds. The Government of the United States is impressing on people the value of fish as a food. In view of the small consumption of fish per head in the United States at the present time and the fact that there will be a scarcity of meat in the future, do you think that the market of the United States could be glutted by a few extra vessels carrying fish ? — A. It could be because it is such a perishable article. Even to-day, with the limited fleet they have, if they all land at once it has a very depressing effect on the prices, but they only last for a day or two. Q. I clo not think you have been following the great development going on in the United States recently. You say it might affect the fishing business, but it might have the effect of giving cheaper fish to the consumer — a benefit to the consumer but not a benefit to those engaged in the fishing business? — A. That is going to the other ex- treme. What I mean to say is that it is not a stable priced article like codfish — the price varies from day to day. The price of dry cod fish is approximately 10 cents-r-the variation in a month would not be more than half a dollar per quintal. Take haddock — two weeks ago to-clay in the Boston market it was selling at 11^ or 12 cents. A week later it sold for 6 cents. It is a matter of demand and supply. It operates so quickly that fresh fish has to be handled the day it is caught or the following day. Q. I want to get your opinion as to whether you consider it would be an advantage to Canadian fishermen or not if these restrictions were done away with? — ^A. I do; in a general way. Q. You have had the opportunity of observing the use to some extent that was made of Canadian ports by these American sailing vessels? — A. Yes, sir. Q. In your opinion woidd it be an advantage to the United States if that privilege was extended to vessels propelled by steam or motive power? — A. I do not think there is a question about it — it gives them a base of operations. Should anything happen to them — should they run short of supplies — and particularly if they have the right to sell their fish — if they struck boisterous weather on a fresh- fish trip they could land their catch and start afresh. Q. In your experience have you knoAvn of American vessels coming to Canadian ports and asking permission to sell their goods? — A. On many occasions, with and without licenses. Q. Under those conditions the department of marine and fisheries have granted them that privilege? — A. Yes. Q. Would you see anything objectionable in allowing those vessels to come to our harbors to repair their nets ? — A. No. Q. Or anything objectionable in allowing them to cure their fish when lying in our waters? — A. Under the new arrangement? AMEEICA^s^-CANADIAX FISHEEIES COI^FEEElSrCE. 315 Q. Yes. — A. I think that shonkl be specified particiilarlj^ — the same as permission is granted to them to sell their fish. Probably it wonld be the only waj^ in "which they could care for the catch. Q. Those were points before iis — that the American fisherman was not allowed to repair his nets and that he could not cure his fish on his vessel when lying in Canadian waters. — A. I think they are justified in making that request. I do not understand why the ruling was made against the power schooner — very often it is the same vessel with the power aclded. Q. It has been the law for 30 years, and in 1904 the Government of that day passed a special order in council saying that this always had applied to vessels propelled by sail and was intended for that. I suppose at the time when the modus vivendi licenses were granted there were no power boats. — ^A. I think the United States first intro- duced the power boat — the Canadians hadn't any. Q. In a general way, Mr. "Wilson, if the Government of the United States is prepared to abolish those restrictions and to assist us in the enforcement of our lobster regulations, and are prepared to remove the restriction which makes it necessary for our vessels to go to a Canadian port from an American port before going to the fishing grounds and makes it impossible for us to return directly there: if they are willing to abolish those restrictions, would it. in your opinion, be a fair thing for us to extend the modus vivendi principle to vessels no matter how they are propelled — to abolish the license fee of $1.50 per ton and charge a mere nominal fee or no fee, and grant those vessels the same rights in our ports as far as the purchase of supplies are concerned as our own vessels, and permit them to sell their fish in Canadian ports? — A. "Would that include an open United States market as well? Q. Subject to any customs duty imposed. There is a duty of a cent a pound on fish coming into Canada. — A. I would say it could be done on an equitable basis. Q- You think that an arrangement might be worked out on an equitable basis ? — A. Yes. Q. "And one that would have the effect of allaying a certain amount of irritation that has prevailed for a long time? — A. And still, on the other hand, I think you would find among some skippers in Nova Scotia objection to their coming in and competing with them in scarce times for bait, but I think it would be to the mutual ad^ an- tage of both countries, sioeaking as a whole. Q. This question of expense of fishing operations — it was repre- sented to us by certain people very strongly in Boston that if such an arrangement was made with the two countries the American fishermen would be at very great disadvantage, because it cost the Canadian fisherman so much less to carry on his operations. Do you think there is anything in that argument ? — A. I do not think that position can be upheld for a moment. That has not been my experi- ence in fitting out steam trawlers. We can buy steel-wire rope in Boston for 21 cents. In Montreal to make it they Avanted 13.65 cents for making it. I do not know whether we would be entitled to have that entered as fishing gear, but the Boston fisherman can buy his rope for 24 cents as against our 14. We can buy cheaper in Great Britain. 316 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Q. The whole lumber industry of British Columbia was in danger of being held up because they could not get rope. — A. The situation is ]iot quite so strenuous in that regard just now. Q. In nornuil times, under normal conditions? — A. The lines, hooks, and anchors — they have been invariably bought in the United States and entered here as fishing gear. The Canadian has the dis- advantage — the Canadian paj^s the transportation charges. The Canadian vessels, I have no doubt, are more economically managed than xVmerican vessels and for the reason that the owners are on boai'd. The captains and crews of the United States vessels are not so generally interested in the vessels. They are more wasteful and more elaborate in their expenditures generally.^ They do not take the same care of their dories and lines and bait — they are not so economical in cutting bait. I think the American fishermen as a whole will admit that. Q. These statements were made to us by men who were sailors — some of them captains — who were afraid that they would be at a disadvantage'^ — A. That is my opinion in regard to the thing — that they are more economically operated just for that reason — the own- ers are there themselves and they have not only a share interest but an owner's interest in pushing the thing. Q. Take the Balleine — the trawler you ha^'e — will any of the own- ers be on that? — A. No. Q. Is there a danger of those extravagances taking j)lace there? — A. Not to the same extent — the captains are paid such large per- centages that it is up to them. Q. (To Mr. Benjamin Smith.) Capt. Smith, what do you say re- garding that statement as to extravagances? — A. I think you will find I made such a remark the other day, that we could not run them as well. I spoke of vessels that I am familiar with being run out of Lunenburg — that I fitted in Gloucester — and on the same stock they would make much more money because they are run more econom- ically. Q. It is not due to the cost or the quality, but due to the more economical management ? — A. That is the only thing I can thiiik of right ott'hand — we get hooks down here cheaper. Mr. Wilson. With regard to the vessels — the life of the Lunen- burg vessel is (mly about half the length of the Gloucester vessel. By Chief Justice Hazen: Q. The Lunenburg vessel is more expensive. Its first cost is more and it does not last nearlj'' as long, and if that is the case the argu- ment advanced to us by gentlemen in Gloucester falls to the ground? — A. Under prewar conditions the Lunenburg vessel cost less. Q. Was that true up to the outbreak of war in 1914? — A. Yes. By Secretary Redfield: Q. How much less? — A. The hull and spars could be built for from ten to tAvelve thousand dollars. By Chief Justice Hazen : Q. Before the war? — A. Yes. AMEEICAS^-CANADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEEN-CE. 3lT Q. (To Capt. Benjamin A. Smith.) I presume the cost of vessels in the United States has gone np xerj much since the war broke out? — A. Yes. it has — not so much, however. By Secretary Redfield: Q. I think it would be of interest to Mr. Wilson to follow out a little further what Mr. Chief Justice Hazen said about the develop- ment of the United States markets for fish. I think it unlikely that there will remain much longer any chance for gluts in the United States fish markets. With 100,000,000 of people we are consuming about 2,000.000.000 pounds of fish.— A. Fresh fish ? Q. Of all kinds. Great Britain with 45,000,000 of people is con- suming 4.000,000.000 pounds of fish. The effort of our Government is very strongly exerted to increase the demand for fish food. If we brought our consumption of fish up to the Canadian level it would call for a billion and a half pounds of fish more per annum. If we brought it up to the English level it would call for an increase of at least 4,000,000,000. In other words our consumption would be nudtiplied by three. These are approximate figures but are within the truth. To show what is possible — Dr. Smith's service within 20 to 24 months, with one man in the field, at a total cost of $20,000, with some office help, has introduced and placed for consumj^tion 50,000,000 pounds of unused fish food. Fresh fish is being sold as far west Denver, Colo., regularly to-day. We offered to put at Government expense a first-class man at work in the Mississippi Eiver Valley to preach the gospel — use more fish. Very candidly the only doubt we have in undertaking such a campaign is whether or not there are enough vessels in Canada and the United States to supply the demand which is perfectly feasible may arise. It is per- fectly possible in a very few years to increase the demand for fish food in the United States to a point where it will call for at least six billion pounds instead of two. Indeed it seems to us entirely necessary, for our meat supply can not for 30 years be brought back to where it was before, and we must have the fish food to take its place. We regard it as an absolute duty of the Government to enter into an active campaign for development of the fish food market. — A. The figures you have given are no doubt for the cured fish. The conditions will have to change with the demand, and while you have a population of 100,000.000 and Canada 10,000,000, the suppliers of fresh fish from the Atlantic seaboard only reach a very small proportion. The quantities that go outside of the large centers in the immediate East do not amount to much. Q. You are mistaken with regard to that. I had a contractor come to me and offer to supply fresh tiles from Boston and New York — a million pounds at 4 cents — to our army in San Antonio, Tex., and a concern we met in Boston is regularly supplying St. Louis with fresh fish. The whole transportation system of the country has got to be adjusted, and I have offered to arrange to have it done, but the point that seems to me important to have in mind is that the past affords no basis of reasoning whatever for the future. — A. I admit the possibilities. It is just a question of getting the transportation. When you get that it is just a question of multiplying. It may be some little time yet, however, before we can sret it. 318 AMEEICAN-CANADIAlSr FISHEKIES CONFERENCE. Q, There has been ahnost no attempt to develop the fresh-fish market in the United States, whereas there are 70,000,000 of peo- ple easily to be reached over night from Boston and Gloucester. — A. We are perhaps a little more «flisadvantageously situated b}^ way of distance from our larger commercial centers. We have a longer haul and it has been a more difficult problem, but even with those difficult problems we have made considerable headway. Q. What I am speaking of is what seems a negligence on our part. For example, take the great centers around Pittsburgh. There are millions of people there and I doubt very much if there is any single shop in which fish is sold every day in the week. Do yor know of any place, Mr. Smith? Capt. Ben.taimin A. Smith. No, I do not think there is any place. Secretary Redfield. It is very much to be doubted if you went to buy fresh fish there on Tuesday or Wednesday whether you could get it. By Mr. Sw'eet: Q. You laid considerable stress upon the fluctuations in the price of fresh fish on account of their perishability ? — A. Yes. Q. Is not that to a considerable extent being obviated by the grow- ing popularity of frozen fish ? — A. To some extent. Q. Is not that a good solution — do you not look upon it as a pi-ob- able solution of the difficulties arising from the perishability of fresh fii-h? — A. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that at the present time the prices would not go back to prewar prices on account of that — because there is a developed market for frozen fish. Q, Is not that to a considerable extent also a matter of education in the use of frozen fish? — A. It is a matter of killing a prejudice. Q. And of knowing how to thaw them and use them immedi- iitely? — A. How to cook them. We have had that trouble in the soldiers' camps — while the outside was cooked the inside was raw, and naturally the troops Avould object to it. Perfectly good sound fish treated in that way. Then there are so many varieties of table fish wasted. Chief Justice Hazen. There are tremendous quantities of the much-despised dogfish being used now. By Dr. Smith : Q. You and others from the maritime Piovinces may be inter- ested in knowing the results of some experiments made in the United States in a comparatively short time, to determine the actiuil food value of frozen fish. We have a strong prejudice against frozen fish that exists here, and we have conducted some experiments to determine whether that prejudice is well founded, and it has been determined by most impartial experts that fish in a perfectly fresh condition frozen properly are at the expiration of eight or nine months the equal in every respect of the same fish just taken out of the water. The tests have been such as to indicate that people who did not know what they were eating- were unable to distinguish fish frozen nine or ten months from fish just out of the water.^4. These people that did not know what they were eating — were they capaldc or judging fresh fish? AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 319 Q. Intelligent people accustxjmed to eating fish — their opinions are worth}' of consideration. The fish must be frozen Avhen perfectly fresh. — A. What we call alive. Q. And the fish must be properly' thawed out before the time to cook it ? — A. And properly cared for in cold storage. Q. That would indicate a very large opportunity in the way of the development of the frozen-fish business ( — A. I think the industry deserves what it gets in the way of prejudice because of the way it has been handled in the past. I think those in charge of the cold storages are mainlj^ to blame for it. Mr. Brittain. I think they deserve credit for putting it on the map. It has been the cold-storage plants on the coast that have de- veloped and introduced this frozen fish. Chief Justice Hazen. Have 3'ou anything more you would like to add, Mr. Wilson? Mr. Wilson. I would like to plead with you to come to Nova Scotia and hold a hearing in Halifax to get the views of the Bank fleet and the lobster industry. If we can make an amicable arrange- ment whereby the lobster industry can be conserved ,for the future. I think it would do a great deal for Canada and the United States. Chief Justice Hazen. We will certainly take your request into consideration. If the United States should pass a law that would prevent any lobster being caught or any lobster being taken into the United States market less than 10^ inches long, would you favor the passage of a similar law in Canada for the coast of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia west of Halifax? A laAv that would prevent any lobster being caught or exported less than 10^ inches in length? Mr. Wilson. I have not thought of that. Chief Justice Hazen. That would mean the abolition of every cannery west of Halifax. There are no canneries now in Charlotte and St. John Counties. There have been canneries in the past, but the size limit now for Icbsters in Charlotte County is 10^ inches and in St. John County 9 inches. Nine inches is the size to-claj^ that can be taken into Boston. They can do better business by shipping the lob- sters alive into the markets of the different cities. You have no size limit for the lobsters caught along the south shore of Nova Scotia from Halifax to the west — they can everything, and the result is that the lobsters are disappearing. Wouldn't it be better for the people there to turn their attention to the live lobster trade, to the catching of those lobsters of sufficient size, in order that they may be sent to the markets of different cities, and while the canneries would have to disappear, in the space of a few years the people would be better off than to-day, and would it not have the effect of bringing back the lobster which otherwise in a few years will be gone? — A. I think, speaking from the lobster standpoint, that the lobster indus^rry would benefit materially and in a few years time they would easily double in value — the lobster fisheries — I would say in 10 j'^ears, because the lobster is of slow growth. Q. Another question is that of propagation. We were given figures along this line in Boston. Suppose a lobster of 8 inches produces 10 000 eggs, a lobster of 10 inches will produce 20.000, and a lobster of 12 inches 40,000 — it goes on increasing by arithmetical progres- sion. People in Boston said they would not only have a minimum size but they would have a maximum size, because the large lobsters 320 AMERICAN-CAXADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. were not as marketable— not as great a delicacy, and in addition tO' that whenever you took a large lobster you were taking a lobster of marvelous reproductive capacity. — A. When a lobster gets beyond 13 or 14 inches you seldom find them bearing eggs. Q. There is a limit to productive capacity — when you get over 10^ inches you find the lobster having the greatest productive capacity — you have a tremendous difference in the number of eggs. — A. About every inch doubles the number of eggs. Q. It is a fact that those larger lobsters are the least satisfactory to handle in the trade? — A. After 14 or 15 inches they get coarse. A maximum size, I think, would take care of conditions. Q. If you did not allow anything caught under 10-| inches, I think you would have a tremendous increase ? — A. That would be the time to bring in the maximum size. Q. Generally speaking you would say that Avould be a benefit to the lobster industry? — A. Yes. Q. If you are going to save the lobster industry you have not got to deal with special or local interests? — A. Still you must remember- that a man or company of men that have been given a license to can lobsters and then have it taken away, some compensation should be allowed. Q. That is being done very largely in other business. — A. They are all supposed to have got enough to retire. I am not at all interested in the lobster industry, but I know" that is the situation. Q. What amount of money is invested in an ordinary lobster can- nery ? — A. The Eobert Simpson factory is worth five or six thousand dollars. The larger lobsters are exported and the small ones packed. Mr. Brittain. Mr. Chief Justice, in connection with some re- marks brought out by the Honorable Mr. Redfield regarding the development of the market for fish in the United States farther West — such as in St.. Louis and Pittsburgh, is it not a fact that the development has taken place within the last three years, and is it not a fact that that development has taken place through the efforts of the United States Government departments in advertising or in other methods of encouraging the consumption of fish as a food? Secretaiy Eedfield. That is very largely true, Mr. Brittain, There are some concerns in the fresh fish business that have shown a gi'eat deal of enterprise — have sent their men — have known how to en- list the women's organizations in their behalf and taken it up in a thoroughly intelligent way. I am speaking of fresh fish. At the same time I do not think that has been anything like as widespread as it is possible it might be. Whereas Dr. Smith's service has been extremely active but with very small means, and when I speak of what has been done inducing the people to use fish, the sum he had to work with over a period of two years was $25,000. It was largely the work of the man in the field. It was tactfully dene — for in- stance we would furnish placards and posters bearing the Govern- ment name which we would supply to a town in recommending cer- tain fish food, furnish a cookbook published by the United States Government in which women of prominence would contribute recipes — I know that my wife and the wife of the Postmaster Gen- eral furnished recipes — the articles were taken to the university — teachers of household economics — and given to people to eat there. The fish dealers were encouraged in the use of canned goods by AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 321 allowing the use of a Government label stating that this article is approved by the United States Bureau of Fisheries. They used the label and kept the price down and the quality up. It worked to the extent that we put on the market an entirely unused food. As to the grey fish, we had one order for 43 carloads, which for lack of cans we could not fill. . . Mr. Bbittaix. I wanted to get back again to the question of m- creased production. I personally have always felt that the soft pedal has been on the production end, owing to the fact that we did not have sufficient markets, and the individual firms did not have the public sufficiently interested in fish as a food to enable us to in- crease our equipment and our supply. There is no doubt that we can increase our supply to an extent unknown at the present day. (Conference adjourned to '2.30 p. m.) AFTERXOON SESSIOX. STATEMENT BY MR. HAVELOCK WILSON, CANADIAN INSPECTOR OF CURED FISH. By Chief Justice Hazex : Q. You are in inspector of the Dominion Government under the Cured Fish Inspection Act?— A. Yes. Q. Your business is fishing is it not ?— A. It was previous to my appointment. Q. That has been your business for many years?— A. les. Q. Have j^ou ever fished for shad? — A. Yes. Q. And have cured shad, have you? — A. Yes. Q. What is the state of the shad fishery to-day as compared with- some years ago?— A. I have not been at the shad fishing of late vears/but there are two gentlemen here in the room who would be able to tell you. My understanding is that the shad fishery is about extinct here. Q. Has it been getting less of late years?— A. Every year it has Sfotten less. Q. Are there any shad U23 at the head of the Bay?— A. I have not seen anv up there. Q. If it goes on at the present ratio of decrease it means the nnal wiping out of the industry?— A. That is the feeling among the fishermen. Q. What is the feeling among the fishermen as to the steps to be taken to preserve the industry?— A. Those that have expressed themselves to me say that the fishing on the St. John Eiver up on the spawning grounds is the means of ruining the fishing, and of late years they have been allowing them to catch the come back shad— those that have been up and have spawned. A few years ago thev were not allowed to catch them. Q. They are caught probably outside by drifting?— A. In the har- bor bv weirs and drifters. Q. "For instance the fishermen at Pisarinco drift for shad, but they drift in the harbor also.— A. Yes. sir. and on the St. John Eiver as ■vYell — they have set nets and they drift for them as well. .519.50—18 21 322 AMEEICAN-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFERElSrCE. Q. You are s]Deaking from the standpoint of the harbor fishermen, and you sa}'' their idea is that the catching of shad should be stopped on the river? — A. On- the spawning grounds. Q. Where are the spawning grounds — on the Kennebecasis? — A. One man tokl uu^ this morning he thinks above the head of the reach. Q. They go up the Kennebecasis and the Washademoak ? — A. I think they do, but that would be above the head of the reach. Q. You would not suggest the prohibiting of catching them for a certain number of years. I understand in the Ignited States they restored the industry in that way. — A. I would be of the opinion that if they were stopped for a few yeai-s. or stopped on the spawning groundo, it Vt^ould rejdenish the fishery. Q. If you allowed the catching to go on around the harbor and the coast, if the fishing were prohibited on the spawning grounds, do you think that would be sufficient? — A. I do not know — the fisher- men themselves would be apt to know more about that. I have been out of it for four or five years. Q. You do not do any vessel fishing, do you ? — A. I have done it, 3^es. Q. Where have you fished with a vessel i! — xV. Down around Grand Manan. Q. You never Avent to the banks, did you? — A. No, nothing but that. By Secretary Hedfield : Q. What time do shad run here?— A. About the 10th of May wdien they start. Q. Are they caught b}'- pound nets or fixed weirs? — A. In our har- bor by Aveirs and drift nets. Secretary Eedfield. We had a rather interesting experience in that connection in the Potomac Kiver. Two years ago this coming spring v.