I 221 
 
 65 
 18 
 py 1 
 
 REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 AMER I CAN- CAN AD I AN 
 FISHERIES CONFERENCE 
 
 1918 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1920 
 
n. or Ji*. 
 /AUG iO ]i;20 
 

 CONTENTS. 
 
 General considerations 3 
 
 Privileges to the fishing vessels of either country in the ports of the 
 
 other : 5 
 
 Rehabilitation and protection" of the sockeye salmon of the Fraser River 
 
 system 20 
 
 Protection of the Pacific halibut fishery 32 
 
 Fishing by United States lobster well-smacks off Canadian coast 86 
 
 Protection of the fisheries of Lake Champlain 37 
 
 Requirements imposed on Canadian fishing vessels passing through terri- 
 torial waters of Alaska 38 
 
 Protection of the sturgeon fisheries 38 
 
 Protection of whales 39 
 
 Appendix A. — Treaty between Great Britain and the United States con- 
 cerning the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser River 
 system 41 
 
 Appendix B. — A system of international regulations for the protection 
 and preservation of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the 
 Fraser River system 43 
 
 1 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 AMERICAN-CANADIAN FISHERIES CONFERENCE, 
 1918. 
 
 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 The oommissioners constitutino' the American-Canadian Fisheries 
 'Conference were appointed for the purpose of considering the out- 
 standing questions involving the fisheries of the United States and 
 Canada and of reaching a basis for the settlement of those questions 
 if possible. The principal matter in dispute at the time of the call- 
 ing of the conference was the privileges accorded fishing vessels of 
 ^•ach country in the ports of the other; but other subjects of great 
 importance, particularl}^ the rehabilitation and maintenance of the 
 socke^'e salmon fishery of the Fraser River system, were also brought 
 to our attention by the respective governments. 
 
 The commissioners first met in the cit}^ of Washington on January 
 16, 1918, and thereafter held conferences from day to day until 
 January 25. The diiferent pertinent matters were brought up and 
 considered, and substantial progress was made, but it was found 
 that it would be desirable, before conclusions could be reached, to 
 hold public hearings on both coasts of the United States and Canada. 
 Accordingly heai'ings were held as follows : 
 
 Boston, Mass., January 31 and Februarj^ 1. 
 
 Gloucester, Mass., February 2. 
 
 St. John. New Brunswick, February 5 and 6. 
 
 Seattle, Wash., April 2-1 and 25, May 9 and 10. 
 
 Prince Rupert, British Columbia. April 30 and May 1. 
 
 Ketchikan, Alaska, May 2. 
 
 Vancouver, British Columbia, May 7. 
 
 Xew Westminster, British Columbia, May 8. 
 
 A copy of the evidence taken at these hearings is appended. 
 
 On the conclusion of the hearings at Seattle, the commissioners 
 proceeded to Ottawa, where conferences .were held on May 20, 21, 
 and 22, and conclusions were reached in principle, but as there had 
 to be worked out certain details which could not then be completed, 
 adjournment was taken subject to the call of the chairman. The 
 commissioners reconvened on September 4, at Hotel Champlain, 
 Bluff Point-on-Lake Champlain, Clinton County, N. Y., where the 
 concluding meeting was held, a final report was adopted, and the 
 work was brought to a close. 
 
 The minutes of all the sessions are submitted herewith. 
 
 From the outset the deliberations of the conference were charac- 
 terized by candor, frankness, and harmony of purpose. The term 
 
 (3) 
 
"" open diplomacy " fittingly describes the methods pursued through- 
 out. The basic thought that animated the commissioners was not 
 only to remove the causes of past controversy and irritation over 
 fishery questions, but to make possible the supplying of the largest 
 quantities of food fish to the largest number of people of the two 
 countries both during the existence of the war and during the mo- 
 mentous post-bellum years when the world's food problem may con- 
 ceivably reach its most critical period. It was felt by the commis- 
 sioners that objections, if any, by local fishermen or even entire com- 
 munities should not be allowed to stand in the way of measures 
 which are obviously in the best interests of the people of both coun- 
 tries as a wdiole. 
 
 No effort was made by either section of the conference to keep 
 back any information, no matter what its bearing might seem to be; 
 on tlie contrary, there were at all times a willingness and a desire 
 that tlie fullest details should be available to both sections on all 
 phases of each question. 
 
 It was found, as the inquiries proceeded, that some of the outstand- 
 ing differences were based on misconceptions or lack of information 
 as to the other side of the case. In fact, in looking back over the 
 history of some of the questions at issue, it is easy to understand 
 how failure to appreciate or comprehend the viewpoint and aims of 
 the other side, and the lack of sufficiently close personal contact, may 
 have been the reason for the original difficulties and the cause of 
 their perpetuation. 
 
 It was because of these considerations that it was decided to hold 
 public hearings in all the localities most directly affected or inter- 
 ested. The truth or otherwise of certain contentions and claims 
 could be best established by investigations on the spot at which the 
 commissioners from both sides could be present and take an equal 
 part. It was also felt that it would be desirable to invite the fishery 
 interests in Canada to be represented at the hearings in the United 
 States, and vice versa. It was further decided that if an}^ persons 
 in attendance at the hearings felt that information had not been 
 brought out sufficiently to elucidate any particular points, such per- 
 sons should be given an opportunity to ask the necessary questions. 
 
 The wisdom of this course was disclosed on various occasions, as, 
 when the actual facts were clearly established, local opposition to 
 l)roposed means of settlement gave place to local support. 
 
