The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1886-03-19
FISH.
| Answer of o. q. Whitten to Mr..
Jones of Halifax and Others.

o. B. Written, of the firm Of Lewis, Chase
& Written, has given his views in regard TO
the statements made by Messrs. Jones,
Weatherbee, Fielding and Ross OF Halifax
in regard to the fisheries. Mr.. Written is a
very prominent member of the Portland
Fishery Exchange. He said:
81 have read the remarks by the gentlemen.
They all seem to be Indifferent whether there
Is treaty or not, and yet they say they
need it, We have tried it for fourteen years,
and know that we do not want it. They say
they must have the markets OF the United
States open to them. We admit that it costs
us more for our vessels, for our 0utnt and to
man our vessels, and we claim that is our
reason why we should be protected by the
United States government. All they use is
admitted free of duty, while we have the 40
per cent tax staring us In the lace They
speak OF the bait question, but IL they are
protected by their government we ought to
be by ours.
Last year ever 10000 vessels of bait were
taken from our flats and sent to Canada. Mr..
Jones said:
Another very important point, that should not
be lost sight of in this connection, Is that under
this treaty the American fishermen could enter
our harbors and bays, set their own NETS ana take
their own bait. The value to them OF this prlvi-
lege can scarcely be oyerestimated
Now, we have been in business for eight
cen years, and never sent our vessels to take
bait in our own nets. If 1t was an adyan-
| tage to us to be able to purchase the bait, 1t
was an advantage to them to sell IT,
Again Mr.. Jones said:
As some idea Of the value, l may adopt then
own view 1t will be remembered that some five
or six years ago the fishermen OF Fortune Bay,
Newfoundland, forcibly prevented American hsh-
| ermen from taking bait for one DAY. VI course,
| under the treaty, the American fishermen had the
right, and the Newfoundland fishermen were
| wrong In attemDtinp To prevent tleln anu the
| suit was an immediate demand from the United
States government for compensation for interior
ence with their rights.
This is mistake. The American fisher
men did not take the herring for bait, but
for the market, and the natives became so
| indignant that they prevented by force the
American fishermen from taking the herring
| at all. They damaged boats and pier, they
| government of the United States exacted
| was not for the loss of one days fishing, but
| for all of the damage that was inflicted at
| that time. Such talk as that made by Mr..
| Jones is perfect nonsense.
Mr.. Jones says he is strongly in favor OF
| a renewal of the treaty. OF course he Is. lie
says that they can get better prices in the
markets of Europe. If so, why do they de-
| sire to have our markets open to them? We,
| with the experience of fourteen years be-
hind us, know that the treaty has been
| detrimental to our interests
| Mr.. Jones says:
| Nothing but mutual concession and determine.
/ on the part of both governments to avoid cause
for open disagreement can prevent the most irri
| tatng consciousness, and our present friendly re.
lations might be strained to a degree that would
| scarcely bear further tension.
| "Why so? We shall not ask cur govern
ment to protect us in doing wrong? Ii ouI
vessels go within the three-mile limit we
| time the Canadians are talking about their
| governments fitting out armed vessels to
| protect their rights. Why not talk about oul
| governments fitting out vessels to protect
| our fishermen in our waters? We have fish
| ing grounds that we regard as more valuable
| to us than the Canadian grounds.
The duties have nothing to do with the
| price OF fish; that is regulated by supply and
| demand. Duties are now on fish, and YET
| fish has not been as low for the past fifteen
| years. With our large fishing fleet, and with
the modern appliances for taking fish, we
are abundantly able to supply the market OF
| the United States with fish, and that at a
| low rate.
On another point Mr.. Jones says:
| The statement made in the United States Sen
| ate by those opposed to renewal of the treaty
| to the effect that under the operation of the old
| treaty the number of our bankers had enormously
| increased, while theirs on the other hand de-
been able to ascertain, be borne out by public
| documents. That our bank fisheries have in
IS 6a a0 Ssn e ease Rp on fhe r a
| shore fisheries, and although have not the pub
lie records at hand, doubt if our fisheries, as
whole, have increased to any appreciable extent.
| Now, take the real facts in the case, sta
| tistics show that in fourteen years our fleet
| has decreased SO per cent, and theirs has
increased about as much. We put facts
| against assertion. In his statement in re-
| gard to the estimate placed by our govern
ment upon one days fishing, Mr. Jones
| showed either ignorance of facts or deliber-
| ate intention to misrepresent.