-e got rather less than twenty million eggs at our hatchery and were considering the question of closing it. We found doAvn in Chesa- peake Bay that the weirs — the nets were so close together that they were like the teeth of a fine-tooth comb everywhere. We had no authority in our department to take those nets aAvay, but the War Department had authority to remove obstructions to navigation. We got an engineer who had vision enough to see that they ob- structed navigation. He cut 1.200 feet and 800 feet passages through them. The next year we got seventy million eggs in the hatchery, and the second year the small fishermen up on the Potomac Kiver, I think in eight weeks or thereabouts, on an investment of $150 to $200, made $750 to $1,100 as the result of one year's catch. Chief Justice IiA.zEN. The trouble with our fish hatchery here is to get sufficient eggs. They are a very delicate fish and you have to get your fish hatchery close to the spawning beds or j^ou are apt to kill them in handling them. By Dr. Smith : Q. What proportion of the total shad catch is taken in salt water and what proportion in fresh water? — A. I could not tell you. Mr. Brittain would be more apt to know about that. AMEEICAN-CAl^ADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 323 By Secretary Eedfield : Q. What are your duties as fish inspector, Mr. Wilson?— A. The act is not compulsory at the present time, but chiefly branding ale- -wives— inspecting and branding alewives— last year I only branded about 3,000 barrels. STATEMENT BY MR. HARRY BELYEA, FISHERMAN, OF ST. JOHN. By Mr. Found : Q. To what comparative extent are shad caught in the bay and in the weirs in the harbor as compared with the Upper St. John?— A. I am not in a position to say ; while I am a harbor fisherman, we fish weirs principally — we do' not catch very many shad in our weirs. Mr. Wilson can tell you with regard to above the falls and Mr. Leonard can give you any information about the harbor and outside fishing. . ,. . . . ^ Q. Would it be possible to prohibit the catchnig ot shad m the harbor where these weirs are operated? Could shad caught in these weirs be liberated alive ?— A. I do not believe it. Q. Are you familiar with the drifting out m the harbor? — A. i es. Q. What mesh of nets are used? — A. About S^-inch mesh. Q. And you are using these at a time when salmon are running?— A. Yes. Q. And fishing for shad or salmon ?— A. Well, shad. Q. You get some salmon? — A. An odd one. Q. If fishing for shad were prevented it would not be a hardship on the salmon fishing?— A. I don't really think it would. All the shad caught in the harbor of St. John these last few years put to- gether would not be a very big parcel. Shad fishing m my time has become almost extinct. Q. How many men are engaged in drifting for shad ^— A. in the harbor of St. John I would say 100 at the outside. Q. During what length of time— what portion of the year?— A. They start the 10th of May and end about the 24th of May. It is iust a short season. n ^ i ^ ^^ Q. You have not got figures as to the total catch of shad by these people here ? — A. No, I would not have. By Dr. Smith : Q. You require a particular kind of net?— A. Yes, sir. Q. If prevented from shad fishing that net would be of no use m any other branch?— A. Of no use. By Secretary Eedfield : Q. How expensive is it?— A. The shad nets used for drifting in the harbor would stand $30 or $35 a web. Q. That is the length of those nets?— A. They run about 20 pounds — 220 yard webs. . Q. What is the mesh?— A. About 51. These weirs that we have reference to— in some places they may affect the shad fishing, but these weirs in the harbor are built on the shore— the law calls for inside of low water mark. Our weirs are not outside very ft-r— the law would not allow us. 324 AMERICAIn -CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEBEI^rOE. By Mr. Found: Q. You said these nets used for drifting for shad are not used for any other kind of fishing — hoAv about drifting for salmon? — A. We use a different twine aUogether. The only way Ave catch a salmon in the shad nets is if he gets this fine web in his teeth — we then over- haul the net and get him quick enough. Q. Are you familiar with conditions on the Petitcodiac? — A. No. Q. The reason I ask is that up in that part of the country we have the greatest difficulty possible in preventing fishing salmon with shad nets under the cloak of shad fishing.- — A. A man who fishes shad in the harbor, if he caught ten salmon in a shad net in the course of a season fishing for shad he would consider he was doing very well. By Dr. Smith : Q. What was the average catch of shad per net last season? — A. I would say about ten hundred — I was not fishing shad myself. By Secretary Redfield: Q. How long is the season? — A. Tavo or three Aveeks is the limit. By Mr. Found: Q. It would be a perfectly feasible proposition to prohibit shad drifting, but it avouIcI be a difficult matter to prohibit the capture of shad in weirs ? — A. Practically speaking, the shad fishing done in the Aveirs amounts to nothing. For instance, I have tAvo weirs — if I get 300 shad I Avould be doing Avell. They are not constructed for that purpose. By Dr. Smith: Q. What is the principal fish taken in the Aveirs? — A. Gaspereau or alewives. By Mr. Found : Q. The difficulty is that if shad fishing is prohibited in other Avays, these feAv shad caught in the weirs could not be put on the markets. — A. It Avould be an impossibility to liberate a shad from the Aveirs. A shad will not stand any handling and live. I have seen at neap tides a shad left in three feet of Avater. Before the next tide they Avould turn red around the gills and head — they practically die. These same boxes that we put 50 salmon in to keep them, if you put one shad in there the next day he is keeled over. They won't stand confinement or handling. They are not ready to spawn Avhen Ave get them. Q. The total quantity of shad caught in New Brunswick last year Avas 3,287 pounds in Aveight.^ — A. I don't really see that it Avould cut much figure if they Avere prohibited for a feAv years. It Avould be a benefit. We haA^e never seen any real benefit from this shad hatchery yet in this part of the country. They haA^e been catching these shad on the spawning ground principally. Those shad they catch there are these female shad Avhich are full of roe. A large percentage of those we get here are buck shad. We Avant to save those on the spaA\'ning ground. They have been around there catching shad after they have spaAvned — they catch them coming doAvn. They are not a A^ery nice fish. They split them and salt them. They are very white looking after they are salted. AMEBIC AN-CAIfADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 325 By Dr. Smith: Q. ^YhJ do you not catch the female shad? — A. There does not seem to be the percentage of them. We catch a large percentage of male shad. Whether they get by or how they arrive there I don't know. I have only drifted for them in the harbor and what we get in the weirs. STATEMENT BY ROBERT E. WILSON, FISHERMAN, OF ST. JOHN. By Mr. Found: Q. You have been working in connection with the hatchery during the last year or so? — A. Yes; I have caught shad for Mr. Walker at Darling's lake and in the Washademoak. Q. You have been fishing up river on what have been referred to here as the spawning grounds for some years past ? — A. Yes. Q. What are your catches up there each year per net? — A. The last year I was up about 1.600 and some odd shad for 12 days — we had 500 and some odd in one night. Q. Were any other fish caught during the time you were fishing .for shad? — A. We caught two salmon in that time. Q. Is there am^ shad fishing carried on later on in the season — ostensibly shad fishing when salmon are fished for ? — A. Xo ; the onl}^ thing is they fish them as long as they get one — they do both farm- ing and fishing. Q. How many people engage usually in shad fishing during the spring season ? — A. The way to find out is to find how many farmers there are from the head of the falls to Fredericton. Every farmer has a net or so. Q. Each one drifting? — A. All set — no drifting on the St. John Kiver. Q. So the fact of the matter is that it is not a very important mat- ter to anyone at the present time — the shad fishery? — A. No. only of course there are a good many fishermen making a good dollar out of it. Last year was a poor year, but I think we fished 250 or 300 for the short season. As far as stopping the shad fishing. I think below the falls it does not matter. It is the roe shad they catch up there — we cannot catch them here — we only fish 5^ nets — we get the buck shad here. The nets up there lay in the bottom and those big shad drift in them. Q. Are you a land owner up the river ? — A. Xo. I belong in the city. It would be a good thing if something were done on the spawn- ing grounds from the reach up that would do away with those fish that destroy the shad. The eggs come up and go along the shores sometimes an inch thick all over the shores, and there are millions of ruined eggs. The shad that die drop out of the net and in nine days' time then come up. In the Washademoak Lake I would say there would be 50 of those short nets — after they are fished a couple of weeks you see those big shad come up. The reason the hatchery could not get the amount of eggs, a shad meshed in the net the eels eat him — if a shad dies the eels won't bother him. By Dr. Smith: Q. When are these nets fished? — A. Fished all at night time. Q. Visited at night or only the next morning?- -A. All night, 326 AMEBIC AN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. about every two hours. At one time I got 500 shad and loaded a 17-foot skiif boat, and I think down here you would have to take 1,200 or 1,500 shad to load it. We barreled them up and delivered them — over half a barrel of ripe spawn ran out of these. By Mr. Found : Q. They would not exude good fertile eggs at the moment you caught them? — A. That is, if the hatchery had been right there — I have caught 200 shad one night and got 58 spawn out of them. Q. Was that your experience generally? — A. I examined every one — I only got 10 cents apiece for each shad — ^buck and roe. Q. That was a high percentage of spawning shad to find? — A. That was a very good run that night. By Dr. Smith : Q. What is the largest number of eggs taken at the hatchery in any (me season ? — A. I couldn't exactly say — I think it was a little over a million one year and not quite a million another year. Q. All of our eggs at all of the hatcheries we operate are obtained from the fishermen. We have the spawn takers who visit the fisher- men when attending their nets and our own men take the eggs and^ fertilize them and pay the fishermen $20 a million for the eggs. When the eggs are taken from a fine roe shad it somewhat impairs its sale value and in order to keep on the good side of the fishermen and encoui'age them we pay them foi' the good eggs which we obtain from them. — A. Sixty thousand is about the average of a shad that is a good spawner. Q. They run all the way from ten to ninety thousand, and prob- ably woiild average 30,000 in the Potomac River. — A. You get a shad that is ready to sj^awn — if you get all the eggs you get about 60,000. Q. Is most fishing clone at the spawning grounds? — A. Yes; the biggest part of it. Q. Is a million eggs or so the largest number taken in any one year for the hatchery? — A. I think there Avas one year it ran a million or a little more. Q. Are the fishermen paid anything for the eggs ? — A. Ten cents a shad. I was offered 25 cents the last year. Q. Are the eggs collected by people from the hatchery ? — A. I got 5 cents more for squeezing my own shad. Q. Would the fishermen up the river know how to take and fer- tilize eggs? — A. No; it was something neAV to them. I had to have my own ponds. You can pretty nearly tell once 3'OU put the fer- tilizer and the water on them — the bad eggs turn white and float up. [See Exhibit Y (page 382), order in council snliseqiiently passed estal)lish- ing closed season for shad iu Kay of ^'iiiidy. | STATEMENT BY MR. WALTER LEONARD, PRESIDENT OF THE LEONARD FISHERIES CO., ST. JOHN. By Chief Justice Hazen : Q. You live in St. John? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the fishing company you are connected with ? — A. The Leonard Fisheries Co. Q. Are jou an officer in that company? — Jl. I am president. Q. That company has an office in Montreal ? — A. Yes. AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX TISHEEIES CONFERENCE, 327 Q. And an office in Digby? — A. Hawksbury, Canso, and Halifax. Q. How long have you been engaged in the fishing business? — A. I am about out of it. I have not taken much interest these last years, but as far as shad are concerned I consider them about extinct. We can not get enough for the local trade, let alone shipping them. Q. They can hardly be considered from a commercial stand- point? — A. No. Q. Would you be in fa's or of absolutely prohibiting the catching of sliad for a number of years? — A. I certainly Avould be. Q. Do you know of any other measure that might be taken to prevent the total destruction? — A. No. I have never taken any great interest in them. I think our friend Cr.lder, also Mr. Brittain, would be pretty familiar with the shad i^art of it. Q. You own vessels, do you, in your company? — A. Not at the present time. There are smacks and small vessels for collecting fish. Q. Do you do any business with the American market? — A. In some branches we do, sir. Q. Have you in the past? — A. More or less for many years. Q. What fish have you been selling in the United States' market? — A. Late years? Q. Yes?. — A. Since we amalgamated with the different concerns — it has been only about a little over a year. Some sections — take the western United States — we send quite a few smoked fish, hadclies, there. Q. These fish are dutiable in the United States? — A. Yes, the baddies are. Q. Has your attention been called. Mr. Leonard, to the restric- tions that are imposed on Canadian fishing vessels going into the United States? — A. Only Avhat we have read, sir. Q. You are aware that a Canadian vessel can not take its cargo direct to the United States. It has to go to a Canadian port first and then either transfer its load to a merchant vessel or itself get registered as a merchant vessel? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And a Canadian fishing- vessel can not clear for the fishing grounds direct from an American port, but has to come to a Cana- dian port first and take its clearance from t]\ere? — A. Yes, sir: I understand. Q. From your experience in the fishing business would you re- gard it as an advantage not to have those restrictions? — A^. There is no doubt about it. Q. The advantage would be that the vessels could get to the fish- ing grounds more quickly and catch more fish. — A. Yes, sir. Q. Consequently there 'would be a saving of expense? — A. I think Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brittain covered that pretty well. _ Q. There is nothing that you would care to add to that ? — A. No. sir. Q. You say that they covered that pretty well. Are you in accord with their views? — A. I am, sir. Q. Do you also agree with their views with regard to the using: of Canadian ports by American vessels? — A. In a thing of this kind it is necessary to give and take. Q. Would you think it was a pretty fair arrangement if in ex- change for allowing Americans to use our ports in the way we have 328 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. talked about today, thej' were to give us access to their markets by removing the disabilities that exist at the present time? Would that be a fair arrangement ? — A. I think so, sir. Q. Are you engaged in lobster fishing at all, Mr. Leonard? — A. No, sir. Q. You know that the lobster fishing has fallen off* a great deal of late years? — A. I have no doubt of that, sir. Q. Would you suggest any remedy for that state of affairs? — A. I thought that idea that you threw out before we went to lunch a good one, to close the whole business for two or three years not only in Canada, but in the United States. Q. What I suggested Avas that nobody should be allowed to catch lobsters or to have them in their possession that were less than 10^ inches in length. With that was involved the closing of the lob- ster canneries along the coast from Halifax this way. — A. That "U'Ould leave a very small percentage to be caught. Q. It would at first, but they would grow? — A. Xo doubt. Q. Do you think that would be an effective way of dealing with the matter? — A. I think that wouhl be feasible. Q. There are parts of the coast where you could not do that, but on the Nova Scotia coast they can send their fish fresh. — A. How would it do to can those large ones? Q. Would you advocate letting them can, 1)ut catch nothing but those 104^ inches and over? — A. Yes. Q. In Charlotte County the law is nothing caught less than 10^} inches. The fishermen find it pays thein better to send them fresh to the markets. In St. John County the size is 9 inches, and no lobster is admitted to the Boston market less than that size. There are no canneries here because there is a good market for all fresh fish. — A. Of course the Boston market would prohibit that, anyway. Q. In the State of Maine they are not allowed to catch lobsters less than 104 inches, and I understand the fishermen there are all in favor of maintaining that for the reason that a 10^-inch lobster is a better fish than a 9 inch one. and it also deposits more eggs. The result is it keeps up the business better. Is there anything you would like to say, Mr. Leonard, with regard to this? — A. No, sir; I don't know very much about this lobster end of it. Q. About our relations with the United States with regard to fisheries? — A. As I told you before. I thought Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brittain covered that pretty well. By Secretary Eedfield. : Q. I would like to ask if you in your operations have ever run across a law of the United States which requires a Canadian vessel wdiich passes through the territorial waters of the United States to register at the customhouse of the first port she enters? — A. No; I don't know of it, sir. Q. (To Mr. Brittain.) Do you know that. Mr. Brittain. in your operations? — A. We did have some trouble a few years ago sending fi trawler into New York. Q. She ])robably i-an through Long Island Sound. Q. (To Mr. Gardner.) Mr. Gardner, have you ever had occasion to run up against that? — A. No; I don't think so, sir. Secretary Redfield. It is an old law passed in 1840 somewhere, in- tended to prevent smuggling, but it happens to be the law which is AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. 329 utilized in Alaska to-day under which Canadian vessels coming up the inside passage, which the^^ practically are obliged to do there, have to go into the American port of Ketchikan and register and take a clear- ance to any port they want. We had supposed that law was prac- tically a dead law upon the Atlantic coast, but on inquiry at the city of Portland, which a Canadian vessel might conceivably enter from the eastward bj^ going into Gasco Bay. we found there were some 30 or 40 occasions in a year where a Canadian vessel has to go through that performance. She reports herself and goes away again, but she has got to go through that performance. Mr. Leonard. That would be too slow for the fish business. Mr. Calder called (not present). Mr. Gardner. One of the arguments put up was to the effect that our accommodations for the crews were made in tiers of three or more berths, and therefore that Ave took up very much less room than the American vessels did for the accommodation of the crews, which gave us very much more space for the cargo and therefore that we could accuniulate and get a larger cargo than American vessels. I would like to deny that. The accommodations are exactly on the same basis as our American friends' are. Secretary Redfield. How are they arranged ? Mr. Gardner. Two berths high, with a bunker as we call it along the side. Chief Justice Hazen. Is there any provision for hospital accommo- dation ? Mr. Gardner. Nothing further than that each vessel carries a medicine chest, and I think that there is something laid down in the law^s as to what this medicine chest must contain. Chief Justice Hazen. No place set apart where an ill man may be placed ? Mr. Gardner. No. Secretary Redfield. Have you a law providing a certain number of cubic feet per man in the sleeping quarters^ Mr. Gardner. I do not know that there is any law making us have it, but I think that we have plenty of space. I am sure if you went into one of those vessels and saw the space provided you would find we were providing the same amount of space. Probably we have caught it from the x\.merican accommodation. Generally 8 men are accommodated in what we call the cabin and 12 in the fore- castle, and they seem to be very spacious quarters and plenty of accommodation. Secretary Redfield. It is a matter covered by the seamen's law of the United States. In that law we prohibit them from accommodating- seamen more than two berths high. A great many of the merchant vessels are more than three high, and the lake vessels. Mr. Qligley. Our seamen's law, however, in this particular does not apply to boats of less than 100 tons, and only to those over that tonnage constructed after the passage of the seamen's act. Secretary Redfield (to Mr. Benjamin Smith). Mr. Smith, have jou supplied bait from Gloucester to Canadian points? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Tell us what your experience in supi)lying bait has been — how it came about and the extent to which you have done it and where ? — A. We accumulate a lot of fish in July since we have the cold 330 AMEElCAN-CAlsrADIAN FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. storages in Provincetown and Gloucester, and when bait is scarce in NeAvfoiindland or when the Lunenburg fleet want to fit out their bankers, if they are a little short of herring bait which they used to use, they generally secure it from Provincetown or Gloucester. I have shippecl it down to Newfoundland and I think I have shipped it down to Lunenburg. I have sent a cargo down to Newfoundland of two or three hundred thousand pounds — only to fit out the first bankers about this time of j^ear. We have three bankers now fitting out, and we have a vessel loading in Gloucester. That is frozen squid we send down to them. We have also supplied the French at St. Pierre from our cold storage. We sent half a million pounds down one year when bait happened to be scarce in the early part of the 3^ear. Q. Is this bait that you speak of squid ? — A. Yes, sir. I sent some herring down to Newfoundland three years ago that I secured on the Pacific coast — frozen herring — thirty or forty thousand pounds. Q. On this matter of accommodations that Mr. Gardner kindly tolcl us about, are j'our vessels equipped two high? — A. Yes, sir; practically no difference between our bankers as far as equipment goes. Our beam trawlers — I do not know what the point was about being three high. Q. It is forbidden by the seamen's law in the United States to- accommodate seamen more than two high in vessels built after the passing of the law, of more than 100 tons; there is some question as to whether that is not retroactive. Mr. QuiGLEY. The only time it came up in court was in the South- ern District of New York, and the court sustained our view that it was not retroactive. By Secretary Redfield. Q. After the passage of that act j^ou v>'ould have to alter the accom- modations? — A. I do not remember ever seeing fishing vessels n.iore than two high. Q. I would like to ask Mr. Wilson as to the custom in Halifax? — A. None of the fishing vessels of Nova Scotia of 100 tons or more have the berths more than two high. Some of the boats are too cramped for more than two. LTsuall}- there is a boot locker in addi- tion, or the space is used for storage purposes if it is more than two high — in the nature of a shelf or rack. STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN F. CALDES, INSPECTOE OF FISHEEIES. By Chief Justice Hazen : Q. You are inspector of fisheries for this district, Mr. Calder? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You were here this morning when there was some discussion about the lobster regulations, I think ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. From your own experience are the lobsters increasing or de- creasing along the coast of the maritime provinces? — A. Decreasing. Q. Are they increasing or decreasing along the coast of Maine? — A. Decreasing. Q. Are they decreasing in Charlotte County ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Has there been any improvement in the state of affairs in St. John County since all canning vs'-as stopped in those counties and the AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEKENCE. 