 The different questions that were submitted and considered by the 
 conference will now be dealt with in detail. These are as follows: 
 
 Privileges to the fishing vessels of either country in the ports of 
 the other. 
 
 Kehabilitation and protection of the sockeye salmon of the Fraser 
 River system. 
 
 Protection of the Pacific halibut fishery. 
 
 Fishing by United States lobster well-smacks off Canadian coast. 
 
 Protection of tlie fislieries of Lake Champlain. 
 
 Re(iuirements imposed on Canadian fishing vessels passing through 
 territorial waters of Alaska. 
 
 Protection of the sturgeon fisheries. 
 
 Protection of Avhales. 
 
PRIVILEGES TO THE FISHING VESSELS OF EITHER COUNTRY IN THE PORTS 
 
 OF THE OTHER. 
 
 This matter has been an outstandino; source of international com- 
 plication and irritation for over one hundred years, and, at times, 
 even threatened the peaceful relations of Great Britain and the 
 United States. While article 1 of the treaty of October 20, 1818, 
 measures the liberties of the Ignited States fishinii: vessels in Canadian 
 waters, the orifrin of the question antedates the American Revolu- 
 tionary War, when Great Britain and France were contending- for 
 supremacy on this continent. Indeed, nearly all the conflicts that 
 took place between the then British colonists of Xew England and 
 the French colonists of what are now the Canadian Provinces dur- 
 ing the 150 years or more before the battle on the Plains of Abraham 
 in 1759 either were directly due to or included disputes connected 
 with the fisheries. . 
 
 The New England colonists exploited and developed the fisheries 
 of the northeastern coasts of Xorth America, and, largely unaided, 
 bore the burden of maintaining and defending their interests against 
 French aggression during the wars between the mother countries. 
 
 It is, therefore, not surprising to find that when the treaty of 
 peace of 1783, following the Revolutionary War, was being nego- 
 tiated the United States representatives insisted that they had equal 
 rights with Great Britain in these fisheries, and that they should, 
 therefore, be allowed to continue to exercise those rights. The third 
 article of this treaty reads as follows : 
 
 It is agreed, that the People of The United States shall continue to enjoy 
 unmolested the right to take Fish of every kind on the (4vand Bank and on all 
 the other Banks of Newfoundland; also in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and at 
 all other places in the Sea. where the Inhahitants of both countries used at 
 any time heretobefore to tish. And also that the Inhabitants of the United 
 States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the Coast 
 of Newfoundland as British Fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the 
 same on that Island), and al.so on the Coasts, Bays, and Creeks of all other 
 of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America ; and that the American 
 Fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled 
 Bay.s, Harbors, and Creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, 
 so long as the same shall remain unsettled; but so soon as the same, or either 
 of them, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said Fishermen to dry 
 or cure fish at such Settlement, without a previous agreement for that purpose 
 with the Inhabitants, Proprietors, or Possessors of the ground. 
 
 This article contained two distinct stipulations, the one recogniz- 
 ing the " right " of the United States to fish on the high seas, which 
 was a right that was then being recognized as appertaining to all 
 nations, and the other granting fishing and onshore " liberty "" within 
 British jurisdiction. 
 
 These inshore and onshore " liberties " soon began to prove a source 
 of friction between the local colonists of the British provinces and 
 the visiting fishermen from the United States. The residents were', 
 from time to time, obstructed in their lawful fishing operations by 
 their visiting competitors, and they were frequently prevented from 
 fishing on certain portions of their coasts by finding the harbors 
 and creeks occupied by these visitors. 
 
 When the War of 1812 broke out Great Britain contended that 
 these liberties were terminated b}^ it, but the I'^^nited States main- 
 
tained that they were not affected by the war, and as the two nations 
 could not a^rree on this point the treaty of Ghent, ISltt, which put an 
 end to the hostilities, is silent on the fisheries question. 
 
 Great Britain, hoAvever, insisted on her contention and main- 
 tained that in the absence of any provision regarding the fisheries 
 in the new treaty United States fishermen were placed in the same 
 position in British waters as those from other nations, but while 
 maintaining this attitude she expressed willingness to have United 
 States fishermen allowed reasonable privileges and to enter into 
 negotiations to that end. This course was followed, and the question 
 was dealt with by article 1 of the treaty of 1818, which article reads 
 as follows : 
 
 Wliereas differeiiees hnv^ arisen respeetinjs: tlie liberty claimed by the United 
 States for the inhal)itants thereof, to take, dry, and cure fish on certain coasts, 
 bays, harbours, and creeks of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, it 
 is agreed between the high contracting parties, that the inhabitants of the said 
 United States shall have for ever, in common with the sul)j'eets of His Brittannic 
 Majesty, the llboi-ty to take tish of every kind on that part of the southern 
 coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands, 
 on the western and northern coast of Newfoundland, from the said Cape Ray 
 to the Quirpon Islands, on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on 
 the coasts, bays, harbours, and creeks from Moimt Joly on the southern coast 
 of Labrador, to and through the Straits of Belleisle and thence northwardly 
 indefinitely along the coast, without prejudice however, to any of the exclusive 
 rights of the Pludson Bay Company; and that the American fishermen shall 
 also have liberty for ever, to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, 
 harbours, and creeks of the southern part of the coast of Newfoundland 
 hereabove described, and of the coast of Labrador; but so soon as the same, 
 or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said 
 fishermen to ilry or cure fish at such portion so settled, without previous agree- 
 nvent for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the 
 ground. And the Ignited States hereby renounce for ever, any liberty heretofore 
 enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or 
 within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of his 
 l>ritannic M;ijesty's dominions in America, not included within the above- 
 meiitio.ncd limits; Provided, hoicerer. That the American fishermen shall be 
 admitted to enter such bays or harbours for the purpose of shelter and of 
 rei)airing damages therein, of piu'chasing wood, and of obtaining water, and 
 for no othei- purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as 
 may be necessai-y to prevent their taking, d7-ying, or curing fish therein, or iu 
 any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved to tlieni. 
 
 At the time it was thought that this treaty had at last put an end 
 to the fishery disputes ; but it soon transpired that the two countries 
 placed different interpretations u])on certain of its important pro- 
 A'isions, while the growth of the mackerel fishery and the tendency 
 of the mackerel to school inshore at times, as well as the need for 
 surface bait that Avas used in this fishery, made the British territorial 
 waters of greatei" importance than was anticipated when the treaty 
 Avas being negotiated. 
 
 While these questions of interpretations were set at rest from time 
 to time by intervening treaties, they were not finally settled until 
 1010. wlien they formed the subject of an unusually important arbi- 
 tration at Tlie Hague. 
 
 Tlie aAvard of tlie arbitration court removed imcertainty as to the 
 meaning of the article, but it did not meet the matter of the needs 
 and dilHcuhies of Ignited States fisliing vessels on the high seas off 
 the Bi-itish Provinces; and, as will be later shoAvn, owing to restric- 
 tive navigation laws in the United States, Canadian fishing vessels 
 
were not able to reasonably avail themselves of the United States 
 markets. 
 
 One of the main points long in dispute was as to the meaning of 
 the word " bay " in the treaty. The United States contended that 
 it meant a bay not more than 6 miles wide, or the usual 3-mile terri- 
 torial limit from eitlier headland, and that in any bay wider than 
 6 miles at its mouth United States fishermen might carry on their 
 operations up to the 3 miles from a line ch-aAvn across the bay at the 
 first point where it ceased to be more than 6 miles wide. Great 
 Britain, on the other hand, contended that, in the absence of any 
 limiting words, it meant a geographical ha,j, regardless of its width. 
 Great Britain endeavored to enforce her view, and in 1843 the United 
 States fishing vessel Washington was seized in the Bay of Fundy 
 more than 3 miles from shore. The United States protested, but 
 Great Britain would not change her attitude. Heated diplomatic 
 discussion went on, and war was certainly imminent, but the good 
 sense of botli nations prevailed, and they decided to settle their 
 difficulties amicably. Negotiations for a treaty were started. The 
 Canadian fishermen were anxious to obtain free access to the United 
 States markets; and, under the conditions then existing, access to 
 Canadian ports and the privileges of fishing in Canadian territorial 
 waters and of drying nets and curing fish on shore were of eminent 
 value to the United States fishermen. These negotiations resulted 
 in the reciprocity treaty of 1854, under which, among other things, 
 fish and fish products of either country were admitted into the other 
 country free of duty, and United States fishermen were allowed to 
 fish in Canadian territorial waters of the Atlantic coast, excepting in 
 rivers and mouths of rivers and for shellfish. Similar privileges 
 were accorded Canadian fishermen on the Atlantic coast of the 
 United States north of the thirty-sixth parallel of north latitude, but 
 these privileges were never used. 
 
 Owing in part to the conditions that arose between the two coun- 
 tries during the American Civil War, this treaty was terminated 
 in 1866 at the instance of the Imited States. 
 
 Doubtless in the hope of reaching a new arrangement in the mat- 
 ter, the British colonies continued for a time the privileges to 
 United States fishermen by issuing licenses to their fishing A^essels on 
 payment of a fee of 50 cents per registered ton. This fee was raised 
 to $1 per ton in 1867, and the following year to $2 per ton, but 
 as the number of vessels taking out such licenses fell from 365 in 
 1866 to 35 in 1869, the licenses were then withdrawn, and in 1870 
 the treaty of 1818 again became effective. A Canadian fisheries pro- 
 tective force was established, and seizures of and interferences with 
 United States fishing vessels ensued, with the consequent interna- 
 tional friction and irritation, but the two nations again got together 
 and negotiated the treaty of Washington, of 1871, which became 
 effective in 1873. It revived the fishery provisions under the reci- 
 procity treaty of 1854. but it also provided for the appointment of 
 a commission to determine the amount of compensation that should 
 be paid by the United States to Great Britain sis the difference in 
 the value of the fishery concessions "ranted United States fishermen 
 in Canadian Avaters over those granted Canadian fishermen in United 
 States waters. This commission sat at Halifax in 1877, and its 
 2099— 2() 2 
 
findin<)^s have since been known as the " Halifax Award." The 
 amount of the award was $5,500,000, of which sum $1,000,000 was 
 apportioned to Newfoundland. 
 