331 size limit was fixed at 10| inches in Charlotte and 9^ inches in St. John County? — A. My answer would be this: That for the second year after the law was passed there was a marked improA'ement. Un- fortunately, on my oayu recommendation — I will assume full respon- sibility — the open season was made too long; therefore, we are not getting the full benefit from a IQi-inch law for the proper open season. The first season we knocked off 9-inch lobsters was 1909, and it stands to reason the catch fell off. The following year, when those lobsters not taken that year arrived at 10-J- inches, the fishing in- creased wonderfully, and it looked to me at that time as if it was going to continue to do so. Unfortunately, that year we took too many, and each succeeding j^ear, to the extent that our fisheries are not holding out. Q,. What do you say is the best limit? — A. Ten and one-half inches. Witli regard to the Maine coast, there is a reason which is apparent why their fisheries can stand a longer open season than ours. During the winter and spring months their smacks go down here and pur- chase lobsters. They take them home and put them in their pounds. They select the lobsters in which berries are shown during the sum- mer, and these are sent to the hatcheries. As a result of that the Maine coast gets the benefit of their own berry lobsters and a large portion of the lolisters from the maritime provinces. Q. How do they get those lobsters? — A. With well smacks. Q. What are they doing at that season of the year? — ^A. Going for the purpose of buying lobsters for the pounds. Q. During the open season ? — ^A. During our open season — putting them in their retaining pounds. At the proper time in a large num- ber of cases the female lobsters exude spawn. Q. Are there many of these retaining pounds in the State of Maine ? — A. I have not the figures before me but from my own knowl- edge I would say, offhand, a dozen. Q. Even with that you say the lobster fishing in the State of Maine is falling off? — A. Yes. My opinion is that the season is too long. Their season is practicall}^ the year round. Ours is too long. Q. How long is j^ours? — A. In the county of Charlotte from the loth day of November to the 1st day of June. I have been a great advocate of the 10|-inch size limit. I am yet, but I have recently ar- rived at the conclusion that the best thing to do is to have the 9-inch size limit — the size limit in Massachusetts — westward from Canso, Nova Scotia, but to protect the lobsters by a very short open season. For instance, allow fishing for lobsters from December 15 to April 15, on our coasts. That would confine the fishing to a period when there is practically no other fishing to be done — at a time when the lobsters can be best handled, at a time when they are needed the most as an article of food. I will admit that I have always recommended 10|-inch size limit, but if you are going to have a uniform regulation I would suggest that it be the 9 inches. By Secretary Eedfield : Q. But you couple with the 9 inches the short season ; you would not approve one without the other? — A. No, sir. By Chief Justice Hazen : Q. Would you believe in a maximum size for lobsters ? — A. No, sir. The larger the lobster the more spawn they carry. It seems to me 332 AMEEICAlSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. that part of the question would look after itself. I think the great protection is the short season. Q. You speak of an open season from December to April. Would you have a uniform open season clear from Halifax around the coast, including Charlotte County? — A. I would. Q. At the present time the seasons are different ? — A. In St. John and Charlotte Counties. While the uniform season may bear a little hard on some little locality, as you well said this morning, you have got to consider the fishery as an entirety — if you are going to do anything for the conservation of the lobster industry you have got to make a workable law which applies to all sections. Q. Why is it not possible to have the open season different — that out from Halifax one season and Charlotte and St. John another — why is that not possible ? — A. It would be possible. Q. What is the advantae of having it just one season? — A. The advantage is this: it is easier to enforce the regulations because of the simplicity of the thing. Q. Do you think it would be easier to enforce the law and more effective if the laws in the States that produce lobsters along the Atlantic seaboards were made similar to ours? — A. Decidedlj^ so. Our great trouble in Charlotte County is that it is situated close to the United States border and it is pretty hard to watch people all the time. Frequently they succeed in getting small lobsters across and shipped through to Massachusetts. That is one of the reasons why I advocated a 9-inch size — the general market in the Ignited States demands a 9-inch lobster. Q. In your opinion, if there was a 9-inch law applying to the lobster States and to Canada, and if there was a season of four months in both countries. Would that lead to a restoration of the lobster fishery? Would it prevent its destruction aiid cause it to increase? — A. In my opinion it would. Q. Suppose you make the size 10^ inches. Suppose they pass a law in Boston that no lobster of less than 10^ inches shall come in. Suppose that we pass laws preventing the catching of lobsters of less than 10^ inches, in a j^ear or two what do you think the effect of that would be? — A. Why, a decided improvement. Q. And would make the industry much more profitable ? — A. That would really be very much better than the 9-inch size, considering only the fishery. Q. You were bearing in mind that the 9-inch size was the size demanded in the Boston market? — A. And public opinion as well as conservation of the fishery, and the law which would not meet with too much public disapproval. Q. And you think it easier to get for 9 inches than 10|^ ? — A. I do — coupled wdth a short season. Q. Unless some measure of that sort is adopted, what is going to be the fate of the lobster industry? — A. It will be practically exter- minated. Q. It is a question of allowing the industry to be destroyed or l)assing drastic laws to regulate it — we are up against that proposi- tion? — A. Yes. Q. We have had some discussion with regard to the shad fishery. What is the condition of the shad fishery in the Bay of Fundy? — AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 333 A. Very much the same as the lobster fishery — not very much the same ; decidedly worse. Q. Is there danger of the shad reaching the vanishmg point in a feAv 3^ears? — A. They have reached such a point now; there is danger of their reaching the vanishing point very soon. Q. I presume as a fishery officer you have been giving consideration to the matter. What would your suggestion be as to a proper step to take to protect the shad fishery? — A. I would suggest first that you have a close season for at least three j^ears. At the end of three years the season could be extended still further, if necessary. It would be quite hard. I admit, on some people right on the St. John River who would be prevented from taking shad this year, the next year, and the following year. The fourth year they might be able to take as much as they would now, and the fishery would be in better condition. Q. Some evidence was given here this afternoon by gentlemen who catch shad, who are of opinion that if there was a close season up the river in the waters Avhere the shad resorts to deposit its spawn, that might answer the purpose? — A. That would answer a certain pur- pose. Q. Would it be as effective as a total prohibition? — A. No, because the ones j^ou take in the harbor and on the way up would never reach the spawning grounds. Q. What is the close season? — A. Six o'clock Saturday night to sunrise Monday morning. The number of shad taken averages about 40,000 a year. Q. Is that decreasing? — A. It decreased last year. Three years ago was one of the best years we have had in five or six years. They make their first appearance from the 6th to the 10th of June, going up the river. Q. There used to be a lot of shad caught up at the other end of the Bay of Fundy. Are there any caught there now ? — A. No, not to any extent ; very few caught there now. Q. To what do you attribute the falling off in the number of shad? — A. Excessive fishing. Q. Anj^ other cause? — A. No; I am not a scientist or a chemist. I can not tell whether it is due to pollution of the waters or not. Q. Did you ever hear that in the upper part of the bay it was caused b}^ sawdust going into the waters? — A. I have heard that. Those conditions do not obtain down here. I think most of that stuff is camouflage. The real reason is excessive fishing. Q. You believe that prohibition is the only Avay to deal with that? — A. Prohibition for a period of time. Q. Have you yourself engaged in deep-sea fishing? — A. I cer- tainh^ have in my younger days. Q. You are altogether out of the business now? — A. I have been out of it for 10 or 11 years. Q. You know of the American vessels coming into our ports under the modus vivencli licenses? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you consider that has been of advantage to the American vessel owners? — A. It has been an advantage to the American vessel owners. Q. When they come in do they buy bait in our ports?— A. Oh, yes; they buy bait if they take out a license. 334 AMEEICAN-CAlsrADIAN' FISHERIES CONFERENCE. Q. They must consider it an advantage or they would not pay $1.50 a ton? — A. I would presume so. Q. You think that right taken away would be to their disadvan- tage? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You have heard it stated here to-day that the Canadian vessels can not clear from the fishing grounds to Boston or to an American port, and that they can not clear from an American port direct to the fishing grounds. Do you regard that as a considerable disad- vantage to the Canadian vessel that wishes to take a catch into New England? — A. It is a certain disadvantage. It has been a complete prohibition of such being done and our people have considered it quite drastic, and without doubt the fishermen have put up with con- siderable loss and inconvenience on account of such a regulation. Q. If the people of the United States were willing to throw down the bars and allow our vessels to come in and out of their ports as their own vessels do, would you consider it would be a fair exchange to extend the rights of our ports to all vessels no matter how pro- pelled for a nominal amount or for no amount ? — -A. I certainly think it would be a fair, equitable, and just arrangement, and the amount we should charge should be nominal and better have nothing. Q. Your idea would be that that arrangement would be fair to the people of both countries? — A. It certainly would be. Q. Mutually advantageous ?^A. It would bring the question away back resting on the proper basis. If it is to the advantage of a par- ticular vessel or concern to sell to either one country or the other they would have an opportunity to do so, and it would bring it all back resting each case on its own merits without working any hard- ship or disadvantage to either side. Furthermore, it would help cement the friendly relations between the two countries. By Mr. Sweet: Q. You heard the talk this morning with regard to the increase in the American market for the consumption of fish and a campaign to make it larger? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it your opinion that the use of fish has been increased during the war throughout the United States and Canada?-— A. Oh, yes; decidedly so. Q. Recognizing the fact that fish is a good and. wholesome food, do you think that more people are now becoming accustomed to the use of fish as a permanent addition to the market? — A. Yes. Q. Along side by side with the increased demand for fish there will be a natural tendency to increase the supply ? — A. Fish is a good article of food. It is simply a question of bringing fish to the interior of your country, and once eating fish they would prefer it to a good many meats. It is more economical to eat fish at the present time- consequently I think the demand for fresh fish will be doubled in five years. Q. Taking that into consideration, would it not seem to you to be an added reason for the fishermen themselves engaged in the industry on either side to be rather liberal in their view than to be narrow? — A. I surely do, and there is every reason why they should be liberal and broad in their view. Q. And the change that is proposed on both sides that you have said you thought would be equitable would be in the nature of dimin- ishing waste energy, would it not? — A. Exactly so. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 335 Q. It would of itself have a tendency to considerably increase the supply of fish with the same amount of effort now made? — A. Yes. Q. You would avoid these voyag-es or trips? — A. You would get the maximum output with the minimum effort. Q. Has your attention been called to the question of fish spawned in a particular stream returning afterwards to that stream ? — A. No ; I have no information. My district is confined to the counties of St. John and Charlotte, and most of the spawning is in the counties after you pass St. John. Mr. Sweet. I would like to ask Dr. Smith if that is considered to be the rule now among scientific men? Dr. Smith. As with salmon so with shad. A fish which comes into existence in a certain stream and spends a certain part of its life there and goes back to the sea is likely to return to the stream of its origin; that does not necessarily imply any highly developed instinct of nativity on the part of the shad or salmon, but it does mean that there are certain natural laws operating on those fish when they come back from the sea to spawn, and a shad or salmon is mere than likely to go back to the stream in wdiich it was born than any other stream. That I believe is true of wild animals and birds. Chief Justice Hazen. We believe the salmon return here to the different rivers. Take the rivers flowing into the Bay Chaleur, the Metapedia, and others — ^the salmon in those rivers are all different one from the other. The universal belief is that the salmon always returns to the same river in which it was spawned. Mr. Sweet. I call attention to it not because of the shad part of this hearing having very much to do with the United States section of this conference. It seems to me to be rather a local question, but I think it is a very proper one to discuss. Secretary Redfield re- ferred to what has been done at Chesapeake Bay, and it occurred to me in connection with this it might not be harmful to call atten- tion to this — that whatever you mieht do in connection with protect- ing your shad mclustry you would get the benefit of it yourself almost wholly. By Dr. Smith : Q. We are very much interested in the lobster fisher3^ It is occa- sioning us much concern, and we are therefore desirous of having all possible information and all kinds of views as to what the situa- tion demands. I would therefore like to ask what you had par- ticularly in mind in advocating an open season for lobster fishing between December and April? — ^A. Of course, as far as the lobster fishery is concerned — if we had that only to consider, some other four months would do as well. I was taking the occuj)ation of the fishermen and the other branches of the fisheries into consideration as well. They have to make a living in their occupation — ^liave to catch certain fish certain seasons of the year when they are in the water. After the 1st of April trawl fishing begins and continues until the middle of December, when it practically ceases. The sardine weir fishermen in St. John and Charlotte Counties, their season closes about the 15th of December. To a greater or less ex- tent all the trawl and line fishermen are lobster fishermen. There- fore if you made a season which fitted in for the fishermen during the otherwise dull time, you get the same output of lobsters — give 336 AMEBICAX-CANADIAX FiSHEEIES CONFEEENCE, all the fishermen a chance to partake in the fishery — they take the lobsters when they are a good price, and therefore it is the best time of year to do it. Q. That might be the case on the coast of New Brunswick or Nova Scotia; it would hardly be the case on the coast of Maine? — A. As Chief Justice Hazen remarked, you should have a uniform length of close season or open season AAhich would afford the same protection. Q. Is it not conceivable that you uiight have a close season of four months during which there Avas no lobster fishing, and 3'et the activity of fishing at the end of that jDeriod might be such that all the good effects of the close season would be counteracted? — A. If ihe water is filled with traps as much fishing can be done in 2 months as in 10 months. You take the winter months; you can't fish every day. At the same time the men engaged woulcl get a good return for their labor. That is another reason why it should be confined to the winter. Q. The effect of this regulation or law would simply be to reduce the catch — the purpose of it would be? — A. As a protective measure to prevent you from taking more than your interest — to at least hold your principal with every prospect of your principal increasing. STATEMENT BY MR. JOHN JACKSON, FISH DEALER, ST. JOHN. By Chief Justice Hazex : Q. Mr. Jackson, j^ou are interested in the fisheries question? — A. If there is Sinj possible way this commission can bring about a code of laws which will remedy the difficulties we have had to contend with in the past, I think yon will fulfill a mission looked for for a long time. As you know. I am a business man in the town. I am a distributor of the cured commodity. In my younger days I did some fishing, but nothing that would throw light on the question. I am particularly interested in this grayfish issue. I think it is a commodity that can be put to good use. I think it is better than many of the table fish we are after to-day. I am sure the efforts put forth by the Americans to utilize this fish are very laudable. We spent quite a little bit of our time when last in Ottawa to see if something could not be done along these lines. I procured several specimens and put them up in fairly good shape, but I never knew anything about it until a man in Aberdeen, Scotland, apprised me of the fact that it had been advertised there. [Clipping from newspaper shown to the commission.] There was a letter which came along with that. In prewar days we did considerable business with this Aberdeen mei'chant and he brought to my attention the fact that they had been using this fish for a number of years. As you know, sir, when last in Ottawa it was suggested that $3,000 be set aside to experiment with this particular fish. I asked two or three of our New Brunswick canners and they told me there was no trouble at all in getting 2 or 3 tons of this variety, provided they got a suitable bonus. That was not the reason they did not put the stuff up. The main reason Ave did not procure a feAv tons of this stuff was that Ave could not secure the tin. The next reason Avas Ave could not secure labor and had not enough to fill the orders the AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEENCE. 337 firm had alread}' secured. But I really think there is a great future for our gTayfish or flake. Chief Justice Hazex. It is graviish by act of Parliament. Mr. Jacksox. This Aberdeen man tells me that this flake has been in constant use as long as he or his father can remember, and they consider it a delicaC}'. It is a splendid commodity and I think it is a shame it goes to waste. I think if our Canadian Government would give us a bonus on it we could produce hundreds of tons. Chief Justice Hazex. Do you think a bonus is necessary at the present high price of food ( There is no bonus in the United States. Mr. Jacksox. The United States, as I understand it, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in exploiting this commodity. Secretar}^ Redfield. ^ir. !Maddock was employed for six months at A small salarv. and at the end of six months we did not renew the em- ploA^nent. IVhile we are speaking of the subject, I think we regard the grayfish as one of the most useful fishe,s we have. Dr. Smith has gone over to get some grayfish leather that we have at the hotel. Glycerine is also obtainecl from the oils of the grayfish, glue is made from his tail and head, and what is left will make fertilizer, besides what you eat. The only trouble we have had is to get enough grayfish in the United States and enough tin. A concern in Balti- more bought 1,000 cases thinking they would last all season. They were gone in a week. To-day if we had the tin we would be hundreds of thousands of cans behind the demand for grayfish even. We spent $20,000 in a year in all wa^^s. You have canned grayfish, Mr. Smith? Capt. Bex.ta:m]x A. S^iith. Yes, sir; we could not get the fish. "\Ye started in with the price too low — one-half cent, three-fourths — at last we paid a cent a pound as they came out of the water. Speak- ing of the skins, we have a pile of dogfish skins and 30 or 40 barrels of dogfish eggs. Secretary Redfield. You consider it good property ? Capt. Bexjamix A. Smith. Yes, sir. Secretary Redfield. He is a useful animal. Pie has been a great curse to the water front of both countries, and now he is an asset. Mr. Jacksox. We had two canneries in Xew Brunswick putting- up this commodity as sea chicken — it sold in the West Indies at a fairly good price. The sardine business came in. I think that is one of the main reasons why they dropped several of these little issues. Secretary Redfield. A very interesting phase of the fisheries work in the.P'nitecl States and one quite capable of being taken up anywhere else is the development of fish as a source of leather supply. With the increase in leather prices it is necessary to look for an additional supply — it is perfectly hopeless to expect to get the leather from cattle!^ There are not enough cattle. There are three concerns I think tanning exclusively fish leathers in the L^nited States. Shark skins make a variety of 'leather suitable for traveling bags, etc. In the same way the porpoise and a number of other fishes, particularly the whale, are also providing leather. On the Pacific coast 3,000 square feet of leather has been procured from an 80-foot whale. His stomach, the lining of his abdomen and a portion of his mouth all make admirable leather. The Ocean 51950—18 22 338 AMEEICAJSr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, Tanning Co. lias sprung up in Pittsburgh, making its entire product from fish. That is certain to be one of the great products from the campaign. We think there will be fishes caught for leather Avhich otherwise would be neglected. Chief Justice Hazen. I want to ask 3^ou, Mr. Jackson, if you think it would be an arrangement fair and equitable to both — a fifty-fifty arrangement as expressed to us in the United States, if the United States Government would remove the restrictions that now exist against our fishing vessels using their ports in exchange for our ex- tending the privileges of our ports to all vessels, no matter how propelled, and of allowing them the right to sell^their fish in Canada, we having the right to sell fish in the United States — if you think that would be an arrangement fair and mutually to the advantage of both countries? Mr. Jackson. Surel3^ the sooner you can bring that about the better for both countries. I have not the shadow of a doubt about it. STATEMENT BY R. E. ARMSTRONG, SECRETARY OF ST. JOHN BOARD OF TRADE. Mr. Arjnistrong. Mr. Chief Justice and gentlemen, it is so long since I have had anything to do with the fishing business that there is ver}^ little information I could give you which would be of use. I took an active interest in the sardine fishing and in the general fisheries of Charlotte County when I Avas a resident of that com- munity, and I had the honor of occupying a position on the Sardine Fishery Commission of 1903, when the subject of the bearing of the sardine fisherj^ upon the larger herring fishery was considered, and as I recall the work that we did at that period and the evidence ad- duced, it was our impression that the sardine fisheries were not exercising the detrimental effect upon the larger herring alleged by some of the champions of the larger herring. Mr. Found was with us as a member of the commission and he entertains a lively recol- lection of all that happened. I had the pleasure of participating in the eating of grey fish on that commission. Samples of the grey fish were sul^mitted to us and we found them most excellent eating. Had I known that I was likely to be called upon I might have pulled my thoughts together a little better. I came here to be enlightened rather than to enlighten — therefore I have very little information. Chief Justice Hazen. We will meet here again to-morrow at 10.30 o'clock. Mr. Ferguson, chairman of the Board of Steamship In- spection at Ottawa, will give, evidence regarding the inpsection of ship's machinery, as a statement has been made before us at Washington to the effect that there was a difference in the inspection laws of "the two countries. Mr. Short, of the Maritime Fish Cor- poration, will also be here, and some other gentlemen. If anyone wishes to add anything to what they have said to us to-day we will be only too glad to hear them. It is our desire to get the fullest in- formation possible. We will be very glad if gentlemen who are here or who are not here, if anything of value occurs to them, if they will communicate it to us later on. Mr. Gardner. We all are aware of the fact that a greater pro- duction of fish is required. Might I ask Mr. Brittain or Mr, Smith AMERICAI^-CANADIAISr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 339 to answer these questions : Whether this will be produced by steam trawling vessels — we have not mentioned or taken into consideration probably what is known as the shore fisherman on the east of Nova Scotia or the Magdalen Islands where they catch herring — or will the greater fleet of the Americans or Canadians be of the sailing vessels which will use the herring for bait. The point is that if our 23orts are open for the American vessels to come in, and they are sailing vessels, it will be of great advantage to the shore fishermen who will sell bait. If they are steam trawlers which come in it will be an advantage to the merchant Avho may be able to supply them, or the machinist who may have to repair the engines. Chief Justice Hazen. Any arrangement made would apply to all vessels, whether steam or sailing vessels, and w^ould apply to the steam trawlers the same as to any other vessels. I understand you ask for an opinion from Mr. Brittain or Mr. Smith as to whether they think the trawler will ultimately take the place of the schooner. Mr. Bkittain. The mslj I figure it out at the present time we have n fleet of schooners at Lunenburg that are not what we call fishing enough. They are working from the middle of March until Sep- tember — then I understand some go into coasting and others pull in for the winter. I would be willing to make a deal with Mr. Smith's firm to put those vessels at fresh fishing and keep them at it, and take those 102 vessels and put them into the fresh-fish business and give us further production. I have always wondered why these Lunenburg vessels have not gone into fresh fishing in the winter time. Mr. Gardner. We find it too strenuous upon our vessels to operate in the winter time. The point of the matter w^as whether the vessel w^as going to be of a sailing type or steam trawler wdiich would not have to buy bait. There are hundreds of men along the Nova Scotia coast who catch herring and sell it to the Lunenburg fleet and others, and do a very profitabFe business. I was wondering if in your opin- ion the increased fleet would be composed of steam trawlers, which would not be of advantage to the herring fishermen, or if it would be composed of sailing vessels. Mr. Brittain. There is no doubt that the number of steam vessels will be largely increased. At the same time the sailing equipment which is now at Lunenburg and other places — there is no reason why it should not be kept in operation for 12 months. It is harder on your vessels, you say. We have our vessels out fresh fishing all the season. We change the sails to suit the weather. We will get our own skippers and crews if you will charter the vessels. (Conference adjourned to 10.30 Wednesday.) February 6, 1918. The conference resumed at 10.30 a. m. Chief Justice Hazen. I am very glad to see that we have with us the president of the Gloucester Board of Trade, Mr. Davis, whom we had the pleasure of meeting in Gloucester and who paid us a great deal of courtesy when we were in that city. The elements prevented Mr. Davis getting here yesterday. I might say to Mr. Davis that if there is anvthing he would like to ask any of the gentlemen who come 840 ' AMERrCAX-CANADJAX FTSHEETES COISTFEEENCE. before us this mornino- we will be very glad if he will avail himself of the opportunity. STATEMENT BY MR. H. E. SHORT, MARITIME FISH CORPORA- TION, DIGBY, N. S., MANAGER. By Chief Justice Hazen : Q. You are manager of the Maritime Fish Corporation of Digby, are you not ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Is Digby the head otiice? — A. The head oilice is in Montreal. Q. Where are your branches? — A. At Canso and Digby. Q. What sort of business do you carry on, Mr. Short? — A. All branches practically of the fish business — fresh, smoked, salted fish for our Canadian trade and export. Q. You own a fleet of boats yourself? — A. Yes, sir; Ave own ves- sels and operate them ourselves, and also a steam vessel. Q. How many vessels? — A. Just at the present two. Q. Are those 100-ton schooners? — A. Yes; about 100-ton schooners. Q. And in addition to that you own a steam trawler? — A, Yes; the Raindor. Q. How long have you had these schooners? — A. Seven years. Q. Were they new at the time you got them? — A. We had them built. Q. Whereabouts ?