 This treaty was terminated in 1885, aijain at the instance of the 
 United States (xovernment, but negotiations lookin<j to a new ar- 
 ranji^ement were set on foot, and Canada continued throuo:hout the 
 year 1885 to allow United States fishermen to enjoy the privileges 
 conveyed to them by the lapsed treaty. No new arrangement was, 
 however, reached, so that in 1886 article 1 of the treaty of 1818 was 
 again revived, and a Canadian fisheries protective fleet to enforce 
 its provisions was put on. Seizures of and interferences with United 
 States fishing vessels again followed, with the consequent serious in- 
 ternational complications, but negotiations for a new treaty were 
 again entered into, and plenipotentiaries were appointed by the two 
 nations to arrange its terms. On February 15, 1888, they agreed 
 to what has since been known as the " Unratified Treaty of 1888." 
 This treaty contemplated no extra fishing privileges to the United 
 States in Canadian territorial waters. It defined the limits of cer- 
 tain bays and provided that in all others over 10 miles wide the 
 limit of exclusion of United States fishing vessels would be 3 miles 
 from a line drawn across the bay at the first point where it ceased to 
 be more than 10 miles wide. It further provided that if the United 
 States admitted fish, fish products, and their containers free of duty, 
 such articles from the United States would be admitted into Canada 
 duty free, and Ignited States fishing vessels would be granted, with- 
 out fee, annual licenses authorizing them to purchase in Canadian 
 ports all provisions and outfits, and also to transship their catches and 
 to ship crews. 
 
 It was out of this treaty that the so-called modus vivendi licenses 
 grew. It was recognized by the treaty makers that the necessary 
 action to make the treaty effective could not be taken by the different 
 Governments before the fishing season of that year came around, and 
 to avoid the complications that would have followed the enforcement 
 of the provisions of article 1 of the treaty of 1818, the British pleni- 
 potentiaries offered, as a temporar}^ arrangement to last not longer 
 than two years, that United States fishing vessels on the payment 
 of a fee of $1.50 per registered ton should receive annual licenses 
 conveying the ])rivileges covered by the treaty. This treaty was rati- 
 fied by Creat l>ritain, Canada, and Newfoundland, but it failed to 
 receive the approval of the United States Senate. 
 
 Canada, in the hope of reacliing some satisfactory arrangement, 
 obtained the authority of Parliament for the continuation of the 
 licenses tluring 1890, and again during 1891 ; and in 1892 a Canadian 
 statute was adopted giving the Governor in Council authority to 
 renew the licenses from year to year. lender this authority such 
 licenses have been issued each year since that time. 
 
 When these licenses Avere first authorized, sailing vessels only were 
 used in the fisheries, and when vessels having auxiliary power began 
 to be used they were not admitted by the Canadian (Tovernment as 
 being eligible for such licenses on the ground that, as they Avould be 
 able to use tiiem to a greater extent than vessels driven by sails alone, 
 it would, in practice, involve an extension of the privileges contem- 
 plated. As more and more United States fishing vessels have been 
 
installing auxiliary power from year to year, fewer and fewer of 
 them have been eligible for licenses. In 1903, the year previous to 
 the limitation of licenses to sailing vessels, 93 United States fishing 
 vessels took out modus vivendi licenses, while in 1917 the number 
 fell to 45. 
 
 Another feature of the modus vivendi license system was that the 
 licenses could be withdrawn altogether any year, merely by the Gov- 
 ernor in Council failing to provide the necessary authority for is- 
 suing them. 
 
 On the other hand, under the United States navigation laws, 
 Canadian fishing vessels visiting United States ports, could not be 
 granted clearances to the high seas, but had to clear for a port in 
 a foreign country, thus having to go around two sides of a triangle 
 to reach the fishmg grounds ; and w-hen the duty was removed from 
 fish going into the United States an interpretation was placed upon 
 those navigation laws by which Canadian fishing vessels were not 
 permitted to go from the fishing grounds to United States ports with 
 their catches, but were required to ship them in by merchant vessels 
 or by rail. Also there was developed by United States fishing ves- 
 sels off the western coast of Nova Scotia a method of lobster fishing, 
 which caused gi'eat unrest among the local fishermen. With the 
 object of conserving the lobster supply Canada restricts fishing to 
 a portion of the year. As the live-lobster markets of the United 
 States are supplied in a large measure from Canada there is ordi- 
 narily an unusually good demand for lobsters in the United States 
 when fishing is prohibited in Canada. To meet this demand certain 
 United States firms fitted out well-smacks — vessels equipped with 
 wells, through which the sea water freely flows, and in which lobsters 
 can be carried alive for a considerable period — to engage in this 
 fishery off the Nova Scotia coast during the closed time for lobster 
 fishing, and when the local Canadian fishermen were not permitted 
 to engage in it, either inside or outside territorial waters. These 
 smabks used the adjacent Nova Scotia harbors as a base for this 
 fishing on the plea that they were coming in nightly for shelter, which 
 Canada urged was clearly at variance with the spirit and intention 
 of the treaty of 1818. This fishing was nullifying, to an important 
 degree, the object and effects of the Canadian close season, and it 
 was causing so much agitation and irritation among the local fish- 
 ermen that Canada was threatened with the necessity for abandoning 
 altogether the protection to the fishery involved in the close season. 
 
 As early as 1912 Canada asked the United States Government to 
 take such steps as might be necessary to stop these well-smacks from 
 engaging in this fishery during the Canadian close season, but no 
 action to that end was taken. 
 
 In 1914, following the removal of the United States duty on fresh 
 and unmanufactured fish, the ITnited States Government asked the 
 Canadian Government, in view of the fact that Canada had in the 
 past given United States fishing vessels freedom in Canadian waters 
 and ])orts in return for free access to the United States markets, that 
 the privileges covered by the modus vivendi licenses should be ex- 
 tended to all ITnited States fishing vessels, no matter how they might 
 be propelled, and that the fee thereon be reduced to a nominal sum. 
 No fishing privileges were, however, asked for. 
 
10 
 
 Owing to war and other conditions, the negotiations proceeded 
 slowly, but the Canadian Government finally replied in 1916. It 
 pointed out that on account of the restrictions against Canadian fish- 
 ing vessels in United States ports, the advantages of the modi- 
 fied United States tariff Avere largely nullified to them. It also called 
 attention to the previous request for stopping lobster fishing by 
 United States well-smacks oft' the coast of Nova Scotia during the 
 Canadian close season on that coast. 
 
 In view of these conditions. Canada offered (1) to make the 
 modus A'ivendi licenses applicable to all United States fishing vessels, 
 no matter hoAv driven, and (2) to reduce the fee thereon to a nominal 
 sum, conditionally upon (1) the United States Government permit- 
 ting Canadian fishing vessels to take their catches direct to United 
 States ports from the fishing grounds, to sell them there, and then to 
 be given clearance back to the fishing grounds, and (2) United States 
 well smacks being prevented from engaging in lobster fishing just 
 outside Canadian territorial waters during the close time for such 
 fishing in the territorial waters opposite. \ 
 
 The United States Government at that time found itself unable 
 to agree to these proposals, but considered that the advantages of 
 its modified tariff should be sufficient to warrant the extension of 
 licenses to motor-driven vessels, even if the license fee were not 
 reduced. 
 
 Meantime, the problem of halibut fishery on the Pacific coast, 
 which had been a cause for discussion and agitation for some years, 
 became more acute. 
 
 A brief history of the Pacific halibut fishery as it affects the out- 
 standing questions may be useful at this point. 
 
 The existing extensive halibut fishery had its inception in the New 
 England States about 1887. The attention of certain persons tliere 
 wdio were engaged in the Atlantic fisheries was drawn to the great 
 abundance of halibut on the Pacific coast, and in that year they sent 
 three fishing schooners out around Cape Horn to Washington to 
 engage in the fishery from there. Apparently it was the intention 
 that these vessels would, during a portion of the year, engage in 
 the pelagic fur-seal fishery, which was then becoming prominent. 
 During its first few years the fishery had a precarious existence, not 
 on account of any scarcity of halibut but because of the difficulty of 
 satisfactorily transferring the catch to the New England States mar- 
 kets, where at that time the only important demand existed. 
 
 In or about 1892 the transportation facilities were substantially 
 im]Droved by the Northern Pacific Railway, and the industry began 
 to grow. The New England Fish Co. established a branch at Seattle, 
 and, owing to the greater proximity to Vancouver of the fishing 
 grounds, and to the fact that equally favorable transportation fa- 
 cilities were available over the Canadian Pacific Railway, it opened 
 a branch at Vancouver in 1894. The company asked the Canadian 
 Government for permission to use United States vessels in its fishing 
 operations, in order that it might ship its catches to the United States 
 markets, in bond, and thus escape the United States import duty, 
 which was then one-half cent a pound. This privilege was refused, 
 and until 1897 the company used Canadian fishing vessels, and paid 
 the duty on such fish as it shipped into the United States. When 
 
11 
 
 the United States duty was increased to 1 cent a pound the com- 
 pany again approached the Canadian Government, and represented 
 that in view of this increased duty it would be necessary to discon- 
 tinue business in Vancouver unless it were granted the privilege of 
 using United States fishing vessels in its operations. There was a 
 strong local objection to granting this concession, on the ground that 
 local Canadian firms could not compete in the industry, but it was 
 decided, in order to retain the business in Vancouver, to grant the 
 privilege experimentally. The first concession, which was made by 
 Order in Council dated November 8, 1897, read as follows: 
 
 That for the period of six months hereafter next ensuing, foreigners or for- 
 eign corporations bringing fresh fish in American bottoms to any port in Brit- 
 ish Cohnnbia shall be permitted to land such fresh fish at such port, without 
 payment of duties, and transship the same in bond to any part of the United 
 States of America, under such rules or regulations as the Minister of Customs 
 may determine. 
 
 From the outset United States fishing vessels bringing, their 
 catch to a British Columbia port to ship in bond were permitted to 
 purchase all supplies and outfits and to ship crews in such ports. 
 
 These privileges were continued from j^ear to year thereafter by 
 Orders in Council without any important modifications until 1915, 
 when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway began operating from Prince 
 Rupert. In that year the regulation was extended so as to allow 
 boats to sell their fish in bond as well as to ship in bond, the object 
 being to enable the smaller boats that did not have selling connec- 
 tions in the East, or that did not produce in sufficient quantities to 
 enable them to make shipments in carload lots, to avail themselves 
 of the privileges. The concession for that year was in the follow- 
 ing terms : 
 
 During the present calendar year (1915), foreigners or foreign corporations 
 bringing fresh fish in vessels registered in the United States of America to 
 any port in British Columbia sliall be permitted to land such fresh fish at 
 such port without payment of duties and transship the same In bond to any 
 port in the United States, or to sell such fish in bond to such local dealer or 
 dealers as may be properly and duly licensed therefor, under the regulations 
 and conditions hereinafter mentioned, which dealer or dealers shall export the 
 same, in compliance with the bonding requirements (without the right, how- 
 ever, in either Instance, to sell in Canada for consumption therein, or otherwise, 
 except in bond, any of such fresh fish so landed) ; and such foreigners and 
 foreign corporations bringing fresh fish in vessels registered in the United 
 States of America to any part In British Columbia, shall be permitted to pur- 
 chase supplies, and ship crews for such vessels, at any port In the said Province 
 of British Columbia, the whole uhder such regulations and conditions as the 
 Minister of Customs may determine. 
 