— A. At Shelburne. Q. Do you knoAV what price is paid to-day in Nova Scotia for 100- ton schooners with the spars ?^ — A. Of course prices are much higher in shipping than ever before. Schooners such as these of ours would cost to-day in the neighborhood of $18,000 to $^0,000. I think prob- ably our best schooner to-day would cost us $20,000 — a 100-ton schooner. Q. Does that include the hull and the spars? — A. That would in- clude the hull, spars, and rigging, but not her outfitting — dories and fishing gear — but including her sails. Q. We had it stated to us yesterday that there was a schooner under construction now in Nova Scotia — under contract — at a price of $22,000 that was for the hull and spars^ — that the contract was let now. — A. I would not be surprised at that at all. Q. We also have the statement made by Mr. Smith that the ves- sels built in Gloucester at the present time cost somewhat less than that. Do you know what is the life of one of those Nova Scotia schooners? — A. After 10 years they are beginning to show a great deal of weakness. They do not compare in so far as the life is con- cerned with an American schooner. Our material is not as good qual- ity. There is a great deal of oak in the construction of an American vessel, Q. It would be true to say, would it not, that the American schooner would be a cheaper schooner in the long run, if it cost the same amount as a Canadian schooner? — A. Yes; very much so under present conditions. The life of an American schooner at 20 years of age is equally as good as our schooners perhaps at 10. Q. At the present time, according to the evidence submitted to us yesterday, the Canadian schooner costs (juite as much as the Ameri- can schooner? — A. Quite as much. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 341 Q. Of your own knowledge do you kno^v that to be the case ? — A. 1 •can cite you a case of a schooner we now have under charter, built in Lunenburg County two years ago. This schooner is 100 tons. When we were negotiating for a charter for her last autumn a New^- foundland party was negotiating for the purchase of this vessel. They offered the owner $18,000 for this schooner of 100 tons, 2 years old this spring. He had made inquiries and found he could not get a schooner readj" for spring fishing and the cost would be about $22,000, so he concluded that he had better charter the vessel to us rattier than sell her for $18,000. That I know for an actual fact. We chartered the vessel and are operating her now. Q. W^hat would have to be paicl in the United States for a fishing schooner of 100 tons, built in the waj^ in which they are built in the United States? — A. I am not familiar w-ith that. I presume they could build a schooner for around from twenty to twenty-five thou- sand dollars at least, and it would be a very much better vessel. I do not know what the figures would be. I am interested in a small three-masted vessel we are building now for coasting — a vessel of about 350 tons. ^Ve assume that she is going to cost us from forty to forty-five thousand dollars. Q. In your opinion the American fisherman in competition with the Canadian fisherman would not be handicapped in consequence of the extra price he avouIcI have to pay for a vessel in the United States? — A. I can not see how he would, sir, at all. Q. Are you familiar with the system of paying the officers and men on board the sailing vessels ? — Yes, sir. Q. Will you tell us what wages they receive? — A. Our sailing A'essels are not under wages at all. They are on shares. The same system, I think, prevails in the United States. I do not think their crews are hired by the month — practically all fish on shares. The usual custom wath us is the vessel gets one-fifth of the stock and the fish, and out of the vessel's share of the fish we pay the captain his commission. The commission is 5 per cent usuall3^ Then the cap- tain gets a regular sliare with the crew" in addition to his 5 per cent. We have a trip in now of one of our schooners — just landing now — a trip of about $4,000. The captain will get $200 on that trip. In addition to that he will have his share — an average share with the crew. Q. How long w^ould that trip take ? — A. The vessel has been away since the 6th of January. These fish were all caught in two days last week. That is one of the ups and downs of the fishing business. Q. What do the crew get out of that — what would that amount to in dollars and cents in an average month? — A. Probably the crew on a trip like this will average $100 or $110 to a man. Q. And how many months in the year do you fish? — A. We fish the 12 months Q. Can 3^ou tell us how^ the earnings of the men on these fishing schooners sailing out of Canadian ports compare with the earnings of the seamen and captain on board fishing schooners sailing out, say from Gloucester? — A. In many cases it depends a great deal upon the skipper — whether he is a practical man or not. With a good skipper the crews will make just as good money as out of Gloucester. 342 AMEEICAN-CAlirADIAlSr FISHFEIES CONFEEENCE. Q. It depends upon the skipper I suppose — his knowledge of where to go and get fish and all that? — A. Yes; his knowledge of the business, and his push and ambition. The same thing applies with a fishing skipper as with a coasting skipper, taking advantage of the weather and all that. Q. But you feel safe in saying that under similar conditions as to skippers the crew on board a vessel sailing out of Digby or Canso will make just as good pay as the crews on board a Aessel sailing from Gloucester or any New England poi-t? — \. Just as good. We have two skippers Avith us who have sailed out of both places. The skipper on the vessel I speak of has sailed out of Boston for several years. He tells me he makes just as good money at home as he ever did in the United States. There is no reason why they should not; if our vessels work as hard as theirs they make as much money. Q. You think they work harder than you? — A. Sure, I do. Q. Calling attention to your trawler. Will you give us a state- ment of how the captain and men are paid on the trawler? — A. Those men are paid on a commission basis. Q. Are they paid entirely on a connnission basis? — A. Practically so — the crews, of course, get a small wage. Q. We are told in the United States that the officers on board the trawlers in Canada were better paid than officers on board trawlers in the United States, but that in the United States the men received to commence with $40 a month, and then they receive divided money among them of $7 a thousand on the catch ; and that in Canada they started with $30 a month and received $7 divided among them on the catch; so that practically the men on the Canadian trawlers received $10 a month less than the men on the American trawlers, presuming the catch of fish was the same. Do you know whether that is a correct statement of fact or not, as applies to Canadian trawlers? — A. No ; I don't. I haven't anything to do with the manag- ing of our travider at Canso. It is entirely handled from our branch there, but I do know that the men are perfectly satisfied, and I have always noted that the captains of the trawlers fishing out of Nova Scotia make better money than out of the United States. Q. That was the statement made to us — that the captains on our trawlers got more money but that the men did not get quite as much — started with $10 a month less. In each case there Avas a bonus of $7 a thousand pounds of catch of fish di^dded among the men? — A. I have understood that. Q. Do you pay a bonus ?^ — A. Oh, yes, Ave pay a commission. On the traAvler the creAv get so much per thousand. Q. HoAv much per thousand? — A. I could not tell 3^ou. Q. (To Mr. Brittain.) Do you knoAv how much per thousand? — A. Our crews on the Canadian traAvlers are worked on a different lay. They get their remuneration on the net stock. On the American coast they get it on the gross stock. Our men earn more money than the men on the American steam traAvlers — whether they earn it out of the commissions or the money — it is largely through the larger quantities of fish the}' catch in our bottoms in comparison Avith the American. Q. Have you any opportunty of comparing the sums of money received by American trawlers Avith that received b}^ the men on AMEEICAX-GAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 343 yor.r trawlers? — A. Xo, sir. We had an American travrler working for us last summer. An order in council allowing American trawlers to land in Xova Scotia was passed. This was on account of the shortage of supplies in the British market. Their captain on the boat workinrv for us was not a very highly paid oiiicial at all. I think he had $50 a month and a bonus — it amounted to about $200 a month. If our captains can not make nearly double that they are not satisfied. Q. Do you know v,hat supplies are furnisiied to the schooners and to the trawler? — A. Yes, sir; the very best we can purchase. Our lishennen are fastidious in theii' taste — tlie}' want the very best of everj^thing. They Avon't buy a fore quarter of beef — they must have the hind quarter. They have got to ha^c a cook who can put up the very best meal possible to serve. They won't have an ordinary man these days. Q. Mr. Shoi't, Avhere do you buy your supplies — do you buy them in Canada? — A. Practically so — except our fishing gear. Q. Do you buy beef in the United States? — A. Beef and pork are bought there. Q. Beef and pork I suppose are sta^^le articles on board? — A. Not so m.uch the beef as pork, because they use fresh beef. Q. And your men get the very best ? — A. The very best that the markets afford of everything. Q. Can you tell us how the prices that are paid for these articles would compare with prices paid for similar articles in the United States? — A. I do not think there is very much difference^ — they ma}' perhaps pay a. little more in the X'^nitecl States for fresh beef — their groceries are certainh- cheaper than with us — their fishing gear ought to be cheaper because Ave have to import it ail from the United States. Q. Does that include you.r nets and hooks? — A. We do not use nets, but the nets are all made in the United States. That includes the lines. The hooks are made in Scotland, but they are the same hooks that the American fishermen use. Q. With regard to your dories on your fif'ilng schooners — Avhere do you get them? — A. In Shelburne. Q. Y\"here are the dories for the American iishermen made? — A, A great man}' are made in Shelburne — a [-rent many of them 1 presunie are made in the United States. Q. Having regard to the first cost of your ship, to the wages that are paid, to the price paid for supplies and the nature of the supplies, and to the equipment, do you think that the American fishing- schooner owner is at any disadvantage in consequence of a larger price which he has to pay in doing business in competition with the Canadian fishermen? — A. I do not think so at all. The day was perhaps when he was, but not in these times — not within the last 10 years. We have been building the very best vessels the country could produce, designed by American designers and fitted up in the very best manner possible, during the last 10 years. Q. It would be true that — taking the year 1913— just previous to the outbreak of war — it would l^e true in that year, would it, that the Canadians were paying practically as much for their vessels, their supplies, and wages as were being paid in the ports of the United States? — A. Yes, sir. 344 AMERICAX-CANADIAN FISHERIE.S CONFERENCE. Q. There would not. in your opinion, bo any clanger of the Cana- dian lisheriuen. if there was an arran<»enient such as we have been talkino- about — no great i)robability that the Canadian fishermen would capture the markets because they wouhl be able to produce fish so much cheaper than the American fishermen? — xV. I can not see it at all. T do not s;ee why the Americans can not catch fish just as cheap as we can — in fact, they do. Q. Where do you sell youi- catch of fisli — in what markets at jii'es- ent? — A. The bulk of our fiesli fish goes to our home markets — we ship no fresh fish whatevei' to the Ignited States, and our salt fish practically goes to kSouth Amci'ica-lhe West Indies and South America — and the last few years we ha\e been shipping ;i good dctd to Europe. Q. That is voui- salt lisli nou ha\c b;'en shippina' to Europe? — A. Yes. Q. Are you shipping frozen fish to (ireal r>ritain now? — A. Some, yes. Q. In your oi)ini()n is that a trtule wliic'.i is likely to continue after the war? — A. I think so — I feel quite confident that it will. I be- lieve that our fish have a Aery good re])utation over there, proving that frozen fish can be exported to England and arrive in good con- dition, and I see no reason why we should not continue that market after the war is o^er. Q. Yon think, iherefore. that you are overcoming the prejudic? that I am tohl existed in England against frozen fish? — A. I believe ^ve are to a large extent. Q. That trade, you think, will continue aftei' the wai"!' — A. Yes. Q. Tfdving the Ctuiadian nuirket — to \Ahat parts of Canada do you seu.d your fresh fish? — A. Our fresh fish, of course, goes mostly to Quebec and Ontario. l)ut our smoked fish goes all o\'er Canada — to the coast. Q. How far \\est do you s{>nd fresh fish ? — -V. We \v,\.yo sent fresh fish to Winnipeg — some to Winnipeg — b'.it as a rule the bulk of our fresh fish goes to Montreal and Toronto. 0. You make regular shipmerits to those markets? — A. ^'es. sir. Q. Have you found the demand from those mai-kets increasing of late years? — A. Very largely increased — especially since the war and ^'specially in the last year, since the CoNermnent started the adver- tising i)ropaganda and inducing the people to eat more fish — the de- mand has increased \ery rapidly. Q. Are you able at the present time to in-oduce all the fish that the market demands? — -A. We would if weather conditions would ])ermit, but we have not by any mannei' of means this winter — we liave not produced anything like what the market demands. Q. Do you find it an advantage to use a trawler — that is^ so far as obtaining a regular supply of fish is concerned ?—x\. Yes, sir. There is not any qnestion that is the coming method of catching fish. Q. Because you catch the fish with more certainty and have them at your ports "more regularly? — A. You can depend on the arrival of the vessels more accurately. Q. If you are able to catch more fish than you are doing now, will there be any difficulty in finding a market in Canada? — A. No, T don't think so'. I think the market is here for us for a vei-y much AMERICAN-CANADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEEl^'CE, 345 larg-er amount than is being used now. AVe certainly would have no difficulty in finding a market in South America and the AYest Indies — that market will take unlimited qu.antities. Q. How about the fresh-fish market in the United States? — A. I have never considered that at all because we have done so little busi- ness with the United States in fresh fish — I have never given it an}' consideration. Q. "What is the reason you have not taken advantage of the free ndmission of fish into the American markets? — A. As a rule the prices would not allow us to. We have bought fish in the United States on several occasions. Years age I bought 4 carloads in Boston and brought them down to Nova Scotia and paid the duty. Q. Is the price of fish in the Canadian market higher than in the United States? — A. Yery often. Q. Yery often this is a much better market than the United States? — A. Yery often. In the particular case that I have referred to this is perhaps nine years ago. I bought four carloads of fish on T Wharf, in Boston — fresh haddock — at $1.25 a hundred pounds. The duty on them vras a cent a pound. We got a special freight rate of IT cents. We had a schooner landing at the same time, and the lish fi'om that cost us $2.75 as compared with $1.25, the price paid in Boston. That was nine 3'^ears ago. Conditions are different now. Q. As far your business is concerned, the admission of fish free into the United States market has not been any great benefit? — A. No, sir. We of course have sold some salt fish in the United States, but we never have sold fresh fish. Q. Do ,you do a regular business selling salt fish in the United States? — A. Not a regular business — we have sold none there this year. Q. When you sell them, how do you send them there? — A. We very often send them in bulk by schooner, or by Y'armouth day steamer. Q. What would the salt fish be — finnan haddie? — A. Salt cod — 2)ickled cod. Q. How does it happen you have sold none there this year? — A. We get a better market for it elsewhere. Q. Whereabouts? — A. In England. Q. Are you of opinion that the Canadian market for fish will go on developing and increasing? — A. I certainly think so. We have certainly got to substitute fish for some other foods if we are going to exist at all. Q. Y^ou mean that we can not hope for a large supply of meat? — ■ A. We must substitute fish, and our people are just beginning to realize that fish is a good article of diet, and in my opinion it is going to become a staple article of food just as much as meat is to-day. Q. Has your attention been called to the conditions under which Canadian fishing vessels can take their goods into the markets of the United States? — A. As I understand it, our Canadian vessels can not take their catches into American markets now and land them and clear for the grounds. They must be treated as coasters. Q. They have to bring their catch into a Canadian port and either register as a merchant vessel or transfer them — and when in an American port they can not clear for the fishing grounds. If our 846 AMEEIC AX-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. people wanted to sell fish in the American market, would those condi- tions be an impediment to their doino- so? — A. To a certain ex- tent. Q. You know of the modus vivendi licenses? — A. Yes. Q. In your opinion is the privilege granted to the American fisher- men under those licenses to come into our ports of much advantage to them? — A. Undoubtedly, sir, it is. The very fact of their taking those licenses out year after year points to the fact that the}^ must be a benefit to them. Q. It has been suggested that in order to get clear of the more or less irritation that always exists in regard to the fishermen, and having regard to the times in which we live, and the fact that we are fighting together as allies in the present war — that our sons are shedding their blood in the same cause ; that it is most desirable that some settlement should be arrived at that will prevent this irritation in the future, and will give greater stability and permanency to the rights of American fishermen in our ports than the annual privilege given in the modus vivendi licenses, and it has been suggested that any such arrangement ought to be based on the principle of mutual advantage, and having that principle in mind it would be a fair settlement of the question if we ]Dermitted the American fishermen to come into our ports as under the modu.s vivendi licenses, without charging them anything beyond the merest nominal amount for the privilege, and that in exchange they should penuit our fishing ves- sels taking fish into the Ignited States to go directly from the fishing- grounds to the Ignited States markets and to clear directly from those ports again for the fishing grounds, and in addition that they should have legislation enacted that would prevent the American fishermen coming over with well smacks and getting lobsters outside of terri- torial waters at a time when there is a close season within the 3-mile limit. What woidd your view be as to an arrangement of that sort. Do you think that Avoukl be a fair arrangement of advantage to both? — A. Under ])re£ent conditions I think we should try and settle this question which has been outstanding for many years. Person- ally, I have been opposed to any change in the modus vivendi licenses up to the j^resent time, but conditions noAV are entirely dif- ferent, and I think that we should both try and get togethei- and settle these disputes that have been oustanding for so many years — it would be beneficial I think to both countries. Q. You place it on that broad ground rather than on the ground that such a settlement Avould be of any special advantage to our Canadian fishermen? — A. Not any more than it vcould be to the American fishermen. Off our Nova Scotia cocsts we claim we have the best fisheries in the world ; a great many of the American A'essels operate off our coasts and can not get along without using our ports.. We can get along Avithout using their markets. We have demon- strated the fact in the last 8 or 10 years. Our fisheries have kept increasing all the time, notwithstanding the fact that we were shut out from the American markets: we have demonstrated the fact that we can get along without them. Now that Ave are allies, I think that Ave should settle all these outstanding matters and get together on a fifty-fifty basis. I think that is the most equitable Avay to settle at the present time — to forget our past difficulties. AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX PISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 347 Q You -tated that up to the present time or until the present con- dition of aUairs existed von had been opposed to any interference with the modus vivendi licenses. Do I understand you were opposed to extending that to vessels propelled by steam ?— A. I was opposed to that. 1 ^ 7 V TV- Q What was the reason for vour benig opposed to that ( — A. \\ e eot nothing in return for granting it to them— our vessels received no consideration in their ports whatever. Q Ind YOU felt that before we made further extensions or s-rarited further conditions that they should be prepared to make some modification in their navigation and coasting laws?— A. That is the point exactlv. . Q. Mutual give and take ?— A. If we ga ve them a certain advan- tage, we should receive certain advantages in return. Bv Secretary Eedfield : Q You «aid that they worked harder on the American vessels— as I remember vou said '• Sure they do "—tell us more about that. iiist what YOU mean bY that?— A. I don't know that there is much explanation. A good maiiY of these men I refer to are our fishermen from our own countrv too. ' Thev go and ship out of Gloucester and 13erhaps the skipper has a little more hustle than our men haY&— as I said it is all up to the skipper. Very often a man will work harder awav from home. Q Do I understand you to mean something of this character. Let us suppose five vessels just alike sailing out of Gloucester, for an example— the same equipment and same crews— that those five vessels, according to the ability and energy and experience of tne tive skippers, mav show different results : is that right ?— A. bure. Q. That is the practice, is it not ? — A. Yes. Q Then results which the vessels secure are not dependent upon the cost of the vessel at all, are they ?— A. Oh no. not at all. A very inferior vessel often gets a very big catch. Q. And the reverse is true ? — ^A. Yes. Q. Then those results are not dependent upon the earnings ot the crew or the ojficers, are thev? — A. How is that? O The results that the vessel sets are not dependent upon the eaimino-s of the crew or the officers?— A. The result, the vessel is depe-ncfent for her share upon the result of the catch. Q. I want to set at what is the real factor in the production ot the fish. I gather it is not the cost of the vessel, because a vessel that is cheaper may get larger production, or the reverse may be true— then the element in production is not the earnings of the officers aiid the crew-, but those earnings come out of the production? — A. That is right. , .^, Q. Therefore the business is one in which skill, experience, capac- ity energv are the leading features: is that right?— A. To a very laro-e extent. The same tiling would apply in any other business. A nian has got to put energv into it to make a success of it. Q Is it or is it not true that he has got to do it in a little different wav? Isn't it the fact that seamanship, knowledge of the fishing grounds, of the habits of the fish, the ability to understand ^nd to lead men— is it not so that these are the controlling factors m the fish industry? — A. Yes, sir. 348 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEBIES CONFERENCE. Q. Then again, Mr. Short, is there anything else in the indnstry as important as those factors'^ — A. Is tliere anything as important as I hose factors; yes, the marketing of those fish. Q,. I am thinking for the moment of prodnction. What I want to get at is whethei- it is or is not true that this husiness as it is now con- ducted is practically a business in which the two countries have a substantial, equal, and mutual interest — whether vessel A officered by Captain B has not as good a chance at the game as vessel C oHicercd by Captain D — without regard to the port they go from or the flag they fly, because, after all, the production depends in the major part on brains and skill and experience and character ? — A. Yes. Q. You can see the bearing of this at once. If those are the con- trolling factors in the bnsiness, then matters like the cost of a vessel and equipment become immaterial factors relatively. Is it the fact that there are any other factors in the business which are as im- portant as the factors of experience, seamanship, energy, character, and so on? — A. It seems to me that if we have all of those qualities there is no question about getting the catch — if we ha\e weather conditions. You have got to have the grounds, of course, t,o go to to catch those fish. Q. You have got to know where they are? — A. If you have (he ex- perience and ability you ai"e going to find them. Q. Suppose Captain A Avho has the characteristics for a successful fisherman, changes his vessel and goes o\ev from a vessel which cost $15,000 to one Avhich cost $25,000, and suppose Capt. B goes back from a vessel costing $25,000 to one costing $15,000 then the more expensive vessel with the abler skipper would be likely, would it not, to earn in pro])ortion more than the cheaper vessel with the poorer skipper? — A. Certainly he should. Q. In other words the elements of character, ability, brains, en- ergy, knowledge of the fishing grounds, ability to lead men — those ai'e the controlling factors in the business? — A. Yes, sir. Q. (To Mr. Brittain.) Do you agree, Mr. Brittain?