 The following year the only modification made was to authorize 
 foreign vessels, before bringing fresh fish to a British Columbia port, 
 to purchase bait on giving an undertaking that the catches made 
 with such bait would be landed at a Canadian port. This proviso 
 read as follows : 
 
 Provided also, That such foreigners and foreign corporations, before bringing 
 fre.sh fish to a port in British Columbia, may be permitted to purchase bait 
 at any port in the said Province of British Columbia, upon an undertaking, 
 to the' satisfaction of the Minister of Customs, that catches of fish made with 
 any baiting so supplied shall be landed at a port on the mainland of British 
 Columbia and be thence forwarded in bond to a port in the United States, 
 the whole under such regulations and conditions as the Minister of Customs may 
 determine. 
 
12 
 
 When the fishery for halibut began, these fish were in great abun- 
 dance, and at no season of the year did the vessels find it necessary 
 to proceed farther north than Hecate Strait; but, owing to the 
 intensive fishing that was carried on to meet the ever-increasing 
 demand, the southern waters soon began to show signs of depletion, 
 and year by year vessels found it necessary to proceed farther and 
 farther north, until in recent years most of the halibut have been 
 taken off the Alaskan coast. This aspect of the matter is more fully 
 dealt with in another portion of this report, dealing with the pro- 
 tection of the fishery. 
 
 It naturally followed that when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 
 was completed and began to afford equally favorable transportation 
 facilities to the eastern markets as the competing transcontinental 
 railways farther south. Prince Rupert proved a very desirable port 
 for fishing vessels to dispose of their catches. It is 600 miles or more 
 nearer the fishing grounds than Seattle. While Ketchikan, Alaska, 
 is still nearer to the fishing grounds, it is not a railway port. 
 
 Consequently, most of the United States fishing vessels that were 
 not owned by companies having their headquarters in Seattle and 
 '\ancouver soon began to largely resort to Prince Rupert to sell 
 their catches. Several of the larger United States producing com- 
 panies on the coast found it in their interest to open branches at 
 Prince Rupert, and considerable alarm arose in Washington and 
 Alaska lest the business was going to be lost to them and transferred 
 to Prince Rupert. The belief was entertained and publicly expressed 
 that the Canadian regulations were designed to that end ; that proper 
 facilities were not open at Prince Rupert to United States branch 
 establishments to enable them to equally compete with Canadian 
 firms; that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the cold-storage 
 plant of the Canadian Fish and Cold Storage Co. at Prince Rupert 
 were assisted by the Canadian Government with this in view ; that 
 the railway did not afford transportation facilities between Ketchi- 
 kan and Prince Rupert; and that as there was no duty on halibut 
 going into the United States and there was such duty on halibut 
 entering Canada, if caught by United States fishermen, Canadian 
 dealers operating in British Columbia were at a great advantage 
 over the United States dealers operating there or elsewhere on the 
 Pacific coast. It was also claimed that the situation was further 
 rendered distinctly unfavorable to United States fishery interests 
 by a rebate of transportation charges over Canadian railways on 
 shipments into the United States of halibut caught by Canadian 
 vessels, although, as a matter of fact, no rebate ever applied to any 
 shipments of fish destined for or consigned to United States markets. 
 The agitation became so strong that in 1916 a bill was introduced 
 into Congress in the following terms : 
 
 That from and after ninety days from the passage of this act no fresh or 
 frozen halibut or salmon from the north Paoifir Ocean or its tributary waters 
 shall he admitted into the United States through iiny foreijxn country, except 
 when the same shall be in bond from an American port. 
 
 This bill was strongly supported at the time but failed to receive 
 the necessary congressional sanction and lias not since been pressed. 
 
 The review of the negotiations betAveen the two Governments may 
 now be resumed. 
 
13 
 
 After consideration of the reply of the United States Government 
 with regard to the extension of the modus vivendi licenses the Ca- 
 nadian (rovernment proposed that as the fishery questions on both 
 coasts were similar in character they should be dealt with together, 
 and it offered to settle the whole matter on the following basis: 
 
 1. That the nwjdiis vivendi be extended to all fishing vessels, by whatever 
 means they may be propelled ; that it be applied to the Paeitic coast as well as 
 to the Atlantic ; and that the annual fee be reduced from one dollar and tifty 
 cents per registered ton to the nominal sum of one dollar per vessel. Also 
 that the renewal of the licenses from year to year be not conditional on an 
 Order in Council, but forro part of the arrangement itself. 
 
 2. That United States fishing vessels on both coasts be allowed to sell their 
 fish in Canadian pcu'ts for tlie Canadian markets, subject to customs duty, 
 as well as to sell in bond. 
 
 3. That Canadian fishing vessels be allowed to [)urchase bait in United States 
 ports or waters on equal terms with American fishing ves-sels. 
 
 4. That ('anadian fishing vessels be allowed to take their catches to United 
 States ports and sell them there, subject to customs duties if any. 
 
 0. Thar fishing vessels nf either country visiring ports in the other l»e given 
 clearances for the fishing grounds if so desired. 
 
 6. That the United States prevent American lobster well smacks from fishing 
 off the Canadi;in coasts during the closv;> seasons for lobster fishing on such 
 coasts. 
 
 7. That such arrangement be in force until the exi)iration of two years after 
 either party thereto shall give notice to the other of its wi.sh to terminate the 
 siinie. 
 
 P'ollowing receipt of these proposals the United States Government 
 suggested the appointment of a joint commission of inquiry in order 
 that the whole matter might be properly dealt with. This proposal 
 was faA'ored by Canada. Hence the appointment of the present 
 commissioners and the formation of this International Fisheries 
 Conference. 
 