— A. Abso- lutely sir. Q." (To Mr. Wilson.) What do you think?— A. I think that is perfectly correct. — the only other factor I could think of would be the proximity. Q. (To Mr. Gardner.) Do you agree, Mr. (xnrdner? — ^A. I do, indeed. We have three o]- four very skilled men in our fleet and it is no matter what vessel they take they can alwa3'S get a very suc- cessful catch — it is in the ability of the men. Chief Justice Hazen. The ])ersonal element enters very largely into its success. By Secretary Redp^iei.d : Q. And the personal element is the predominating element. Isn't it so much so that as a matter of fact in your business there are cer- tain men you would like to get and certain men you do not want? — ■ A. (By Mr. Short) : Sure as you're born — there are certain men you would like to get clear of. Q. So that the personal factor is after all the controlling factor? — A. That is right. Q. Isn't that true to this extent — that if you had the best fleet in the world built at the lowest cost and could not get the men to run AMEEICAX-CAiSrADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 349 it right it would be a failure? — A. That is just it exactly. I used to be interested personally in a few fishing vessels before I went in with the Maritime Fish Corporation, and I always made it a point never to put a dollar in a fishing vessel unless the skipper owned a share in it. Q. (To Capt. Benjamin A. Smith). I want to ask whether you agree with that proposition? — A. I do so. It all depends on the captain and the crew — the organization. By ]Mr. Sweet : Q. You said something Mr. Short about the increase of the tend- ency on the part of the people in this country to eat fish — have you anj^ doubt in your own mind as to the permanency of the taste for fish that the people are acquiring during this war period? — A. No, sir — I believe it is purely a matter of education. Once they begin I believe they will continue right through — they will prefer it. Q. So that you feel in the future there is to be a very large and comparatively steady market, do you, for fish in this country? — A. There is sure to be sir — I have every confidence there will be. Q. You have also stated that you were somewhat opposed to grant- ing privileges to United States vessels unless certain concessions were made on the part of the United States. Of course you have already expressed your opinion that it would be wise to make the arrange- ment that is being discussed here and that may result from this con- ference. You base that, if I understand correctly, upon the idea that it would be in the first place equitable and just as between the two. Nations? — A. Yes. Q. In other words that it would be, as you express it, on the fifty- fifty basis — that eliminates the objections that jrou have had before on the ground that you did not wish to make any concessions with- out receiving something in return ? — A. That is right. Q. Assuming that the result of this conference should be what we hope — by making mutual concessions — would that result in an in- crease in the supply of fish for the benefit of both countries and meet the requirements of the future better than if this arrangement were not made ? — A. It will have some effect no doubt. I question ver}' much whether many of our vessels will go to the United States with their catch, because as I say our market is usually as good as theirs and it would not pay us to go over there. There might be perhaps a few cargoes of salt fish, and perhaps in the Lunenburg fleet — I would suppose that in the fall of the year after their last catch they might take advantage of it and go over there to land them, but so far as our vessels are concerned and our port in Nova Scotia, I do not thinly that very manj^ of our vessels would take advantage of running into the United States because prices have been practically as good with us as over there and we are very much nearer home. Q. Suppose a United States vessel operated by auxiliary power or steam meeting with some untoward conditions as regards weather, or for some reason or other wished to make a Canadian port and dispose of a partial catch, in order to return immediately to the fishing grounds, or get supplies, or perhaps ship some additional men in its crew, or for any purpose of that kind, where it would be obliged to go back to an American port in order to do these things — 350 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEEIES CONFERENCE. if it could come into a Canadian port and then return immediately to the grounds it would save considerable time? — A. Yes. Q. That time could be useful? — A. You might lose a full trip of fishing. Q. Would not that make considerable difference in the fish sup- ply — if you multiply that by quite a good many, as might be the case, it would make some difference, would it not? — A. Yes; but we have not been producing fish enough for the consumption — the de- mand there has been. There is no trouble to dispose of the fish at all. Q. What I am getting at is that American fishermen could be engaged more of the time in fishing under the plan that we propose than they can to-day? — A. Yes. Q. And spend less time in going back and forth to American ports; in other words, less waste of time? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And if Canadian fishermen see fit to avail themselves of the privilege granted under this pro})osed arrangement of clearing di- rectly from American ports to the fishing grounds and then return- ing to American ports with their catch, they would be avoiding the waste of time of going around the two sides of the triangle? — A. They don't go at all — they are prohibited. Q. It would mean the catching of more fish by Americans and Canadians? — A. I certainly think it woidd. Any obstacles j^ou can take away are bound to have a tendency to greater production. Q. In view of the expanding market do you regard that as a very considerable advantage and a good reason for making the proposed arrangement? — A. I do; yes, sir. And then again I think that we should under the present conditions do away with all these differ- ences between the two countries. I think more of it from that stand- point than from a business standpoint, because I do not see where this thing is going to be a great advantage to us. There are very few fresh fish go over. Some localities, such as Lakeport and Liver- pool and Yarmouth, a few months in the wintertime a few hundred thousand pounds of fresh fish go over, but from other sections of Nova Scotia practically none. It is of no advantage to us in that respect. It would be a little advantage in the salt-fish game, but buyers from the United States come over to our country at the present time and buy up all the salt cod and other salt fish they can get, so that from our standpoint I do not see that it is going to be of any great advantage to us, but as I said before I think this is a time when we should get together and forget little differences and let us make some arrangement that will be agreeable to both countries. We are not afraid of competing with the United States in any part of the world. Q. Whereas our attitude has been somewhat that of trying to pre- vent the other getting the advantage? — A. There has been a little feeling. Q. That feeling has entirely gone. We are not only allies in the war. but we are just as much friends and as closely allied as Maine and Massachusetts, for that matter, and there is no more reason why there should be any friction or any divergence or clashing of interest betAveen Canada and the United States than between Maine and Massachusetts — can you see any? — A. None whatever. We have AMEEICAK-CAXADIAX FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 351 the kindliest feelings in every way, shape, and manner for the people across the border. Q. And the adoption of the proposed plan would be in the direc- tion of benefiting to some extent both countries? — A. Xo doubt of it. Q. Mr. Davis, who is here, expressed the opinion at Gloucester that this arrangement would be a good one, in his judgment, during the war. I want to ask if it is your opinion that it should be limited to that period? — A. It certainly should be made permanent, if we are going to make any arrangement whatever. AVe would have to con- sider these things again if it is not made permanent. By Mr. Fred L. Davis, of Gloucester : Q. Tell me the name of the schooner that you have? — A. Dorothy M. Smart. Q. How many dories has she? — A. Ten. Q. Those dories, I suppose, were purchased in Nova Scotia for about $15? — A. I would say to-day, $22. Q. They have incerased in value in a year? — A. The time was when we could buy them for $13 at Shelburne and freight them to Digby. Q. How much would it cost to outfit this vessel, as far as eatables are concerned, on this trip? — A. You w^ould have pretty good idea about that — the vessel has been gone since the 6th of January. She has had to provision up twice in that time. Probablv her grub bill would be $600 or $700. Q. Have you any idea how much what the crew eat would cost? — A. At least $500. Very often in the last end of it they are not so enthusiastic over their food as when they first start out — in other words, they cut their garments according to the cloth. Q. You claim this vessel went on the 6th ? — A. Yes. Q. You pay the captain 5 per cent? — A. Of the gross stock — for instance, if her gross stock is $4,000, the captain gets $200. Chief Justice Hazen : Q. By the stock you mean the fish? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis: Q. Didn't you know that at Gloucester they do not pay as much ? — A. I know tliat your vessels have got a great deal better lay so far as the vessel owners are concerned. Your vessels take a great deal more than ours do- — the owners get it. Q. How do you run that gear? — A. Either the captain owns the gear or the fishermen own it. If the captain owns it he charges 10 per cent to the net cash out of the stock. Q. He takes 10 per cent? — A. If he owns the gear. Very often each dory owns its own gear. The vessel does not own its gear with us. Q. Are j^ou aware that in Gloucester she has to own the gear — she does not get am^thing for it? — A. Previous to last spring she got a good price for it. That is what you had your big strike over last spring. Q. I am only speaking of that to show that we are laboring imder a disadvantage — we have to pay for lost gear? — A. After a certain time after the gear is paid for the crew pays for lost gear. 352 AMERTCAlSr-CANADIAlSr FISHEBTES CONFERENCE. Q. AVould tliis aj>reement produce any nioro lisli on iu-coiint of the iigreeineni ? — A. This inodvis viAendi? Q. Woidd Hie Cauiidiinis ])i'odii('e any more Hsh'^ — A. No; I don't think so. Q. As I understand this matter the idea Avas to produce more fish — you do not think you would? — A. No; I don't think it is ^oinp; lo he any wonderful thing for Canada at all. Q. You mean on the production i)oint ? — A. No; no oioat IhiuL''. By Secretary Eedfield: Q. The advantage in the way of producing more Hsh — as I uns and which are hauled up in (Gloucester after the sea- son is over; if tlicy could tnke those vessels and fish out of here T am pure that it would jidd to the production of fish- — they could be landed at Lakej^ort or Yarmouth, because it is a fact — Mr. Davis will agree with me that we have a certain fleet that is liarded up about four or five months. By Dr. Smith: Q,. The nuickerel seining fleet? — A. Yes, sir. By Secretary Redfield: Q. Plow many are there? — A. I would say eSO. . Q. Is this a correct statement — that by reason of these existing regulations or by reason of the absence of an international arrange- ment, at this time when the countries both need food, equipment that is capable of pi-oducing food to the extent of 30 vessels is idle for a numb(H' of months in the year? — A. Yes, sir; that is the case with ua at Gloucester. By Dr. Smith : Q. Why not use them out of Gloucester during the time when the mack'erel are in on your shores? — A. We can not get enough men to go in them. The men do not want to come to Gloucester and go off shore fishing, and by having a little auxiliary power they could be o])(M'ated on this coast — at home. They are in every night and go out about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. Our Portuguese fleet goes out at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning — the next afternoon they are in Boston with five, ten, or fifteen thousand pounds of fish — we call them our shore fleet. AMEEICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 355 Q. Would you expect such a fleet if it came to the Nova Scotia^ coast to sell its catch in the Nova Scotia ports? — A. Naturally I think they would. Q. Would that be the logical thing to do rather than attempt to sell in Boston or Gloucester after transshipment ? — A. I had in mind certain captains who wanted to take one of our vessels and fish. They said they would like to take it down home. Q. Is it a fact that these vessels which are idle from November to March are the finest vessels in the Gloucester fleet? — A. No, not necessarily. What I referred to were vessels equipped with auxiliary engines. Q. How big are they ? — A. The Pythian is about 55 or 60 tons — the H. B. Thomas 75 or 80 tons. Mr. Short. Their catches would be transported to Boston? Mr. Smith. Yes. Mr. Hazex. You say these vessels would operate from Nova Scotia ports and sell their catch where they could to the best advantage — either in Canadian markets or transfer it to merchant vessels or send it by train to New England? Mr. Smith. The idea would be you could take it and operate it to suit yourself. ^fr. Eedfield. That is precisely what you are doing in the Gulf of Mexico States. Men who are otherwise idle would likewise be employed as well as the capital invested in the vessels. It has a threefold advantage — the men would get greater employment, the vessel would have greater earning power per annum, and the com- munities, one or both, would get a greater supply of food. STATEMENT BY MR. THOMAS FERGUSON, CHAIRMAN CANADIAN BOARD OF STEAMSHIPS. By Chief Justice Hazen: Q. You are the chairman of the Steamship Inspection Board of the Dominion of Canada? — A. Yes. Q. An official of the Marine and Fisheries Department? — A. Yes. Q. We were told in the United States that there were difficulties in the way of having vessels transferred from an American to a Canadian register because of the strict laws in Canada regarding the inspection of boilers and machinery — can you throw any light on the subject? — A. Yes, sir; I think I can. In the first place, our steel jias got to be tested by Lloyd's or some disinterested individual before it enters into the construction of the boilers. The United States doesn't demand that. They take the certificate of a member of the steel producing company, who is an interested party. We can not accept that. Q. You are quite sure of that statement? — A. I am pretty sure of that statement. They take the steel maker's stamp that it is 60.000 pounds. The test is made by one of the firm and not by Lloyd's or a proper man as we demand. Consequently unless we can get a cer- tificate that the steel has been tested by a certificated man we will not give it 60,000 pounds — unless we know it is 60,000 pounds. Q. What do you do — refuse to accept the boiler at all or with a reduced pressure? — A. A reduced pressure. 356 AMERICAISr-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONEEEENCE. Q. How much reduction do .you allow? — A. 1 have known as high as 35 pounds. Q. Of being reduced down to or by? — A. Down by. A 175-pound boiler would down in some cases to 120. Q. I understand from you that if a vessel seeking transfer to the Canadian I'egister from the register of the United States has a boiler which has been manufactured in the United States, you will not give that vessel the same boiler pressure that is allowed in the United States, because the steel of which the boiler is jnade has not been inspected in the way you think it necessary? — A. If it has been tested as steel by an independent surveyor we will accept it. Q. How are they tested there? — A. They have, as T say, the official man in the steel workes who stamps them, Q. You won't accept Iiis stamp? — A. No, sir. Q. How do you calculate the amount of reduction you are going to impose upon them?— A. It is laid out for us in our regulations. We have got to regard it as iron if it is not steel up to that. Q. Do you allow those boilers to continue? — A. Yes, sir. Q. At the reduced pressure that you think is right? — A. I have one here now Q. What has occurred, Mr. Ferguson, to make you think that such a rule is necessary? — A. It has been there all along. Q. What is" the reason of it. Did accidents occur in consequence of boilers of this sort coming in and your accepting them at the American standard? — A. No, sir; but "if we admitted that boiler in that state we admit a boiler that we would not accept from our own Canadian manufacturers — the standard is higher. (Reference is made to a tracing headed S. S. Saxona^ which is marked to pass United States Government requirements for a work- ing pressure of 170 pounds per square inch.) Q. How long has that been the law in Canada, Mr. Ferguson? — A. Since 1884. Q. It is, then, a matter of fact that it is more difficult for an Ameri- can steam vessel to get entered on the Canadian register than it woulct be for a Canadian steam vessel to transfer its registry to the United States? — A. As far as boiler is concerned it would be. Q. Do you think it is better to maintain that standard in Canada — I mean for the public safety? — A. So far as the steel test is con- cerned; certainly. Q. You do not think the steel test in the United States is suffi- cient? — A. They could easily get the other test. Q. As a result of the test in the United States, which you say is not as efficient a test as ours, have there been many accidents in the United States, boiler explosions? — A. I don't mean to say that — all the boiler plate is the same — the maker's stamp is accepted. Q. As a result of that have there been an undue number of dis- asters caused by explosions of boilers as compared with similar dis- asters in Canada? — A, They have some, but I really never paid much attention to that. Q,. This standard is adopted for the safety of the public ? — A. Yes ; and we have adopted the proper rules as near as possible of Great Britain. Q. Are they their rules you have adopted? — A. Yes, sir; practi- callv their rules. AMEBIC Als^-C AN ADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 357 Q. They are exacting this higher standard than the United States?— A. They always have. i • ui Q. The question is whether such a high standard is desirable, whether in the United States they have had an undue proportion of accidents ? — A. I have not paid much attention to that. Q. If the standard of the United States is sufficient to provide for the public safety, is there any need of having a higher stand- ard? — A. We follow the board of trade, which is safe. Q. You won't answer my question. If the standard that is adopted in the United States is sufficient to provide for the public safety, what need is there of having any higher standard ?— A. I don't think it is sufficient. i j. i Q. What evidence have you to lead you to conclude that the stand- ard is iiot sufficient. Is your opinion formed on theory or on prac- tical results that have been obtained in the United States?— A. If you would allow me to show you this print here [indicating the drawing to which reference has been made]— we demand nuts on the inside of these stays here [indicating]. It is under consideration— we would require the maker, if he wanted to get the pressure that he is asking, to put new stays with nuts. Q. Do you say that the matter of making some changes is under consideration? — A. We take in boilers every year from the United States— it has not been open to inspection under construction. Q. Your inspectors have not had the opportunity of examining it while under construction? — A. Yes. Q. Do you think it is necessary for the safety of the public to maintain these regulations ?— A. I certainly do. Q. And you think the public would not be safe with the regula- tions and standard they have in the United States?— A. There is not very much difference — there has been more talk made about this boiler business than is warranted, perhaps. Q. We had this brought before us by the inspector general at Washington and we wanted to get to the bottom of it. It has never been suggested to you that this has been maintained as a protection to the boiler interests in Ontario?— A. Oh, no, sir; they can not cut Q. There were certain dredges working m St. John harbor some years ago — you cut down their boiler pressure, didn't you? —A. Yes: that was on account of the riveting. Q. The opinion of your branch of the department must be that the regulations of the"^United States are not sufficient for the main- tenance of safety?— A. We allow one-fourth of the bursting pres- sure. They take'^a little more risk. Q. If theirs is sufficient for safety there would be no need or our maintaining the extra ?— A. I don't think it is. By Secretary Eedfield : Q. I would like to have your permission to insert in the record this memorandum ? — A. Certainly. (Memorandum follows:) STPJAM FISHING VESSELS, INSPECTIO.X i)Y. Canadian law requires a steam fishing vessel to be inspected the same as any ether nonpassenger steamship, except that a certificate may be granted without the vessel being in charge of a certified master. 358 AMEEICAN-CANADIAN inSHEBIES CONFERENCE. Nonpusseiiii-er steamships of 150 tons .uross iiiid up are rwiiiiivd to have the luill and equii)iuent and boilers and machinery inspected every twelve months. TiifiS are not included in this, no matter wliat size. There are no rejAulations resardinii' inspection of the hull, tlie inspector beiufi required to satisfy himself that it is seaworthy for the service for which intended. Equipment covers life-savini,' and tire-extin,i;uishin,Li' api)aratus, si,t;nai li.uhts, etc.; these are provided for by regulations made by (). C. Boiler inspection is made under resulations made l)y (). (1. These are i)rac- tically the same as B. O. T. rvdes. jNlachinery inspection except for shafts is not made under regulations, the inspector l)ein.n- reipiired to satisfy hims(>lf that the machinery is sufhcient for the purpose. Nonpassenger steamshii)s including steam tishing vessels of l<>ss than IHO tons gross and all tugs, i. e., vessels actually employed -in towing, jire not re- quired to have annual hull inspection but are re(iuii-ed to comply with the regu- lations regarding equipment, boat's lights, etc. Nonpassenger steamships not exceeding 150 tons and all tugs are reqiiired to have annual insi)ection of the boilers and macliinery. The inspector who- makes this insitection sees to the equipment. All nonpassenger steamships are required to have certiticated engineers in charge of a watch, provided that such shijis liaving engines not in excess of 10 or 20 N. H. P. according as the engines are simple or compound do not reiiuire certificated engineers. TRANSFER OF STEAMSHIPS FROM U. S. TO CANADIAN KK(ilSI'KY. As far as concerns inspection the only inconvenience that may be experienced is in regard to boiler pressure, due either to the l)oiler itself or to the engine shaft. The shaft question is generally not (W" grave import. In regard to boiler ins])ecti(»n cei'lain calculations are made to find the bursting pi-essiii-e of the shell of the boiler, and if I be workmanshii) is of the highest class the working i>icssni-(' is set at a lilllc less tlian one-fourth this bursting pressure. The r>. < ). T. and Lloyd's allow about the same ratio foi' the highest class of work betweoni bursting and working ])ressure. This ratio is called the factor of safety, and in Canada is 4.25. whilst for the B. (). T. it is 4.5. Lloyd's is somewliat dillicult to arriAe at. but is about the same as Canada. In the U. S. A., wiiilst the factor of safety appears greater than in Canada, yet, as they do not allow for the weakness of the longitudinal seam, it is actually less. For a .joint with two or more rows of rivets, whether the .joint be lap or double-butt strap, the U. S. factor of safety is 5. However, as they calculate the woi-king i)ressure considering the solid plate and not taking into account the .ioint ])ercentage, the factoi" may be actually as low as 8.8. The U. S. authorities take a little more chance than any other recognized inspection authovity. Considering staying-in boilers, the U. S. regulations allow very nuich greater pressure than the B. (). T. or Canadian. In the boilei- ti-acing for Sa.roHd the B. O. T. or Canadian pressure would be about 142 lbs. for back plate in com- bustion chamber, U. S. would allow about 197 lbs., I^loyd's would allow 104 lbs. A boiler coming into (Canada from the U. S. could hardly be expected to be allowed more pressure than one built in (Canada or (!reat B>rit;iin, following the Canadian, B. O. T., or Lloyd's rules. The Canadian, B. (). T., Lloyd's, British Corporation, and Bureau Veritas? rules all require that a boiler should be built oi)en to inspection, otherwise the pi'essure will be reduced. The IT. S. authorities are satisfied to take the sworn statement of th(^ owner of the boiler shop as to bow the work was done. The owner is an interested party and the person taking the oatii is more likely a cleric or secretai-y who is not in a position to say whether holes were drifted, etc. Unless reli!U)le information is to hand that work' lias been carried out in some parti(;ular way, calculations as to strength are Avorse than useless. If you toolv it for granted that holes have been drilled in place after bending, whilst, as a matter of fact, they bad been i)unched before bending, you would be calculating for a straight rivet filling two boles in line with each other and I'adial, whilst, as a matter of fact, the holes would not be in line at all. In reducing the pressure of a boilei' which was not oi)en to inspection during construction, the most natural and j)ro]ier action is taken. In making your calculations you say this part has the appearance of first-class work on the AMEKICAN-CAlS'ADIAlSr FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 359 outside, l}ut it may not be. Consequently you reduce the load as you would with a bridge or any other structure which was considered doubtful. Concern- ing boilers which have not been open to inspection during construction, the Canadian regulations lay down that in calculating the working pressure the addition of 1 65 shall be made to the factor of safety. This obtained in the board of trade regulations until a few days ago. The understanding was that if an inspector had not witnesssed the construction of a boiler by visiting the shop from time to time when it was being built, he was to assume that the worst class of work througliout had been done — that in place of holes being drilled in place they had been punched out of place and that they were not in line, etc. Recently the board of trade, instead of laying down definitely what addi- tions to the factor of safety shall be made, have ruled that the matter should be submitted to the board, presumably they intend to take into consideration the general class of work done in a shop aud to set out a factor accordingly. Whilst the Canadian regulations have not as yet been changed, the above arrangement has been entered into on several occasions, and it is proposed to have a change made at an early date, so that a boiler not open to inspection during construction would have the factor of safety determined by the board. In no case, however, coiild a boiler which was not open to inspection during construction be allowed the same pressure as would be allowed a boiler which had lieen open. Ottawa. 2d February, 1918. Q. Would it surprise you to learn that Lloyd's boiler inspector had requested the United States Steamboat Inspection Service to reduce its requirements on testing boiler plate, for the reason that they were deemed by Lloyd's to be too severe ? — A. I have heard that. Q. Having heard, then, that Lloyd's had requested the United States department to reduce its requirements because they were too severe, do you still think it right to maintain a standard more severe than that? — A. I don't think that we are too severe in any one particular. Q. But more severe than those of the United States ? — A. Slightly. Q. And you have heard that Lloyd's think that too severe? — A. Yes, I have heard that. Q. How do you explain the wisdom of maintaining a standard more severe than that which Lloj^d's declare to be too severe? — A. Lloyd's is only an insurance agent. Q. In other words, you do not think Lloyd's judgment is one that should necessarilj^ be followed ? — A. I prefer the board of trade. Q. Where did 3^ou get the information that the United States Steamboat Inspection Service accepted the maker's stamp? — A. We get frequent boilers submitted by the United States owners to come into Canada, and we could not get any record of where the steel was made and no stamp — it evidently was given by the makers when the material was put into the construction of the boilers. Q. Did you ever ask the Steamboat Inspection Service of the United States their rule? — A. No. Q. Did you ever ask them to furnish you with a copy of their regu- lations for the testing of boilers? — A. We ask the man who owns the boiler to produce a record of the bursting pressure. Q. Did you ever ask them to give 3^ou a copy of the regulations ? — A. Xever — that was a matter for the owner of the boiler. Secretary Eedfield. Before you make a public statement of the kind that you have mad I would very earnestly suggest that you give us the privilege of furnishing you the official documents. I would like to state that the Steamship Service of the United States never accepts from any steel maker his stamp or statement as to the quality 360 AMEBICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONEEKENCE. of his boiler pliitc. In every mill making boiler plate an officer of the Steanishi]) Inspection Service is stationed, wholly independ- ent of the boiler-phi te maker or the steel maker. He must personally examine the plates and he must personally stamp the plates with his own stamp and no plate is allo>ved to go into any boiler for marine purposes in the United States — into any vessel — which is not stamped with the name of the United States inspector or a certain proportion of which have not been stamped after actual trial by the United States inspector himself. At the present moment, because of the immense rush for building vessels, we have an extra force of inspec- tors stationed at the rolling mill where the plate is made, making a constant and unbroken examination of all the steel that is produced. It is my recollection that Lloyd's have within a very few weeks re- (juested us to modify the regulations for boiler-plate steel because they were inmecessarily severe. Chief eJustice Hazen. Has that been the practice foi- some years? Secretary Redfield. For five years past. Q. This is merely a misunderstanding. The fact that a plate does bear the manufacturer's stamp is assumed to mean that it has not had any official test? — A. It has had official test with interested parties. Q. Not at all. I read from section 4430 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, found on page 18 of Form 800, Department of Commerce, Steamboat Inspection Service, July 14, 1917: And the Supervising Inspector General may, under the direction of tlie Secretary of donnnei-ce, detail assistant inspectors from any local inspection district where assistant inspectors are employed, to insiiect ii-on or slot'l l)oiler ])'ates at the mills where the same arc mamifacturcd ; and if the ])hites are found in accordance with the rules of the sui)ervisiii,u' inspectoi's, tlio assistant inspoctoi- shall stami) the same with the initials of iiis name, followed hy the letters and words, " IJ. S. Assistant Inspector," !ind material so stamped shall be accepted by the local inspectors in the districts \A'hei-e such material is to he manufactured into marine boilers as being in full comijliance with the recpure- ments of this section regai-ding the inspection of boilei- ]ilates; it being further provided that any person who aflixes any false, forged, fi-auduicnt, spurious, or counterfeit of tlie stamj) herein authorized to be i»ut on by an assistant inspector, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall be lined not less thau one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than two years nor more than five years. As an additional element, section 4431 : Kvery i)late of boiler iron or steel, made for xise in the construction of steam- boat boilers, shall be distinctly and permanently stamped by the manufacturer thereof, and, if practicable, in such places that the marks shall be left visible when such plates are worked into boilers, with the name of the manufacturer, the place whei-c nianuiacturiMl, and the number of pounds tensile strain it will bear to the scclional srpiare incli ; and the inspectors shall keep a record in their ofhce of the slamjjs u])on all boiler plates and boilei-s wbicli they inspect. Also section 4433 : The working steam pressure allowable on boilers ccuistructed of plates inspected as required by this title, when single-riveted, shall not produce a strain to exceed one-sixth of the tensile strength of the iron or steel plates of which such boilers are constructed; but where the longitudinal laps of the cylindi'ical parts of such boilers ai'e double-riveted, and the rivet holes for such boilers have been fairly e or six years our Al goods in the shad line came from up the bay. As you know, there are several miles of the very finest spawning grounds in the world in that particular part of the bay. After the Dehnvare shad were depleted the Americans commenced to send there for shad,. Avith the result that the industry has disapj^eared. I think a close 'reason of three or four years would do much good. Q. Would you favor the close season being imposed up(m shad whether in the harbor or sea or river? — A. I Avould faA^or a close season. The Americans go after th6 shad — they start in at Tampa in November and December, and everybody has a dab at them on their way up here. Mr. Davis. One little point, relative to exi)enditure. As I under- stand, this 5 per cent which he alloAvs the captain for counnission comes out of stock. AMEEICAX-CAXADIAX FISHERIES COXFEKEXCE. 363 Mr. Short. It conies out of the vessel's share: practically, the owners pay it. Mr. Davis. I understood the vessel paid it. CLOSING STATEMENT BY CHIEE JUSTICE HAZEN. Chief Justice Hazex. I would take the opportunity of expressing the thanks of the commission to you gentlemen who have come here to give us the very valuable information you have been good enough to afford us. I think our thanks are due to Mr. Chesley. of the Marine and Fisheries Department, for the arrangements for the meeting, as well as to the press of St. John for the very excellent representations they have published with regard to these proceed- ings — reports that will have the effect, I think, of causing a great deal of discussion throughout the country over this fishery question and bring it prominently to the notice of people interested in it. Here as elsewhere our meetings have been of a very satisfactory character, and I was pleased to notice the question was approached here and in the United States as well from a very high-minded and patriotic point of view. We have been fortunate in having Mr. Smith present at our meeting — from Gloucester — and also I am de- lighted that we have Mr. Davis, the president of the board of trade of that city with us. I regret he was not here yesterday to have taken part in our proceedings. I think the presence of both these gentlemen from the United States has been a distinct advantage to the deliberations of the con- ference. We propose to get as full information as possible from whatever source we can get it. and as I have stated several times dur- ing this inquiry, we will be very much obliged to you or any other gentleman, and I hope the press will make a note of this — to anyone who has any views to advance in connection with this question — if he will be good enough to submit these views in writing. They will have the same consideration at our hands as the representations made verbally at the different meetings we have held. The ques- tion of the rights of fishing vessels in the Pacific is one in many respects similar to those on the Atlantic. It will be necessary for us to go to the Pacific, both to the Pacific States and the Pacific Province of British Columbia, and we will probably have to go up to Prince Eupert and across to Ketchikan. It is our intention to adjourn to the S-ith day of April, when a full commission will be able to attend, and from that time forward our inquiries will be made as rapidly as possible, so that the report we make to our respec- tive Governments may be submitted at an early date. I am sure that the information we are getting in regard to other matters will prove of very great value to the Fisheries Department of Canada. The information regarding the shad fishery, the views expressed here and in the United States regarding the lobster fishery, ought, in m}' opinion, to lead to drastic and effective action being taken at a very earlv date, and that action ought to be taken from the standjDoint of the general benefit of the jDeople of this country and without regard to" particular local conditions or particular local interests. The result will be to the very great advantage of those- engaged in shad and lobster fishing. 364 AMERICAN-OANAWAN FiHIIKlUKti GONFJOUENOIC. I thank you lor yoiii- Uiiuliu'ss in attendin**', for the infornialion ;L»'i\'('n ns, and the pains yon lia\'e lakcn in <>('tiiiio- the inrorniaiion, and declare this lueelin^- adjom-iied lo nx-el ai Seal lie on Ihe 2ll,li of April next. CLOSING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. REDFIELD. Secrelai-y h'lODi'iKij). On bcliall' ol" the Anieriean inenibei'S(yl" thecon- fcronee I wonid like to add to what the chief justice has so well said my note s(ions we have asked have been very direct and almost |)ersonal in their chai'acter, and they have been met in a kindly spirit which is all that could be desired. Aiul I am I'lirllier con- \inced, <2,'<'ntlemen, of sonicMiin^' which as I have ^row n older has become increasingly borne in upon my lhoujL>ht, and that is (hat when men Ihl not lo lia\(' a di\idino- line; i( ou^iil rathei- to be a (lonnectinj; line, and just as the decisions of your courts and the decisions of l*jn,<2,lish coiii-ts are recognized by the coui-ts of the United States as lia\in<2,' forc-e, so all I (liink of the oHicial aitts of your (ilovernment shoidd be reco^ni/ed by oui's, and all ours by yours. \Ve are (piite willing- in the Department ureau has voceived and given coiisWIei-ation to y:ii!r letter 'if April 25, in wliich you inclose a letter frimi the <[epnty collector of customs at Gloucester, jiropounding the following hypothetic!'] qu<:\-;tions : 1. Miiv a Canadian fishing vessel be entered at a United States customhouse when it has arrived direct from the fishing grounds? 2. May a vessel enter at a United States customhouse with a cargo of fish caught by the vessel but under a clearance for the United States procured from a Canadian port before the cargo v>'as caught? Al :o, if the clearance is granted after the cargo is caught? 3. If an entry is permitted at a United States customhouse under any of the above conditions should a clearance be granted and to what place (fishing grounds or a port ) ? 1. As you already have been instructed in the case of the British steam trawler Coquet the American fisheries are reserved to vessels of the United States and Canadian fishing vessels can not be permitted to engage in this business. You will therefoi-e refuse both clearance and entry to any foreign vessel which attempts to enter the American fisheries. AMEEICAX-GAiJs^ADIAX FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 367 2. Tliis question is exceedingly difficult. Ordinarily, a vessel entering your port with a proper clearance from a foreign port is entitled to entry pi-ovided such clearance from the foreign port is bona fide and is not an attempt to evade the navigation laws of the United States. This does not apply to the case of a vessel which clears before she secures her cargo of fish or where the cargo of fish is secured first and the clearance from a foreign port is for the purpose of evading our law. Before permitting the entry of any such vessel, where the evidence is clear that an attempted evasion of the law is involved, you may communicate with the department. 3. If a vessel applies to you for a clearance to a Canadian port, the bureau does not perceive how you can refuse such clearance unless you have positive •evidence that such application for clearance is fraudulent aiid an attempt to ■evade the law in which case clearance should be refused. You will understand the difficulties involved in these questions and they are to be avoided wherever practicable. Re.spectfully, (Signed) E. T. Chamberlain. Commissioner. EXHIBIT E. SECTION 442 6 OF THE KEVISEI) STATUTES. Sec. 4-126. The hull and boilers of every ferryboat, canal boat, yacht, or other small craft of like character propelled by steam, shall be inspected under the provisions of this title. Such other provisions of law for the better security of life as may be applicable to such vessels shall, by the regulations of the board of supervising inspectors, also be required to be complied with before a certifi- cate of inspection shall be granted, and no such vessel shall be navigated with- out a licensed engineer and a licensed pilot : Provided, however. That in open steam launches of ten gross tons and under, one person, if duly qualified, may serve in the double capacity of pilot and engineer. All vessels of above fifteen gross tons carrying freight or passengers for hire, but not engaged in fishing as a regular business, propelled by g;is, fluid, naphtha, or electric motors, shall be. and are hereby, made subject to all the provisions of section forty-four hundred and twenty-six of the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to the in- spection of hulls and boilers and requiring engineers and pilots, and for any violation of the provisions of this title applicable to such vessels, or of rules or regulations lawfully established thereunder, and to the extent to which such provisions of law and regTilations are so applicable, the said vessels, their mas- ters, officers, and owners shall be subject to the provisions of sections forty-four hundred and ninety-six, forty-four hundred and ninety-seven, forty-four hun- dred and ninety-eight, forty-four hundred and ninety-nine, and forty-five hun- dred, relating to the imposition and enforcement of penalties and the enforce- ment of law. All vessels of fifteen gross tons or less propelled in whole or in part by gas, gasoline, petroleum, naphtha, fluid, or electricity, and carrying passengers for hire, shall carry one life-preserver, of the sort prescribed by the regulations of the board of supervising inspectors, for every pnssenger carried, and no such boat while so carrying passengers shall be operated or navigated except in charge of n person duly licensed for such service by the local board of inspectors. No examination shall be required as a condition of the obtaining of such a license, and any such license shall be revoked or suspended by the local board of inspec- tors for misconduct, gross negligence, recklessness in navigation, intemperance, or violation of law on the part of the holder, and if revoked, the person holding such license shall be incapable of obtaining another such license for one year from the date of revocation. EXHIBIT F. SECTION 4463 OF THE REVISED STATUTES. Sec. 2. The board of local inspectors shall make an entry in the certificate of inspection of every ocean and coastwise seagoing merchant vessel of the United States propelled by machinery, and every ocean-going ves.sel carrying passen- 368 AMKRTGAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. f^ers, the luiiiiiiuini luiiiibor of licensed deck ofUcers required for her safe nuvi- ^jition {iccordins to the followiiif? scale: That no such vessel shall be navi.^ated uidess she shall have on board and in iier sei'vice one duly licensed master. That every such vessel of one thousand j;ross tons and ovei", propelled by ma- chinery, shall have in Jier sei'vice and on board three licensed mates, who shall stand in Ihrce watches while snch vessel is beinj,^ navigated, unless such vessel is (ry such vessel of one hundred f^'ross tons and under two hundred sross t(ms, propelled by machinery shall have on board and in her service one licensed mate; but if such vess(4 is enya.ned in a trade in which the time re- ([uired to make the ])assa.i;e from the port of departure to the port of destina- tion (>\ce(>ds twenty-four hours, then such vessel shall have two licensed mates. 'i'liat nolhini!: in this scvlion shall be so construed as to prevent local inspec- tors fi-om increasing- the ninnlxn- of licensed oHicers on any vessel subject to the iiisiieciion laws of the United States if, in their judgment, such vessel is not sn(lici(>njly manned for her safe navigation: Provided, That this section shall not apply to fishing or whaling vessels, yaclits, or motor boats as defined in the act of .lnn(> ninth, niii(>teen hundred and ten. EXHIBIT G. An act to i)i-oniote tlie wclfiin; of Auicrlcan KOMiiien in the morcliant marine of the United Stales; to abolish arrosl and imprisonment as a penalty for desertion, and to secni-e tlie ahrosatlon of treaty provisions in relation thereto; and to promote safety at sea. Be it enacted hy the Senate and ffoiise of RepreHentative.'i of the United States of Anieriea, in CongrefiH asficmblcd. That section forty-five hundred and sixteen of th(> IJevised Statut(»s of tlu> Tnited States be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows : Sec. 4ni(). In case of desertion or casualty residting in the loss of one or moi-e of th(> seamen, the master nmst shiji, if obtainable, a number equal to the mnnber of those whose sei-vices he has been deprived of by desertion or cas- ualty, who must be of the same or higher grade or rating with those whose places they till, and report the same to the United States consul at the first port at which he shall arrive, without incui-ring the penalty prescribed by the two preceding sections. This section shall not apply to fishing or whaling vessels or yachts. Sec. 2. That in all merchant vessels of the United States of more than one liundred tons gross, excerpting those navigating rivers, harbors, bays, or sounds, (exclusively, the sailors shall, while at sea, be divided into at least two, and the tiremen. oilers, and water tenders into at least three watches, which shall be kept on duty successively for the performance of ordinary work incident to the sailing and management of the vessel. The seamen shall not be shipped to work alternately in the fireroom and on deck', nor shall those shipped for deck duty be required to work in the fireroom, or vice versa; but these provisions shall not limit either tlie authority of the master or other officer or the obedi- ence of the seamen when, in the judgn\ent of the master or other ofiicer, the whole or any part of tlie crew are needed for the maneuvering of the vessel or the iierformance of work necessary for the safety of the vessel or her cargo, or for the saving of life aboard other vessels in jeopardy, or when in port or at sea from requiring the whole or any part of the crew to participate in the performance of tire, lifeboat, and other drills. While such vessel is in a safe harbor no seaman shall be i-equired to do any unnecessary work on Sundays or the following-named days: New Year's Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving I>ay, and Christmas Day, but this shall not prevent the dispatch of a vessel on regular schedule or when ready to proceed on her voyage. And at all times while such vessel is in a safe harbor, nine hours, inclusive of the anchor watch, shall constitute a day's work. Whenever the master of any ves- sel shall fail to comply with this section, the seamen shall be entitled to dis- charge from such vessel and to receive the wages earned. But tliis section shall not apj)ly to fishing or whaling vessels, or yachts. (Seamen's act, Mar. 4, 1915.) AMEEICA:N--CANADIAiSr FISHERIES OONFEEENCE. 369 EXHIBIT H. Office of the Solicitor, Depaetmext of CoiiMERCE, Was]iiiigfo)i. January 29, 1918. SiE : lu response to your inquiry as to wliat sections of tlie seamen's act are applicable to iisliing vessels, I have the honor to advise you that, in my opinion, the only provisions of the act which apply to fishing vessels are: Section 6. The applicable provisions of which are : 1. The first paragraph, which applies to fishing vessels of 100 tons register or over, the construction of which was or shall be begun after March 4, 1915. 2. The third paragraph, which applies to steam fishing vessels plying upon tlie :\Iississippi Kiver or its tributaries. 8. Tlie fourth paragraph, which applies to all fishing vessels the construction of which was begun or whiclu shall be begun after March 4, 1915. 4. The fiftli paragraph, which apiilies to all fishing vessels. Section 9. All of the provisions of which apply to fishing vessels. Section 12. Which exiu-essly brings fishing vessels within its scope. Section 14. Which applied to all steam fishing vessels over 65 feet in length navigating the ocean, or any lake. bay. or sound of the United States. Respectfully. E. T. QUIGLEY, Assistant Solicitor. The Secketakv of ("o.m.mkrce. EXHIBIT I. Department of Commerce, BXJREAIT OF NaVT(,ATIOX. Wasliiugto)). Januaryi 22, 191S. FISHERIES matter. Memorandum for Secretary Redfield. The following telegrams were sent yesterday. .January 21. and replies de- livered this morning: .Iaxl'aky 21. 1918. Collector of Cl'stoms. Seattle. Wa.'slt.: Do vou allow foreign (Canadian) fishing vessels to clear for high seas: and if so." under what conditions and by whal authority".' Is practice general with vouV Wire rcjily jiromptly. E. T. Chamberlain, Coiinnissioncr. Keiteat lo deputy collector cusroms, Ketchikan, Alaska. Seattle. .Innunnj 21. Commissioner Navigation. Wnshi)igton. Your telegram to-day. This office does not grant Canadian fishing vessels clearance f(U- high seas. These vessels clear for and enter from foreign port Dsxjmheller, Colleetor. Ketchikan, Alaska, January 21, iWS'. E. T. Chamberlain, Com m issioner Xa viyation, Wasliington. Do not grant clearance for high seas to Canadian vessels. They clear for Canadian port. but. however, proceeding to sea fisheries from here. M. S. DOBBS, Deputy Collector. Respectfully. „ r„ .^ (Signed) E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner. 51950—18 24 ,'{7() AiVIKh'ICAN-CAXADIAN FISIIKHIKS ("O N KI'.liKNCK. loxiiinn^ .1. Wash i.\(ii(iN, 1 >. ('., AiKjiixf .>S. I!) Id V\ II. ( 'in M NCU \ M, Chief I )iKiKcl(ir of l''islicrics. \i'ir \\ isl iitiihsh r, liiilish Col inn hiu : rU'iiso jiscci'liiin liilly and \\ii-»' iiu' lo-tln.v willioul lail wlicdiiT ( "uniuliiiii lisliiu^- \(>sS(>ls iifo nllowt'd (d j;-o to Wushinfilon S(;iU> or otlicr Aiiu'riciiii poi-ts ;iii(l IlitTc iii-o(iir(> llu>ir hiiil. <>r wIkmi tlu'i'c is slmi-l.-i.uc in ('aiiatln is halt ini- poflcd ill (iniiiiarx (•(HiiiihM'cial \(>sst>lsV A'crv iiu|i(irlanl. W'.M. A. I'\»rMi, Slioi-climii lloh I. Nkw Wksim iNsiKi;, \ii. ('.: ('anadiaii lisliliiL; vessels ai'c allowed to |iiii'cliasi> bail \\ asliiimtoii Slatt' or ollior AnuM-ican ports witlioid an.\ ,'ost lictioiis otlici' than coiupls in::' with cnstoni iv.uulations. ('oiTol)orato(l by Anioricaii Cusioms Hlaiiio and Ilauar. Can noi asccilain spccilic casi* wlu'i't' bail has bt-cn imported in ordinary coni- uuM'cial vessels. l>nty of I cent jier )(oniul and 7' per cent war lax i)rohibiis. More fonveident and econoiiiica! lor Canadian vessel to ^d to Anieriean ports. (Si,i;'ne(h l'\ 1 1. Cr\MN(;iT.\M. F.xiunrr k. Kexised Statutes ;>I0!>. 'I'lie niastei- •)!' any loreimi vessel, ladiMi or in ballast, arriving;', whether by s(>a or olbeiw is(>, in tli(> waters of tlie I'nited States from any forei.u'ii (eri'itory ad.iaet'id (<• the northern, noi'theastern, or northwostern frontiiM-s of the rniled Stat(>s shall report at the olliee of any eolloetor or deputy collector of the customs, which shall be nt'art>st to the i)oint at which sui'h \t>ssel may eiitei- such wali>rs; and such vessel shall not transfer her car.ii'o or passenii'ers to an()ther vessel or prin-eed farther iiiland, (>itlUM' to unlade oi- taUe in carti'o, without a .si)(>cial pernut from such collectoi" or deputy collector, is su(nl xnider and in accordance with such jioneral or ,siH>cial reiiulations as the Secretary of the Treasiiry may, in his discretion, front time to time prescribe. 'riiis .section siiall also api)ly to trade with or throu.uh Alaska. For any viola- tion of this section sufh vt>ssel shall be seized and forfc^ited. loxiiir.rr i,. Treaty b(>t\\(H>n I'nited Slates and (Jrt^at Britain relatinj^' to boundar.x wa- ters l>iM\\(HMi t'niled Stales and Canada, signed at Waslnn.iilon, .lanuarv 11. AlirU'l.K 1. 'I'he lli.u'h Contractiuii' Parties a.uree that the naxiualion of all navi.uable hoiuidary waliM's shall foivvei- continu(> free and oiten for the purposes of commerce to the iidiabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both coun- tries. (Hpially sub.iecl, howevt'r, to any laws and r(\u;ulations of eillua- coindry, within its own tei-ritory. not inconsist(M>l with such privileii(> of fi(>e navination and applyinti' (>quall.