 Such objection to the proposed arrangement as was found to exist 
 in the United States was believed to be based on the following alleged 
 grounds : 
 
 ATLANTIC COAST. 
 
 1. That fishing vessels can be built more cheaply in Canada than 
 in the United States. 
 
 2. That the standard of wages ])aid on United States fishing ves- 
 sels is higher than on Canadian fishing vessels. 
 
 8. That the standard of living on United States fishing vessels is 
 better than on Canadian fishing vessels, and consequently the food 
 bill is greater. 
 
 4. That the equipment of United States fishing vessels is of a 
 more expensive character than on Canadian fishing vessels. 
 
 5. That the fishing outfit on the United States fishing vessels is 
 usually of_ a higher grade than on Canadian fishing vessels, and 
 consequently costs more. 
 
 G. That more space is required for crew accommodations on United 
 States fishing vessels than on Canadian vessels. The berths in the 
 United States fishing vessels may not be more than two tiers deep, 
 while in the Canadian fishing vessels they may be three tiers deep. 
 
 7. That for the above reasons Canadian fishing vessels coidd oper- 
 ate more cheaply than Ignited States fishing vessels, and if the 
 former were permitted to bring their catches to United States ports 
 
14 
 
 and sell them there they would drive the local fishermen out of the 
 business. 
 
 8. That as there is a duty on fish going into Canada and none on 
 fish going into the United States the United States vessels would 
 not be in as advantageous a position in the Canadian ports as would 
 the Canadian vessels in the United States ports. 
 
 PACIFIC COAST. 
 
 1. That the Canadian regulations as a whole, in connection with 
 fishing vessels visiting the ports of that country with their catches, 
 and the bait provision of 1916, in particular, operated so as to draw 
 United States vessels to Canadian ports and to make it impossible 
 for them to transfer their operations elsewhere after once going 
 there; that as a consequence a large number of fishing vessels had 
 already been transferred to the Canadian registry and unless action 
 were taken to prevent it many others would follow. 
 
 2. That even under the proposed arrangement TTnited States fish- 
 ing vessels would not be in a position to fairly compete with Cana- 
 dian fishing vessels, because while the Canadian vessels would have free 
 access to the United States markets there is a duty on United States 
 caught fish sold in Canada, so that the Canadian fishing vessels 
 would have the freedom of two markets Avhile United States fishing 
 vessels operating from the same ports would be confined to one, and 
 that under conditions that arise in the marketing of fish, this would 
 frequently mean the difference between a loss and a profit and so 
 force the United States dealers out of business. 
 
 On the Canadian side such objection as existed to the proposed 
 agreement was based on the following reasons, applicable to both the 
 Atlantic and Pacific Coasts : 
 
 That the United States markets, while desirable, are not now essen- 
 tial to the Canadian fishing industry; that Canadian vessels, both 
 from the standpoint of a bait supply and proximity to the banks, can 
 operate more successfully and produce more fish in the same time 
 than vessels operating from United States ports, and consequently 
 if the modus vivendi licenses on the Atlantic coast and the special 
 privileges on the Pacific coast were done away with altogether, and 
 United States fishing vessels held down to their treaty rights, they 
 could not compete with Canadian vessels in the fishing business. 
 
 At the hearings on the Atlantic coast it developed that the objec- 
 tions had no substantial foundation, being largely based on incor- 
 rect data. 
 
 While there seems to be no doubt that years ago Canadian fishing 
 vessels Avere built and operated more cheaply than their competitors 
 from the United States, such is not now the case, and there is no 
 known reason that it will be so again. The fishermen are paid 
 on the same basis on the vessels of both countries, Avith slight differ- 
 ences in detail. The Canadian fishermen, like those on the United 
 States fishing vessels. Avork hard, and demand and receive the best 
 of food. The cost of food on the whole is i^ractically the same in 
 both countries. The equipment on Canadian vessels does not differ 
 in kind or quality from that on United States vessels. The fishing 
 outfit also is of precisely the same character, and is mainly obtained 
 
15 
 
 from the same manufacturers, -who are either in the United States 
 or Great Britain. The same practice is followed regarding crew 
 space in the fishing vessels of both countries. In no instance are 
 berths three tiers deep in Canadian fishing vessels. 
 
 The cost of building vessels is now about the same on both sides 
 of the line. The evidence indicates that it is at present even cheaper 
 in the United States than in Canada, but in normal times the diifer- 
 ence in the prices of Xova Scotia and United States fishing vessels 
 is due to a difference in the materials used in construction. The first 
 cost of the United States fishing vessel is more, due to the fact that 
 it is built of better and more expensive lumber, and, consequently, 
 it lasts a much longer time. For the first five or six years the Cana- 
 dian vessel would be the cheaper, but from that time on the cost of 
 maintenance would be much greater, and when the Canadian vessel 
 is worn out the United States vessel is still in good condition; so it 
 may be questioned whether in the long run a United States fishing 
 vessel is not even cheaper than a Canadian one. As this informa- 
 tion was brought out the local objections in the United States to an. 
 arrangement of the proposed character largely disappeared. 
 