\ and without discruuination lo the inhabiianls, ships, \«'s,s«>|s, and boats of both c(nnitries. It is furtluM' aiii'tH'd that so lonu' as this treaty sh.ill remain in force this .sanu> ri,iiiit of navi.yat ion shall extend to th(> waters of Lake -Michi.uan and lo all canals connt>ctini;' boinidary waters, and now existin.i;' or which may here- after be constructed on eitlu>r side of the lino. l*jither of the llijih Contr.ictini;' Parlies may adopt inlt>s and reuulatious sioverninji the use of such can>ils within its own territor.x and iiia.v cliai-,ue tolls for the use thereof, hut all such rules and n\iiidations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the s\ih.|eets ov citi- /(>ns of the lliiih Coutractine Parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both of tht> lliiih Contractiui: Parties, and they shall be i>lac(>d on terms of etpiality in tlit> u.se thereof. AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE. 371 Kxmr.rr .ai. Tretuy between United Sintes mikI (Ji-enr liritMiii rehilini:- in iHnuulary waters between' Ignited States and i\-mada. siuiu^d at W'ashinuiou. .lanuai-y 11. IHH!). I'ttEl.l.M INAl'.Y AKTICI-K. I-'or the purposes of this treaty boundary waters are detined as the waters from main sliore to main sliore of tlie lakes and rivers and eonnectinii' waterways, or tlie portions thereof, alon.i:' wldcli the international boundary between the United States and tlie Dominion of Canada i)asses. inchidin!; all bays. arms, and iidets thereof, but not includin.t;- trn>ntary waters whicli in their natural chan- nels would How into such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or waters rtowinii from such lakes, rivers, and waterways. i>r the waters of rivers tlowiuK across the b(inndar>'. (Vol. f>, Conni- i^tnt. Anno Kxinr.rr x. p. ()SS4 : K S.. soc. 310!i. :u . soc. 4.1 imonded. act Fob. 1T. 1S9S, KKfOKT liV .MASIKKS OK FoiaMl.N VKSSKl.S. The master of aiiv foreiuii vessel, laden or in ballast, arrivini:-. whether by sea or otherwise, in 'the waters of the United States from any foreij;n territory adjacent to the northern, iiortheastci'ii. or northwestern froidiers of the I nited Stiites sliall r-port at the otiice .>r any collector or ileputy collector of the customs, which shall be nearest to the point at which such vessel may enter such waters: and su<-h vessel shall not transfer her carjio or passenjiers to an- other vessel or proceed farther inland, either to unlade or take in cargo, with- imt a siiecial permit from such collector, or deputy collector, issued under and in accordance with such .general or special regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury mav. in his discretion, from time to time jtrescriluv This section shall also aiiiily to trade with or through Alaska. Vor any violation of this section such vessel shall be seized and forfeitc^d. EXlllU.lT (>. Fi.'<1iiii!/ rcsscl.s snhl nlhii duriiui tin ruhmhir iions UH'i. inir,. ami IHIH 1914. Rig. Name of vessel. Sch.... Sch.... Sch . . . . Sch.... Sch ... , Sch ... , Sch..., Sip Sch... Sch... Sch... Sch... Sch... Ga. s . . Sch... Sch . . . Sch . . . Sch . . . Sch . - - Sch - - . Sch - - . Sch . . . Sch . . . Ga.s.. Effle M. Morrissey Flirt Belbina P. Dorningos.. Selma Grace Darling Oliver F. Kilham. James B. Clark Viola Thomas A. Cromwell. . Alice P. Turner Meteor Adams I Robert E. Harris Roosevelt Quickstep I ■Wm. H. Rider i Ella G. King i Gossip 1 Carrie C Mattie Winship E. C. Hiissey Mary Edith . Juniata Columbus . . Gross tons. 120 119 97 122 75 73 70 26 128 192 125 77 21 41 104 68 75 122 75 77 SI 72 78 38 ! !?„-„: ™ i Date of sale, Port last documented. nnl \ quarter ""^- I ended— South West Harbor, Me British. . . Gloucester, Mass do .do do do |---do Siilem, Mass • . . .do do do do do do do Boston, Mass do Vinalhnven, Me do Gloucester, Mass do Bosion. Mass do New York, X. Y do Seattle, ^Vash do South AVcst Harbor, Me do Ciloucester, Mass do (Jo Cuban . . . Ido". 15riti.sh. . . do ' Cuban... &o\'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'-'. do. do do. do do. Boston, Mass - • - -do. Seattle! Wash British. . . Mar. 31,1911 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. June 30,1914 Do. Do. Do. Do. Sept. 30,1914 Dec. 31,1914 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. 372 AMEKICAN-CAlSrADIAlSr FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. Pishing vessels sold alien during the calendar iieurs ]J>]'i, 1915, and 191G — Con. 1915. Rig. Sch.. Sch.. St.s.. Ga. s. Sch.. Sch.. Sch.. Ga. s. Sch.. Sch.. Ga. s. Sch.. Sch.. Sch.. Sch.. Ga. s. Ga. s. Sch.. Name of vessel. John R. Bradley Independence II Fawn Oceana Olga Grace Otis Hunter Shushartis Essex J. K. Manning Michigan Clara A. Benner Helen G.Wells Tacoma Hattie L. Trask Pinta Mertis H. Perry Alice Total, 18 vessels Gross tons. 112 14.5 9 28 113 62 197 30 116 297 27 38 95 105 74 100 61 100 1,709 Port last documented. Gloucester, Mass. do Seattle, Wash do Gloucester, Mass . do Boston, Mass Seattle, Wash Gloucester, Mass. do Seattle, Wash Rockland, Me Gloucester, Mass. do do do do Boston, Mass Foreign flag. British. ..do... ..do... ..do... ..do... ..do... ..do... -.do... ..do... ..do... ...do... ..do... Cuban . British . Cuban . ...do... ...do... British . Date of sale, quarter ended — Mar. 31,1915 Do. Do. Do. June 30,1915 Do. Do. Do. Setp. 30,1915. Do. Do. Dec. 31,1915 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. 1916. Sch.... Sch.... Sch.... Sch.... Sch.... Sch.... Sch ... . Sch.... Ga. s... Sch ... . Sch ... . Sch..., Sch..., Ga. s.., St.s.., Ga. s.. Ga. s.. Ga. s.. Sch... Sip.... Sch... Ga. s.. Ga. s.. Ga. s.. Sch . . . Sch... Sch... Sch... Ga. s.. Ga. s.. Ga. s.. Ga. s. . Clintonia Lillian Mooanam Preceptor Margaret Dillon Lucania ! Vanessa Nellie Dixon EllaC Harrie A . Heckman Paragon , Richard Frances P. Mesquita Eva and Mildi-ed Karluk Waseca Yukon Charles Le^^ Woodbury . . Monitor Edna William H. Oakes Silver Bear Tanana Evelyn Harriett Jorgina Conqueror Rose Dorothea Rose City. . .' Agnes B Sea Li ght Lillian S Total, 32 vessesls . 147 129 117 123 77 147' 130 111 7 105 115 134 105 46 321 24 17 105 137 12 70 28 26 15 95 103 139 147 24 11 19 10 2,796 Gloucester, Mass ....do ....do ....do Boston, Mass ....do ....do ....do Boothbay , Me Gloucester, Mass do do Boston, Mass , do , San Francisco, Cal . . , Seattle, Wash do do Gloucester, Mass Salem, Mass New York, N. Y.... Seattle, AVash do do Gloucester, Mass do do Provincetown, Mass. Seattle, Wash Ketchikan, Alaska . . do do British . . . ..do ..do ..do Cuban . . . British... ...do ..do ..do ...do....: ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do ...do Cuban . . . British... ...do ...do , ...do ...do , ...do ...do , Mar. 31,1916 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. ■ Do. Do. June 30,1916 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Sept. 30, 1916 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Dec. 31,1916 Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Grand total, 74 vessels, 6,581 gross tons. EXHIBIT P. RESOLUTION PREPARED BY DR.' SMITH AND MR. FOUND RELATIVE TO HALIBUT FISHING- Whereas the intensive fishing for halibut that has gone on for years on the halibut banks of the Pacific off the coasts of Canada and the United States has resulted in such serious depletion of the fishery on all but the far northern banks as to threaten its commercial extinction ; and Whereas all the halibut banks are inhabited by several other kinds of highly edible fish which are caught frequently in as large or even larger quantities AMEEICAX-CAKADIAX FISHERIES COXFEEEXCE. 373 than halibut on the haliliut tishiug gear but which tish have in past years lieen altogether or largely thrown away as caught, on account of little or no market existing therefor ; and Whereas these fish can be prodnced and placed on the markets at vastly cheaper prices than halibut, so that it is in the ptiblic interest that a general de- mand therefor should be worked up and fishing for such fish as an industry en- couraged, thus lessening the pressure on the halibut fishery ; and Whereas in the light of the investigations into the life history of the halibut that have been carried on up to this time, the most feasible method of ade- quately protecting the halibut fishei-y appears to be to divide the waters off the coasts of the United States and Canada into defined areas and prohibit all fishing for halibut in one area or several such areas for a sufficient ntim- lier of years to enable the immature halibut therein to reach maturity, and then open such areas to halibut fishing for a given number of years and pro- hibit such fishing on the other areas, and so on : and Whereas the effect of stich method of protecting the halibut would be to pre- vent fishing for the different kinds of "cod"' and other edible fish on such areas during the time that halibut fishing thereon would be prohibited, as i!ie gear used to catch such fish would also capture halibut, and thus retard the development of such fisheries which might otherwise in a few years be (if even more economic value to the general public of both countries than the halibut : Therefore Resolved, That in the opinion of this conference it would be best for the respective Governments to have exhaustive scientific investigations continue into the nattiral history of the halibut, in order to determine if there is any method of properly protecting it without inidtily restricting or retarding the development of other important fisheries, and that meantime and forthwith each Government exert every feasible effort to create a sufficient demand for the different kinds of " cod." flounders, and other edible fish not only to take care of the species thereof now being caught by the halibut fishermen, but also to en- courage the catching of these fish as a separate industry, and it is so recommended. EXHIBIT Q. Depaktmeist of Cojimekce, BtJKEAU of Navigation. Washi)ifjton. Januaru 2'f, 1918. Memorandum for Secretary Redfield : I was wrong in stating so emphatically that the act of 189S amending section 3109 does not apply to the Atlantic ports of the United States. It would apply, if cases arise in such ports, wliicli is seldom, if ever, so far as I am aware, the case. The act of 1898 was designed to meet Alaska conditions. To cover both the seaboard of Alaska and the Yukon and Stikine Rivers the words " by sea or otherwise " were incorporated in the amendatory act. Those words ex- tend the act to Atlantic ports. I hasten to correct my statement into which I was led by reflection solely upon the purpose of the act of 1898 and by the fact that I have no recollection of a case under the act ever having coriie to my notice. I inclose full memoranda on the act of 1898. Respectfully. (Signed) E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner. EXHIBIT R. DEPAETMEXT of COitMEECE. Bureau of X'avigatiox. WasJiingfoii. -hDmarii 2.'/. 1918. Memorandum for Secretary Redfield : Section 3109 of the Revised Statutes was originally section 41 of the act of July 18, 1866, '"An act further to prevent smuggling, and for other purposes." The .section related to foreign vessels arriving in the waters of the United States from foreign territory adjacent to the northern, northeastern, and 374 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHEKIES CONFERENCE, northwestern frontiers of the United States wiiich were, as the phrase is used in other acts, the Canadian frontiers on the Great Lalces and the St. Law- i-ence River. To stiffen (nir coastwise hiws for tlie development of American merchant sliipping- and to meet conditions arisin::' in Alaslva. beins newl.v developed, sec- tion 3109, R. S., was amended by the insertion of the underscored words: "The niaster of any foreifin vessel, hiden or in l)allast, arrivinu. irluilicr bii sea or other ici-sc, in the waters oi the T'nited Siatcs from any foreijiii terri- tory adjacent to the northern, northeastern, or northwestern frontiers of the United States, shall report at the offiv.e of any collecor or deputy collector of the customs, which shall be nearest to the point at which such vessel may enter such waters; and such vessel shall not troiisfer her cargo or passengers to another vessel or proceed farthei' inland, either to unlade to take in cargo, without a special permit from such collector or deputy, collector issued under and in accordance with such general or special regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, from time to time presci-ilie. This sec- tion shall also apply to trade toitli or through Alasln. For any violation of this section such vessel shall be seized and forfeited. ( Ileitealed bv Art. 1. treaty of Jan. 11. 1909, with Great Britain.)" The words " wliether by sea or otherwise." were inserted to coNer liotli tr.ide between Alaska and British Gohnnbia by sea and by the Yukon and Stikine Rivers. The words "such vessel shall not transfer liei' cargo or passengers to an- other vessel or " were in.serted to restrict the trade of foreign ships. In so far as section 3309 was applicable, t(» British vessels on the Great Lakes and the St. Ljiwrence River it was in contlict with Article 1, treaty of January 11, 1909, with Great Britain, and the Attorney (General, in an opinion dated April 2, 1915, held that to this extent section 3109 was superseded [cup.v at- tached], and instructions ^^•<'re issued to collectors. ICopy attached. 1 Respectfidly. (Signed.) E. T. Chambeki.ain. Connnissioncr. EXHIBIT' S. TKKASntY 1 )KFAliTMENT, Ofkuk of the Secketaky. Wdsliington. D. ('., l-'ehruary 9. ]S98. The Hon. Wielcam I'. Fkye. Chairman Counnittee on Coininerce. I'. S. Senate Sir: Replying to your indorsement ot Sen;ite l»ill 3.")Slt, entitled "A bill to amend the laws relating to navigation." in wliicli you I'ciiuest a report from this department, I have to state : New and peculiar conditions, created by the discovei'y of gold on the Yukon River, render desirable the enactment of the inclosed bill : First. In order to strengthen and render more explicit the laws declaring our general i)olicy that the coasting trade (including trade between the rest of the United States and Al.-iska ) sli;ill be resorved exclusively to American vessels. Second. In order to cover more explicitly this stuation. seagoing vessels can proceed to St. INIichael neai- the mouth of the Yukon. The Yukon is very shallow, in some i)laces only 4 feet deep. Transfers of cargo and passengers from deep-draft seagoing vessels to river vessels drawing little water, are therefore necessary ;it St. ^Michael. Substantially the same is true of the Stikine River at Wrangel near its mouth. Section 1 is a stronger and more explicit statement of cei-tain provisions of section 4347 of the Revised Statutes. It is not put in the form of an amend- ment to that section, as the I'evisers of the statutes saw tit to incorpin-ate in that section certain legislation based on the treaty of Washington of 1871. The ]»resent validity of that legislation has for some years been disputed, and to avoid any legislative declaration on tl at dispute as a part of this measure, where it is not involved the first section is drawn independently though in effect it amends indirectly the other portions of section 4347. AMEEICAN-CAXADIAlSr FISHEEIES CONFEEENCE. 375 The essential amendment is in the words " or for any part of the voyage." The question has recently been put to the Treasury whether American goods consigned to Alaskan ports from Seattle can be carried in American vessels to ^'ictoria, a distance of only 72 miles, and at Yictor'a be put on I'ritish vessels to he carried to Dyea. a distance of al)out 900 miles, or to St. ]\lichael. a distance of about 2,000 miles. The Treasury Department has ruled that this is a violation of the laws reserving the coasting trade to American vessels. It is a palpable evasion of those laws but in some quarters doubt is expressed whether the courts will not decide, as they did in the case of a shipment of a cargo of nails from New York to Antwerp by a foreign vessel, and thence to San Francisco b,v another foreign vessel that the law had lieen success'vely evaded, not violated. That decision led to the amendment of Revised Statutes 4347, l)y the act of Febrmiiy 1-5. 1S93. prohlbitinu' shipment " via a foreign port."' That amendment. ho\Aever, does not, perhaps, fully cover the transactions here referred to. The policy of the Un'ted States is to confine carrying by watei- for the whole voyage between American ports to American vessels. It is believed that section 1 explicitly attirms that policy and removes all doulit. Section 2: Section S of. the act of June 19, 1886 inq)oses a i)en;dty of only $2 on forei,gn vessels carrying passengers from one American port to another. This snnill penalty is wholly inadecjunte to i)reserve the coastwise carrying of passengei's to American vesesls on the long and exjiensive voyage from the Pacific coast of the I'liiled States to Alaska, up the Yukon, etc. The penalty is increased to ^HM. The penalty for the like offense im]>()sed by the Canadian laws is .'f;400, and I i-espectfully suggest that the penalty proposed by this sec- tion may be increased to that maxinnim. In cases where this may seem ex- cessive, the Secretary of the Treasury has the power to nntigate it. Section 8 is designated to give the Secretary of the Treasury full powers to regulate the transfer of cargoes and i)assengers from deep-sea vessels to shallow- river ves.sels bound up the Yukon and Stikine. The conditions under which such transfers will occur can not now be fully foreseen, so the besto\val of discretionary i)ower in the Secretary of the Treasury seems the ■ I>- lO -rt^ 'S 'to'io" o oo •S C0Ci0 O CD CR CO r-i CO "Tti 00 o"im" CN) .— I coo fO "O i-H 00 as rH -r --1 c^ cc o (M t^ r^ Oi OG r-« 00 a: O o: iQ CD ■^ O: O rH (M CD CO CO l^ (M CD -jZ> lO 00 -^ 1^ CO CO »0 O CD (N iC CD ■^ C5 X lO at I-- -:r to r-i CD .-H t^ CD O to C>a ro .— I »0 CO crorcr''co'"i QC' io ^ X cq J .^ CC CD 1— C '^ CO I-~ T" CO .— I < ^ o CD Trr- CD ^ (M .-H CN CD CT> »0 C^ »0 Lti Ol CO CI o- ■X CO lO CI X or, 03 CO ■* Oi CO o w ■^ t •>." :o' t C^ -v-T x" ^"r-"^ r^ .-H .— I Ol ''^ -X: CD , CI o X ca iM 1-^ 'TO I ** cD^iO'-^'o't-'" CD 05 O lO O X i-Ht^CDO Oi tN. -^ oo cs l"» .-» CO cs o X O -t* Oi O O --I c^ t^ o CO »0 X CD O coox ^^^-- o CD 'rt^ c- Tj^ • CD lO X 'O X TP cm" c^cizTio I--'' .-TcT O CO CO CO o »o O X i-O 1-H Oi 00 CO -r co'csT^^fM'" (^ Oi Cn lO (^ Tf t~- t- (M CO O O CD 1-1 lO CO Ci CD O i-H lO CO r- lO T-l 1— ( !>• (M O .-H T?i M o X (M c: C5 'CD X 'X «— I -^ ^ CO OJ ,-H [^ 05 X (M CO CO CD --D (M CO .-rco"(N"(N c— ( C- r- .— f 03 X CTj CD Ci X CO O CD (M CO CD T t^ ""O lO ■* CO CD O O tM O Tf "O (M .-H t^ X o:> CO O 05 Ci CD ^H o: X O ,— < Oi' 10 t^ - »-< -rt* CD (M OCO «0 I>- CO CD O -^ CO 1-1 CO CD :o CO t^ X X 01 01 X lO CO •-1 CO CM »0 OS Oi CO XdO ■rj* CO "^ X i-H CO 10 O CO o t^ co^ >o o CD cox CO i-H OOCOOCM CD O lO t^ CM 'Tt* t^ COOCD O cox Tt^ X cTi-TccT'^x*" lO O .— I CO O) Tt< O X .-IX ■^Tj^tCorTco^ 00 CD CD CD X CO .-< rH iO CD ^ ecu o •— 5i o c3 : o^ >.. J 9 ce^ o *-^ S S i^ — 1=1 !r S,5 ° cf o o a 3 S c s -'OS AMEBIC AN-CANADIAIs^ FISHERIES CONFEEENCE. 379 (N CD -^i-Hl^- '^OCN CD O to 00 CO o :D' cocTci" t^ o c^ yu CO -* CN Oi C^ t-^ C^ OCO OOO O Ci 'X ;C CD CM t>- lO t^ O ?0l>- CD COCD T-) C^ i-H i-H CO Tfi CC i-H -*«C0 O •-< r^ -^ i-o *-tTH0CCO(M co'cd'-^i-TczT lOO '^t^ CO (N lO »-0 CD t^ CS O O t^ --H iC C>J 't^ W 005 uo iO C^ X) CO ro'i-TcTco'io'" CO CO lO 1-H 'I** •-H -^ lO CO 00 ?(N, 1-H fOi-t t^ CO r^ t^ o t-^ i>- CD^ i-H t^ CO O CO iO OC' I- COCO30 Oi '^ ofcoi-T 00 CN CO'^'iM CO CD CO 00 CO OC CD CO »0 00 i-H 1-1 'Tjl W CO 'Qi Tt4 O (N CO 00 Oi 05 *0 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 cocoes CO-* cD"Lo"or-!^T-r CO Lo t^ 65 1^ 03 CO »0 CO CO CS (M !M t^ -^ 00 CO ""i^ 00 CO Tf* CO Tt^ COCO CD IC 00 O Ol t^ O CO Ol CD O O OS CO 00 *-t O OS 1-H CO Cs »o ir^ Tf CO r- CO CO 1-H CO T?^^ -t^OS CO C0(MO00(N OS LOCO Tf CD C^ t^ lOOO t- O0S»0 CM CO to Oi Tt^ t^ CO lO LO tN i-H t-* r- I o 2 ' o a ; a a'3 S 43 3- O CTtS o B ? .sis tr. ©IS So O 'd o 'P t3 8 >■ g a> [I, f p cj do" O o f-' o ^ ? o , r^ S " 380 AMEEICAN-CANADJAiSr FISHERIES CONFERENCE. EXHIBIT W. Department of Commerce, BtiRE.\u OF Fisheries, Wafihington, February 23, 19JS. Dear Mr. Secretary : As beurinj; on the relative cost of outfitting fistiing vessels in Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, you may be interested In the follow- ing figures furnished b.y the Gorton-Pe^y Fisheries Co. showing the cost of cer- tain staple articles for vessels engaged in the dory haud-line fishery — one out of (Gloucester and the other out of Lunenberg — in the spring of 1917 : Gloucester. Lunenberg. Gloucester. Lunenberg Flour barrel. . Beef barrel.. Pork barrel.. Sugar pound. . Butter pound. . Potatoes bushel . . Turnips bushel . . $11. 00 26.50 35.00 ■ . 08-1- .20 2.75 1.60 .110. 25 27.00 37. 00 .09 .42 1.40 .60 Raisins pound. . Coffee pound . . Tea pound.. Molasses gallon. . Lard pound . . Eggs dozen.. $0. 12 .20 .35 .46 .17 .35 $0.12 .32 .43 .75 .31 .35 Very truly, .voiirs, Flon. William C. Redfield, Sec7-et(irii of Citniiiierce. H. M. Smith. Co))i)iiis.si<)iicr. EXHIBIT X. The Secret .\KY of CoiiiiEUCE : Acting under instructions from me, IMi at Gloucester, has recently made a canv; purpose of determining the nationality captains and owners of the vessels and tion for year 1917. Owing to the absenc ter of the crews, the information is not sufficiently so for all practical purposes vass for tlie 132 vessels composing the (> Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, WashiiKjfon, April 3, 191S. H. F. P>r()wii, local agent of the bureau iss of the Gloucester fishing fleet for the of the crews. He has interviewed the has obtained the best possible informa- e of records and the changeable charac- absolutely correct, but is believed to be Following are the results of his caiir (loucester fleet in 1917 : American Canadian Newfoundland Portuguese Scandinavian _ French Italian 7.14 S97 237 167 17 14 8 Irish __ Finn Spanish Russian German Total 2, 095 It is interesting to note that on each of 15 of the vessels there was but one American and on each of S of the vessels there were only two Americans. H. INI. vSmith, Cominissioner. EXHIBIT Y. B.AY OF FUNDY CLOSED TO SHAl) I'lSHING. The following order in council passed by the Canadian Government on Feb- ruary 28, 1918, proclaims a closed season for shad in the Bay of Fundy until February 28, 1922: "That shad fishing in the Bay. of Fundy waters and in all waters tributary thereto is prohibited from the 1st of March, 1918, until the last of Febru- arv, 1922." AMERICAN-CANADIA]Sr EISHEEIES CONFEEEFCE. 381 EXHIBIT AA. bxjeeau of navigation, general letter no. 17i, supplemental (no. 2). March 2.5, 1918. To coUfctor.s of ciD^foiiis (tiicl others concerned: Referring to general letter No. 174 regarding the use in the American fislieries of Canadian fishing vessels and those of other nations now acting with the United States, you are advised that the provisions of that general letter apply to vessels on the Great Lakes as well as those on the ocean, and apply also to all lakes and rivers on the Canadian boundary of the United States. Respectfully, Willia]\i C. Reufield, i-27, 35, 38, 49. Treatv of 1818, rights u)ider. S. 51. 5:'>. SO. 90-92. 104. 195. 219. 226. 244. 274- 275," 282-283, 290-291. Treaty of 1888 (not ratified bv Congress) ; modus vivendi by Canada pend- ing "ratification of, 51-52, 92. 195, 274, 277-278, 290-291. See also Boston fisheries; dMoucester fishing fleet; Maine fishing fleet; Trawlers. American registry : Canadian and other foreign vessels taking out, 35, 38, 72-73, 98-99, 106. Sale or transfer of vessels under, 26, 27, 49, 277, 357-358, 363. Atlantic and Pacific fisheries, relative importance of, 48, 49. Bait. See Supplies. Banking fleet, 266, 275, 278, 280. Banks. See Fishing grounds. Bases of fishing operations, American fieet, 211. Berths on fishing vessels, 33. 331. Bill of health, 21, 26. Boilers of vessels, 28. 34-36. 357-363. Bond, transshipment of fish in. througli Canada. 9. 96. 109. 121-122, 211, 252, 314, 357. Boneless-fish industry. 268. Boothbay. Me., lobster hatchery, 95, 134. Booth Fisheries Co., 169, 220-221. Boston Chamber of Commerce, 60, 186. Boston Fisheries, 176. Cons(tlidation of dealers, 177. Facilities of wharf, 177, 179, 183. Number of persons in, 120. Numbers of trawlers. 155-156, 177. Use of trav.lers by United States Navy, 78, 155. Boundary waters. 46. Bounties to American fishermen, 12, 25. Bounties to Canadian fishermen, 8, 26. 62-63, 147, 215-216. Bounties on ship construction, Newfoundland, 214-215. British Navy, 179-180. British registry, sale and transfer of vessels of. 112. British shipbuilders, competition Mith American, 178-179, 208. British trawlers in American fisheries: In this war, 98. 104-105, 148-149, 179-181, 193, 243, 311. Number of, 148. Taking out Canadian registry, 98, 105. Regulation of in North Sea, 230-231. See also British registry; Canadian registry; Great Britain fishing fleet; Great Britain in war. iisTDEX, 385 Bnretui of Fif^lieries, United States, achievenients of. 154. 163. 173. 207-209, 242, 319, 322. Califoi-ni:i Director of Marliets : In re fish waste as cliicl^en food, 174. 273. See also Cliiclien food ; Fisli waste, f'anada and United States in the war, 60. 65. 112. 192-195. 202, 212-213, 245, 261-263, 279. Canadian fish imported into United States, quantity of, 19, 20, 206, 354. Canadian fishing vessels: Age of. 295, 305. 342. Alaslai, entering ports of, 108-109, 182. 216. 330. Bait, supplies, outfits; purchase of, in United States ports, 9, 20, 24, 39, 42, 62, 251, 297, 29^300. 304, 306. Changin;;- character of. to trading vessels, 15, 17-18, 64, 100. 103, 105, 125, 196, 204. 291. 315, 329. 347. Clearance from and entrv to United States ports to and from fishing grounds. 5-6, 8-9, 11-20, 26. 52, 54, 62-67. 69-73. 76, 77. 97, 103, 105, 194. 312-313, 329. 347-348, 352. Custom on Atlantic coast. 21-23. 42-43, 47, 65, 66, 97, 99-100, 108, 110, 123-126, 149, 196, 204, 216, 226-228, 230, 232, 239-241, 244, 251-252, 257, 261, 263, 276. 291-292, 301-302. 334-315, 336, 354. Custom of on Pacific coast, 20-26, 39-43, 46-48, 65, 66, 70, 97, 107-110, 125. 182, 216. 227. 276. 292, 33(3-331. Ordei-s February 20 and March 2o. 1918, granting privilege during war, 5. Penalty for departing without, 12-14. Steam trawlers, not schooners, would benefit. 73. War measure, as, 76-77, 198, 279, 353. Construction of. -See Construction of vessels. Cost of. See Costs. Cre\^'S — Number of. 299. Plentiful. 301-302. Wages of. See Crews. Entry. .See Clearance (above). Fees for entrv to United States ports. 21. Insurance of, rates for, 280-281, 303. Ivetchikan. buving bait, supplies, etc, 109. Life of. 295. 303, 305, 342. Navigation laws of United States applicable to, 11-27, 64-66, 291, 296. Operating expenses of. 317-318. See Cost ; Operating expenses. Orders February 20 and March 25, 1918, granting privileges in American ports. 5. Ports and markets of United States, opening of, 5-6. 9, 12, 20, 62, 97, 99-100. 102. 105, 110, 194, 206, 210, 228-230. 239, 252, 257, 263, 267-268, 276, 283, 301, 316. Prince Rupert, buying bait, supplies, etc.. 109-119. See also Prince Rupert. Sale to citizens of United States or other nations, 358. Sale of fish in United States ports. See Ports and markets of United States, etc.. above. Seamen's act. United States, applicability of, 27, 30. 32, 331-332. Steamboat-inspection laws of United States. 27-38, 340. Steamboat-inspection laws of Canada, 31, 36. 340, 357-364. Tonnage tax. United tSates, subject to. 26. Taking out American registry, 35, 38, 98-99. Transferring to trading vessel. 15. 17-18. 64, 100, 103. 125, 196. 204, 291, 315, 329, 347. United States law preventing engaging in fisheries, 11-27. Canadian harbors and waters : Jurisdiction and control of, 234. United States boats dressing fish in, 204-205, 233-234, 275, 316-317. Canadian law relating to steam trawlers, 85-93. Canadian modus vivendi. See Modus vivendi. Canadian. Canadian port charges, 9. 51950—18 25 386 INDEX. Canadian registry : American vessels taking out, 26-27, 35, 38, 49. Canadian fishing vessels taking out, 18, 52, 64, 291. Sale of vessels of, to other nations, 358. Canned fish and lobster industry. 44. 4.1, 93, 154, 182-183, 257, 321-322, 330, 339, 355. Captains. See Officers. Cars, refrigerating, 157. 167. 169-170, 186-187. 220. Cashes Bank, 129, 136. Cattle-food industry, 174. 175, 181, 269. See Fish waste. Clieaper fish. 71, 73, 98, 106. 110. 316. See also Expansion of American market ; Food supply ; Prices for fish. Chicken-food industry. 174. 175, 181, 269-273. See Fish waste. Citizenship, officers and crews of American vessels. 120. 123-124. 141-142. 200, 2.34-235. Clam meal us chicken food, 175. See also Chicken food ; Fi.sh waste. Classification societies, 28. Cleaning fish in Canadian waters, 204-205, 233-234, 275, 316-317. Clearance and entry : American fishing vessels to and from Canadian ports to fishing grounv'DEX. (Gloucester fisheries : Number of owners of vessels iiu 200. 202-203. Number of persons eimaged in, 119-121. Number of power and sailini; vesseN in, 119. 200, 211-212. 223-224. 228. 238, 247. 280. Number of trawlers in, 224. Number of vessels sold and to wliat country, 160. 274, 277. Operatin,^" expenses of vessels. iS'cc Operating' expenses; Costs. Strike of fishermen 1017, 217. 353. Glue (tish) industry. 181, 216, 259, 269-273. -Seo Fish waste. Gorton-Pew Co., 152, 155, 200. 203. 218-219. •• Grand Bankers," 266. Gray tish, 154, 216, 320, 323, 338-340. Grease. iScc l*Msh tiivase and oil industry. (^reat Brilain's tishin.!;- tleet. 148, 149, 230. iSt'c also British trawlers, (xreat Britain in the war: Food supply, 148, 193, 208. 243. Shipbuilding, 148. 178-180, 186. Trawler lleer, Nee British trawlers. S'cc also I'nited States and Canada in rbis \v;ir. (Treat Lake hsheries, lii.'. " Green "' tisli, 267, Grimsby, Euiiland, lishinir porr, 156, 1.59, 243. Haddock tleet, 278, Halibut, 6, 8. 50, 107-109, 206, 227. 276, 292, Halifax award, 147-148, 215, 244-245, Havre de (irace, Md,, shad hatcliery. closinu' of, 95. Hay-Bond treaty, 280. Hides, (See I^eather. High cost of living. Sec Cheaper Fish: Consumption ot Fish: Eduoationul jtropaganda : Fxtension of Ameru-an ni.-irket : Food: I'rices for tish; Conser- vation. Hulls, inspection ol', 28, 3(i-37. ,360, Inunigralion laws of Ihilted States, ai)i>lying to alien tishermen, 234-235. Importation of fish : To Canada, 128, To United States. 99-100, 102-103, 10.5-106, 110, 128, 148, 167, 168, 206, 210. 265, 301, 311, 351-352, 354. Imports, table showing, 128. Increased demand for fish. See Demand for fish. Increased i)roductiou of tish. See Proiluction of fish, increase in. Inspection of vessels : Laws of Canada, 31-32, 36. 340. 357-364, Laws of the Uniteil States, 27-38, 340, Reinspection. 364. United States traveling inspectors, 264, Insurance of vessels, difference iu rate on American and Canadian, 280-281. 303. Japanese, on American fishing Sessels. 17, 120, Ketchikan : Bait, supplies, etc.. purchase at, 109. Canadian vessHs putting into, m. 108-109, 182, 216, 330, Colli storage at, get citations from cold storage. 111, Laborers, in shipbuilding, ^cr AVages, Lake (^haniplaln fisheries: Conditions as to. 5. 8, 53, 62, 112-119, 199, 293, Order in council, February 18, 1918, by Canada, 5. Lake of the Woods fisheries, 6 , Law, Canadian, relating to steam trawlers, 85-93. Lay. i8('f Wages : Cost. Ijeather. from fish skins. 339-340. Leonard Fisheries (Ltd.). Halifax. 74. Licensed captains, mates, engineers, 28-29. Licensed vessels. 11. 18, J^s^DES. 391 Licenses. Canatliau, umler mudus vivendi. S. 91. 121-122. Wo. 201. 226. 232. 23S. 246, 261. 269. 276, 279. 34S. Annual, to American tisliini; (sail) vessels only. 52. 104. 121-122. 195. 201. 223, 226, 238. 290. 300. 335. 848. Copy of, 225. Fee for — Abolishnieul of. pernuuiently. proposed. 92. 97. 209. 226. 232. 244. 263. 275, 300. 302, 317, 336. Fisliermeu"s share in payment of. 71. Heduction of, suggested. 62, 69-71, 75, 76. 79. 90-91. 96. 194, 204. 209. 226. 228, 232. 238-239, 244, 261. 274-275, 300. 302. 317. 336, 348. lieturn of, under order in council. March 8, 1918, 6. Tot;!l amount paid annuall.v, 69-70. ^^■aiver of. during- war, 6. I'ower boats not included in license privileges. 52. 63. 64. 196. 220. 223. 22(3- 228. 252, 290. 3<»0. 313. 317. 349. I'rivileges — (Jrauted under, 51-52. 63, 90. 121-123. 195. 201. 211. 221. 223-226. 228. 2.32. 246. 2.52, 290-291, 300, 335, 348. Order in council exteniliug. during war, 6. Ket^purement of. \\aived during war. 6. :Special privileges granted in certain cases. 19. 81. 88-90. 122-123. 282-283. 313. 316, 3-34. Suggested issuance on pernuuient basis to all American vessels : also reduc- tion of fee. 8. 9, 62-64, 67. 69-71. 7.5-76. 79. 90. 96. 194. 204. 232, 239. 244. 2.52. 300, 302, 313, 316-317, 336. 348. Sec (il'io Ajckkuax Fishing Vessels. Lobster tishing : Canadian coast — American well smacks, practice of, 6, 7, 9, 53, 57, 62, 65. 67-68, 119. 128-129. 13.5-136. 139, 141-143, 158, 194, 196, 291. Bill in Congress to prohibit practice. 6, 7, 27. 40-41. .53. 56, -57, 67, 136, 139-140. 143, 158. 291, 348. Closed seasons for, 62, 65, 119, 196, 291, 337-338. Cost of operating smacks, 129, 139, 142. Nationality of crews, 57, 129. 142-143. Protection of industry, 52, 53, 65, 93-94. 119, 131. 196-197. 204. 291. 321, 330, 332-334. 337-338, 355. Maine and other New England coasts — Closed seasons for. 338. Federal and State laws to regulate. 69. 93, 95. 129-140. 143. 144. 1.58. 321. 330, 334. Protection of industry, 67, 68, 93-95, 129-135, 137-140, 143-146, 204, 334. 338. Maxiumm and minimum sizes. 68. 69. 93-94. 130-135. 137-139, 144. 146. 321-322. 330, 332-334, 355. Newfoundland law, 146. Propagatu.n of, 95. 133, 134, 138. 144. 146. 321-322. 333. Size of ring in trap, 136-137, 144-145. Wa.ges of lobster tishermen. 140. Lumber, kinds of. *S'cc Construction of ships. Luueuberg. tishing industry of. 222. 229. 2.54. 295-306. 308. 310. 331-332. Machinery, inspection of. 31, 33-36. 340. 357. 360. 362. Mail-order tish industry, 241-242. Maine fishing fleet, number of. 264. Manifests, 42, 43. Marine insurance. See Insurance of vessels. Markets : Of Canada, opening of, to American fishing vessels. -5-6, 9, 62, 81-84, 96, 102, 194, 201. 206. 211. 223-224. 229-230, 232. 238. 247. 252. 263. 300. 316, 385-336. Of United States, opening of, to Canadian fishing vessels. .5-6, 9. 12, 20, 62, 97. 99-100. 102. 105. 110, 194. 206. 210. 228-230. 239, 252. 257. 263. 267-268. 276, 283, 301, 316. See also American fishing vessels; Canadian fish brought into United States markets : Canadian fishing vessels ; Consumption of fish : Expansion of American markets. 392 iKDEX. Masters of American vessels, citizenship of, 123, 142, 241. Mates, t^ce (^dicers. Meat supply : Relation of, to tishiuti- trade. 44, 110, 153, 162, 222, 229. 235, 242-243, 264, 294, 31(i, 319, 347. Shortage of, 44, 153, 222, 229, 235, 238. 240, 242-243, 264, 294, 316, 319, 347. Transportation facilities for, 220-221. Sec also Refrijieratinft' cars. ■Menhaden oil indnslr.v, 266-267. ]\Ierchant marine, sonrce from which recrnited. 16. 17, 285. iMerchant Marine and EMsheries, connnittee of Tniled State House of Ue[)re- sentatives, 5-(), 51, 53-54, 56. INIodus Vivendi, Canadian : Applicahle to American lishinii' (sail) vessels only, 52, 63, 64, 104, 121-122, 195. 201, 223, 226, 238, 290. 300, 335, ;54S. Copy of — (Exhihit 00), 384. Establishment of, in 1888 and renewed annually, 51-52, 63-64, 80, 92, 195. Extension of (proposed), on permanent basis to all American tishinti ves- sels, 8, 62-()4, 67, 69-71, 75, 76, 79. 90, 96, 103-105, 194, 204, 232, 239, 244, 252, 302, 312, 313, 317, 336, 348, 354. Fees under. Sec lacenses, below. Licen.ses under. 8, 91, 121-122, 195, 201, 226, 232, 238. 246, 2(51, 269. 276, 279, 348. Annrntl, to Aniei-ican fishinir (sail) vessels only. 52, (i3-()4, 104, 121- 122, 195, 201, 223, 226, 238. 290, 300, 335, 34S. Oopy of, 225. Fee foi' — Abolishment of. permanently pr<)i)ose(l. 92, 97, 209, 226, 232, 244, 263, 275, 300, 302, 317. 332. Fi^^hermen's share in payment of. 71. Ueduction of, sumiesti^d, ()2, ()9-71, 75-76, 79, 90-91, 96, 194, 204, 209, 22(;. 22S, •_>32. 23S-239. 244, 261, 274-275, 300, 302, 317, 336, 348. Return of, under order Mar. 8, 1918, pa,i;e 6. Total amount i)aid annually, (59-70. AVaiver of, durinu' war, 6. Power boats not included in license privil(>L;e, 52. (>3, 64. lOii, 220, 22.">. 226-228. 252, 290, 300, 313. 317. 349. Privileges — Granted under, 51-52, 63, 90. 121-123, 195. 2(n. 211. 221. 223-226, 228, 232, 246, 252, 290-291, 300, 335, 348. Order extendin.ii', (hiring war, 6. Special orivile,u;>s sivjuited in certain ''ases. 19, 81, 88-90. 122-123, 282- 283, 313, 316, 354. Sus\ii"ested issuance on permanent basis to all American vessels; also reduction of fee, 8. 9, C>2, 64, 67, 69, 70, 75, 76, 79, 90. 96, 104, 204, 232. 239, 244. 252, 300, 302, 313, 316-317, 336, 348. Order in council exteniling, durin.t;- war, 6. I'rivileges .granted under. See Jjicenses, above. Ports of Canada, opening of. to Americjui fishing vessels, .s'rc American fishing vessels. Susi)ension of, 219. Text of (Exhibit CC) . 384. War order in council extending privileges, 6. See also American fishing vessels; Fift.v-fif ty : Licenses; Reciprocal .-irrange- ments. Motor fishing vessels : Applicability of lulled Stall's sleanibeat-inspeclion laws to, 27-31, 35. Licenses not granted under Alodns Vivendi. See Modus Vivendi. »S'rr Sleamboat-inspectlou l.-iws of United States; Licenses; Power vessels. Nati(mality of cn-ws. .American lishiug vessels. 17. 120. 123-124. 20(». 214. 210. 234-235." Naviii'ation laws of riiited Slates, .apiillcation of, to lishing vessels. 11-27, 64, 291, 296. INDEX. 393 Nets : Cost of, in Cniuula niul Ignited Stntes, 7.S-80, 250. 325. Duty on, in United States and Canada, 76. 77. 79, SI. 250. 2!)6. Mending of, in Canadian ports, 221, 233, 275, 316-317. Manufactnrers of, 78. Tariff (U. S.) classification, revision of, 78, SO. Where bou,slit, 79, 81, 250, 296. New England fishing interests, notice of hearings sent to. 8. 62. Newfoundland : Conference lias no reference to, 112. 126. 214. Cre\YS from, for American fishing vessels, 120, 123-125, 127. 214. 221. Fish from, to United States free, 64. Im])0)-ts of fish from, to United States. 64. 149, 214. Law as to loltsters. 146. Shutting out American banking fleet. 219. 280. War conditions in. 212-213. New York State. Sec Lake Champlain Fisheries. Northern, noi-theastern. and northwestern frontiers, 47, 49. " Ocean white fish," 216. aSVc Whiting. Offal. Sec Waste: Chicken-feed industrv : Fish-meal industrv. Ofiicers : American vessels — (Mtizenship of. 123, 142. 241. Licensed, 28-31. Number of mates, 30. Wages. See Wages. ('anadian vessels — Wages of. See Wages. Oils. See Fish grease and oils industr.v. Ojjen diplomacy. 60-61, 65, 186, 194, 293. Oj)erating expenses of American. Canadian, and F>ririsli fishinu' vessels, 217-218, 317-318. See Cost. Orders in Council, Canadian: Extending modus vivendi. 51, 52, 92, 195, 274, 290. February IS, 1918. Lake Champlain fisheries, 5. February 28, 1918. closed season for shad, Bay of Fundy, 382. Marcli 8, 1918, granting American fishing vessels privileges in Canadian l)orts (hiring the war, 5-6. See also Reciprocal privileges, etc. Ordei's of I'nited States Government : February 20, 1918. granting privileges to Canadian and other vessels in American ports, 5. March 25, 1918, applying order of February 20 to Great Lakes, etc., 5. Ottawa, siiggestion tluit conference meet in, 51. Ownership of vessels : Individual and consolidated. 177, 200-201, 304-305. Number of owners, Gloucester fleet, 200, 202-203. Pacific and Atlantic fisheries, relative importance of, 48-49. Panama Canal act, whether applies to fishing vessels, 98-99, 106-107. Pay. See Wages. Pemn-ngton, Dr., 167, 169-170, 172. Pension for fishermen, 157. Pickled-fish industry, 257. Pike i)erch. Lake Champlain, 8, 53, 112-119, 199. 293. Pilotage, collection of, in Canadian ports, 214-215. Pollution of waters, 335. Ports of Canada, opening of to American fishing vessels, 5-6, 9, 62. 81-84. 96, 102, 194, 201. 206, 211. 223-224. 229-2.30, 232, 238, 247, 252, 263, 300. 31(), 335- 336. Poi-t charges of Canada, 9. Ports of United States, opening of to Canadian vessels. 5-6, 9. 12, 20, 62, 97. 99-100, 102, 105. 110. 194, 206, 210, 228-230. 239, 252, 257. 263-268, 276. 283, 301, 316. I'ortuguese on American fishing vessels, 17. 120-121, 200, 214, 219, 234-235. Portmi'iiese fisliing vess(-'ls, coming to I'^nited States, 202. 356. 394 INDEX. Power fishing vessels : Applicability of United States steamboat-inspection laws to, L'T-.Hl. Auxiliary fishing- vessels of Gloucester, 223-224, 22S, 230. Canadian Government arantim;- special privileges to, 19, SI. SS-OO. 122-123. 282-283, 313, 316, 354. Tendency toward, 96-97, 119. 200, 223-224, 315, 341, 346. Sec Gloucestei- fisheries vessels : ]Motor fishin.c; vessels ; Vessels. I'repared-fish industi-y, 241-242. Prices for fish, 48. 71, 73. 74, 123, 168, 208-209, 211, 222, 235, 242, 257. 259, 267- 268, 302. 312, 315, 320, 339, 347. 351, 354. Sec also Cheajier fish. Pi'ince Rupert : Cold storage at. 111, 170. 171, 182. Free and oi)en niarket for fish, 109-119. Seattle outfitters in re privileges to American vessels. 70. Use of port by American fishing ves.sels, 6, 8, 70, 109-110, 182, 216. Privileges. Sec liecipi-ocal privileges: Modus vivendi. Production of fish, increase in. 64. 98. 104-106. 1.53, 183. 185-186. 188, 206. 208, 212-213. 215, 223, 243, 248, 205. 267-268. 27S. 313. 316, 323. 340. 346. 351-.352. 354. 356-357. Sec nlso. Demand foi- fish, etc.: Kducati<)nal jiropaganda. et--. : Exiiaiision of American market : Food supply. Protection of Amei'ican fishing industry. 78. 203. 205. Sec also. Modus vivendi : Kecii>rocal ])i'ivileges. Puget Sound, salmon fisheries of: Conservaticni of, 6-8. 52. 54-55. 62-63, 293. Drafting regulations for. 7-8. 55. Reciprocal privileges lietween the United States and Canada : xAs a war measure. 76, 77, By ( 'auada — Order in council. Feltrnary 18. 1918. Lake Cliamplain fisheries, 5. Order in cou.ncil. March 8. 1918. granting privileges in Canadian i)orts. during the w.-ir. to American fislnng vessels. 5-6. By United States- Bill in (Congress, February 25. 1918, to stop American lolister smacks fishing off Canadian coast, 6. (~)rder, Feliruary 20. 1918, granting privileges in American ports, during the war, to fishing vessels of Canada and other nations now acting with the United States, 5. Order. March 25, 1918, applying order of Fei)ruary 20, 1918. to Great Lakes and boundary waters, 5. To American fishing vessels in Canadian ports and to Canadian fi.shing ves- sels in .American' ports, 5-6. 67-71. 75-78. 81-84, 90-92. 97-98. 102-104, 147. 158-159, 178-179. 183, 199, 202, 209-211, 213, 215. 220-221, 226-227. 229-230, 232. 245-246, 252, 275-277, 284-285, 290-294, 302, 307, 312-313. 317, 329. 336, 340-341. 346, 348-349, 351-354. See also, American fishing vessels ; Canadian fishing vessels : Fifty-fifty : Licenses ; Modus vivendi. Reciprocitv with Canada, proposed in 1911, 280. Refrigerating cars and ships, 157, 167. 169-170. 186-187. 220. Registered vessel, 18, 52, 276, 291. Registry. See American registry ; British registry : Canadian registry. Reinspection of vessels, 37. Relative importance of Atlantic and Pacific fisheries, 48-49. Repairs : American vessels, cost of, 303. Canadian vessels, cost of, 308. Privilege of, to American vessels in Canadian ports, 5-6, 313. See also, Cost; Treaty of 1818, Resolutions : In re protection of — Halibut, 374, Salmon, 7. Sturgeon, 39. Revised Statutes of United States. See Statutes of United States. Rope: See Supplies, 250, 317. IISTDEX. 395 Sale of fish: In Aniericaii luarkeTs, iinvilei;v r<) ("auadian fislihm vessels, 9. 12, 20, 123; 210, 340. In Canadian niurkets. pilvileae to American fisliinii- vessels, 9. 97. 206, 317, 340. In inland cities of Canada, 104, 241, 346. In inland cities of United States, 1.32, lo.V157. 161-365, 167, 171-173. 185, 206-207, 319-320, 322, 329, Increase of in Canada, 308. luci-ease of in United States, 162. 175. Salmon : On Pacific. 6-S. 52, 54-55, 62-63, 293, On Atlantic. 324-327. 337. Salmon pack, .size of. 44. Salt fish, into United States dutv free (see table), 128. 204. 227, 239. Salt fish industrv. ] 51-1 52. 160. 182-1 S3. 206. 257-260. 263. 268. 279. 301-302, 346-347. 352. Salt, free, 12. 25. Sardines, 44. 45, 293. 340. Seal, case of, S.5-93, 273-274, 281-282, Seamen's act of United States, npr)lical)ilitv of. to fisinnu' vessels, 27. 30. 32, 331, 332. Seattle, outfitters in. 70. Shad: In Canadian waters, 293, 323-329, 334, 337, 356, 364-3ti5, 383, In American waters, 55, 95, 324, 328, 337, 364. Sharks, 179. Sec also. Leather. Shipbnildin.s. See Construction of fishinji; vessels. Shipment of fish in bond thVough Canada, 9, 96, 109, 121-122. 211, 252, 314, .357. Ships, refrigeratintr, 186-187. Shore fisheries, 184-185. 198, 219-200. Skins. See Leather. Slavonians, on American fishing vessels, 17. Smoked-fish industry, 257, 264, 314, 329, 346. Smuggling, law to prevent, 21, 23, 38, 330. Sponge-protection law, 140. States, several not cooperating with Federal Government, 95. Statistics : See Consumption of fish: Cost: Exports: Fees for licenses: Imports; Tables : Vessels. Statutes of United States : Act of 1789, 12. Act of 1783, 11, 12. Act of 1898, 43, 57. 58. - Act of 1903, 43. Cold-storage law, 165. Navigation laws. See Navigation laws. Panama Canal act, 98-99, 106-107. Seamen's act. See Seamen's act. Section 1954 R. S., 22. Section 3109 R. S., 43, 46-47, 49-50, 57-58, 108, 276, 330. Section 4131 R. S., 38. Section 4311 R. S., 11, 20, 263. Section 4420 R. S., 26. Section 4426 R. S., 27-29. Section 4430 R. S., 362-363. Section 4431 R. S., 362. Section 4433 R. S., 362-363. Section 4463 R. S., 30. Section 4516 R. S., 32-33. Steamboat inspection laws. See Steamboat inspection laws. Steamboat-inspection laws of L'uited States : ApplicaliiJity of to fishing vessels, 27-38. Comparison with Canadian laws, 340. Traveling inspectors to enforce, 364. 396 INDEX. steam fishing vessels : Applicabilitj' of Canadian steamboat-inspection laws to, 32, 35. Applicability of United States steamboat-inspection laws to, 27-32; 36. Number of, at Gloucester, 224, 315. See also American fishing vessels. Trawlers, Vessels. Steam trawler.s, 28-30, 32, 35, 81, 85-90, 98, 155, 309. See Trawlers. Strike of Gloucester fishermen (1917), 217, .353. Sturgeon, protection of, 8, 39-40, 53. Subsidy to Canadian cold-storage plants, 171. Supplies (outfits, coal, gi'uli. ice, l)ait, tul) trawls, nets, rope, etc.), 296, 331-332, 345. American fishing vessels obtaining in Canadian poxts, 6, 79, 91, 96, 236- 238, .300, 30.3-304, 317, 335. Canadian fishing vessels obtaining in United States ports, 9, 20, 24, 39, 42, 109. 251, 297, 299, 300, 304, 306. Cost of, for Canadian and American fishing vessels, 82, 236-239. 247. 250- 251, 29.5-29(i, 306, 345, 353. Ketchikan, obtaining of. at, 109. Sec Ketchikan. Prince Rupert, obtaining of, at. 109-119. Prices of. in Canada and United States, 79. 236-23S. 2.50-251. 254. 278. 298. (Quality, 255. 297. 310. 314, 345, 355. Quantity, 251. Supply of fish, wliere largest from, 210, 211. Surplus supply of fisli, required, 185. Supply and dema.ud : DeveIoi>meiU and increase of, 104-106, 110, 127, 149-150, 152-156, 162, 164, 172, 175-178, 183-185, 193, 199, 206-207, 211. 222, 229, 239-240, 242-243, 252-25;i. 1258. 319, 323, .336-337, 346. 351. Relation between, 44-45. 71-72, 106, 127, 151-155, 162, 164, 168, 208-209, 230. 243, 2.53. .315-316. 336. See <(ls() Consumption of fish; Demand for fish; Educational propa- ganda: Expansion of American ma rivets ; Production, increase in. T:d)les : Bounties i)aid to Canadian fishermen, 367. Cost of outfitting American fishing vessels, 236-238. Cost of outfitting Canadian fishing vessels, 297-298. Expenditures of American fishing vessels in Canadian ports, 236, 237. Expenses of Gloucester fishing vessels, 236, 237. Imports of fish into United States, 381, 382. Nationality crevrs Gloucester fleet, 212. Nunilier vessels (iloucester fleet, 212. Outfitter supplies for Canadian vessels, 297. Prices foi- food, supplies, etc., for American and Canadian fishing ves- sels, 238. Vessels transfei-red to aliens, including Canadians, 373, 374. Taiming fish skins. See Leather. Tariff : A domestic problem, .52, 6-1, 83, 90. 103-104. 196, 201, 275. 291. (Canadian on fish, 9, 83, 90, 104. 206. Dutv on fish and fisliing gear, nets, etc, 79-81. 99. 'see Duty. United States tariff act 1913. admitting cei'tain fish free. 52. 64. 99. 103. 195-196. 204, 290-291. Territorial waters : Alaska, 21, 24. Canadian. 24. 52-53, 85-90, 196, 205, 281, 292. United States, 49, 205, 276, 281, 293, 330. Texas fish hatchery, closing of, 95. The seal case of 'Gloucester steam trawler at Halifax, 85-93, 273-274, 281-282 Three-mile linut, 85-93, 196, 204-205, 233, 275, 277-278. Tinker. 93-94. Tonnage tax. United States, on fishing vessels, 26. See also American fishing vessels; Canadian fishing vessels. Transfer of Canadian fishing vessel to trading vessel. 15, 17-18. 64, 100, 103. 105 125, 196, 204. 291, 315, 329, 347, TSDEX. 397 Tran>:porrariou facilities. 157, 1G3-166, 169-lTG. 257. 269. 319. iSee also Refrigerating car.< and ships. Trausshipment of lisli. from Canada to United States, 69. 70. 96. 109 121-122 211, 2.52, 314. Traveling inspectors. United States Steamboat Service. 37. Trawlers : American. 73. 230-231. 278-279. Boston fleet, 15-5-156. British 88. 148, 230. 243. Canadian. 73. 230-231. 278. 309. Regnlation of — In American-Canadian fisheries. 28. 85-93. In North Sea, 230-231. .See also American fishing vessels : British trawlers : Canadian fishing vessels ; Vessels ; Wages. Treatj- of 1818. rights of American fishing vessels imder (.shelter, repairs, wood, water). 8. 51. 53. 63. 64. SO. 90-92. 104. 195. 219. 226. 244. 274. 282-283 290-291. Treaty of 18-54. 312. Treaty of Washington. 1871. -52. 147. 148. 215. 244-245. 291. Treaty of 1888. not ratified by Congress: Proposed rights under. -51-52. a3-64. 195. 277-278, 290-291. ilodns Vivendi, established by Congi-e.s.s pending ratification of. 51-.52 92 195. 274. 290. Treaty of 1909. 43. 46. 49-50. Tuna-fish industry. 17.3-174. 184. Twelve-mile limit, fishing off Canadian coast, 85-93. 205. 273. 282. See also The Seal. United States and Canada in the war. 112. 192-195. 203. 212-213. 245. 261-263 279. .S'ee also Great Britain in the war. Cnited States fishing vessels. See American fishing vessels. United States Navy, sources fi'om which recruited. 16. 17. 235. 285. Vermont. See Lake Chtsmplaiu fisheries. Vessels : Aliens and citizens on American fi.-121. 12:-)-124. 200. 214, 219. 234-235. American registry. See American registry. .American fishing vessels, privileges in Canadian ports. .Sec American fish- ing vessels : Reciprocal privileges. Bait for. ..Sec Supplies. Bill of health. 21. 26. Boilers of. 28. 34-36. 357-36:3. British trawlers. .See Briti.>
  • !) 20(», •J(»2-20H, 211-212, 22;-J- 224. 22S, 284, 238. 247. 28(1. Calling at Canadian jjorts, 1915-16; also nunibei of calls, 22.5. TnsuHicient to suppl.v increased (lenian04. Sold at Gloucester :ind lo wliat countries, 160, 274. 277. Operating expenses ol'. .s'rr ( 'osl ; op(H-atiiig expenses: . Ports of Canada, ojjentng of, to .Americnn vessels. Sec American fishing vessels; Kecii)roc:il i)hivileges. I'orts of I'nited States, oi>eiung of. lo Canadian vessels. See Canadian fishing vessels; U(H-i|)roc;ii jirivileges. rortuguese fishing vessels coming io I'niled Sl:it<'s. 202. .'iKJ. l'o\\er. fishing \essels. Sec I'ower. Prince Rupert, American vessels imttiiig in nl. Sec Prince Uupert. Privileges to American :ind Canadian, Sec Uecipi-ocal jirivilegos. Qualit.v of. 8."i, 86. Repairs. 1o Cniied Slates \(>ssels in Canadian i)orls. Xcc Cost. Re])aii-s; Treat.v .if ISIS. Rights of American fishing vessels under livat.v of ISIS. See Amei'ican fish- ing vessels. Seamen's act. Ignited States, aiiitlicability of. to tisliing vessels. Sec Sea- nien's act. Sheltei' for rnitelical)ilitv of. 81-82, 86, :^40, 8.")7- 364. Steamboat-inspection laws of United States, applicability of, 27-8S, .840. Steam fishing vessels. See Steam fislnng vessels. Supplies f(U- (see Supplies) — At Ketchikan. See Ketchikan. At Prince Bupert. Sec Prince Rui)ert. (^ost of, for Canada and United States fishing ve.ssels. See Cost. Obtained liy American fishing Itoats in Canadian ports. Sec Supi)lies. Obtained liy Canadian fisliing vessels in United States ports. See Sup- plies. Tlie Seal, incident at Halifax. 8.1-93. 271-274, 281-282. Tonnage tax on United States fishing vessels. 26. Transfer of — American ves.sels to Canadian registry, 26-27, 8-"), 38, 49. British and other foreign vessels to American registrv. 8"). ;5S. 98-99. 106. Canadian vessels to American registry. 3.5, 38, 98-99. From character of fishing vessel to trader. 1;5. 17. IS. ci, lOO, 108, 1(».5, 125, 196. 204, 291, 815, 329, .847. INDEX. 399 Vessels — Contiuued. Treaty of 1818, rights of United States vessels under. See Treutv (jf 1818 Treaty of 1888 (not ratified), proposed rights under. See Treaty of 1888 Lnited States fishing vessels. See American fishing vessels Wages of captains and crews of American and Canadian. ' See Wa^es u ater for United States vessels in Canadian ports. See Water : Treaty of 181S. ' ^ Wood for United States vessels in Canadian ports. See Wood ; Treaty of 181o. AVages : Captain.s. mates, crews, fishermen. 120. 124, 326. 213 231 -^SG-'HT -'BT '^Qfi 3U(j, 314. 343-344. 365. '" -'•-"'•-•^O' American fishing vessels including steam trawlei-s, 62, 71-77 8"'^ I'^O- 321. 127. 231, 236-237. 267, 299. 309-310. 344. ' " r'anadian fishing vessels, including steam trawlers. 62 73-77 S"* 1*>7 220. 237. 295-296. 301, 305-306. 309-310, 314, 343-344, 353. ' ' ' ' Comparison of, officers and crews American and Canadian fishing vessels 73-77, 12&-127, 213, 229, 237. 254, 299. 302, 304, 309-310, 314 343-345 ' ('arpenters. laliorers. etc., in shipbuilding. 72. Great Britain in, 180-181. 310. Rate, coiiiputation of, 74, 77. 305, 309. Sharing system on fishing vessels. 213, 217-218. 296, 299. 305, 30&-310 343 365. ' War. S.ee Cana