 It also developed at the inquiries conducted by the commissioners 
 that from the outset the great weight of opinion of those directly 
 interested in the United States fisheries and fishery trade favored 
 the fullest and freest intercourse and privileges for the fishing ves- 
 sels of both countries. It was generally admitted that the existing 
 restrictions had the effect of limiting production, and that, particu- 
 larly at this time, such is not justified, but on the contrary that the 
 two countries should assist in every feasible way in increasing pro- 
 duction and enlarging the demand for fish. Taking into consider- 
 ation the serious shortage and high price of meat on this continent at 
 the present time, and with the proper facilities for the transportation 
 of fish and intelligent advertising, it should be within the limits of 
 speedy achievement to increase the consumption of fish an average 
 of 1 pound per family per week. This would involve an addition 
 to the available fish supply of both countries of over 1,000,000,000 
 pounds, to produce which there do not exist facilities in both coun- 
 tries combined. 
 
 There was everywhere exhibited a strong feeling that all old 
 causes of differences should be permanently removed, and tluit such 
 should be done on a basis that would be equal and fair to both coun- 
 tries, so as to prevent the possibility of their revival. What was 
 aptly expressed as a "' fiftj^-fifty basis of settlement " found general 
 favor. 
 
 There was marked objection in Xew England to the proposed re- 
 quirement of am^ license or license fee. and this objection was none 
 the weaker because it was sentimental. It was urged that as the 
 proposed fee is purely nominal, it could not be an important factor, 
 and, while the principle of equality might be met by requiring 
 licenses in botli countries, it woidd be mucli more satisfactory to liave 
 no such requirements at all. 
 
 It was also represented that at times it would not onlv be conven- 
 ient but would result in the saving of fish, if United States fishing 
 vessels were permitted to dress and salt their catches on board ship 
 2099—20 3 
 
16 
 
 in Canadian harbors, and that time would be saved if, while in those 
 harbors, they Avere permitted to mend fishing apparatus. 
 
 On tlie Canadian side the granting of these privileges, as well as 
 tlie others, in the above proposal, was generally favored, providing 
 that the facilities asked for in the United States ports were author- 
 izd and that the fishing by lobster well-smacks outside Canadian 
 territorial Avaters during the close time for fishing in the territorial 
 Avaters opposite Avas stopped. The larger firms felt that the open- 
 ing of the United States ports to Canadian fishing vessels Avould be 
 more advantageous to them than otherAvise, as it Avould make it 
 more difficult to control the moA-ements of the A^essels ; but, like tlieir 
 American competitors, they Avere anxious for all sources of irritation 
 ])etween the tAvo countries to be remoA^ed. 
 
 The evidence also shoAved that Avhen fishing is carried on by steam 
 traAvlers (which type of A^essel is rapidly increasing) there is com- 
 paratively little necessity for resorting to Canadian ports, and that 
 so far as this fishery is concerned the A'essels could get along with- 
 out embarrassment if all local priAdleges Avere withdraAvn in either 
 country. While these privileges Avould be of mucli value to sailing 
 or motor-poAver A^essels, there Avould accrue marked adA^antage to 
 local merchants by the sale of bait, supplies, outfits, etc. 
 
 In the light of the information before the conference, of the re- 
 sults of the hearings on the Atlantic coast, and of the urgent need 
 of removing all obstructions to the greatest possible production of 
 food and the freest movement thereof, the United States section of 
 the conference, folloAving its return to Washington, took up the 
 question of immediately removing for the term of the Avar the re- 
 strictions imposed on Canadian fishing vessels in TTnited States ports, 
 and recommended that all such restrictions should be removed. This 
 recommendation Avas approA^ed by the President, and on the 21st of 
 February last, the Secretary of Commerce issued an order to the 
 collectors of customs, of Avhich the folloAving is a copy : 
 
 To promote the vigorous prosecution of the war and to make tlie utmost use 
 jointly of all the resources of tlie nations now cooi)eratin,tr, you will permit, dur- 
 ing the war, Canadian hsliing vessels and those of otlier nations now acting 
 with the United States to enter from and clear for th(' high seas and the lish- 
 eries, disposing of their catch and taking on supi)lies, stores, etc., under super- 
 vision as in the case of merchant vessels entering and clearing for foreign 
 ports, except as to tonnage tax and other charges specitically imposed on entry 
 from and clearance for foreign ports. 
 
 The Canadian section of the conference also recommended to its 
 Government that during the war the privileges desired b}^ the United 
 States (rovernment for the fishing A^essels of tliat country in Cana- 
 dian ports should be granted Avithout the requirements of a license, 
 and folloAving tlie communication of tliis action of the United States 
 (lovernment to that of Canada an Order in Council Avas approA^ed 
 on March 8, 1918, of Avhicli the following is a copy : 
 
 The Minister of The NaA'al Service recommends, under the authority of the 
 War Measures Act, rha]>ter 2. of the Statutes of im4, that during the war 
 Tainted States tisliing vessels, in addition to tlieir treaty rights and privileges, 
 shall he pei'initted to enter any port in Canada, without tlie requirement of a 
 license or the iiaymcnt of fees not charged to Canadian tishing vessels, for any 
 of the following purjioses: 
 
 {(i) The purchase of liait, ice, nets, lines, coal, oil, provisions, and all other 
 supplies and outfits used l)y fishing vessels, ^yhetller the same are of a, like 
 character to those named in this section or not ; 
 
17 
 
 ( /; ) Repairing fishing implements ; 
 
 (c) Dressing and salting their catclies on board ship; 
 
 ( d ) The shipping of crews ; 
 
 (e) The transshipment of their catches; 
 
 (/) The sale tliereot locally on payment of the dnty. 
 
 The Minister further recommends that the fees paid on licenses already 
 taken out for the present calendar year be remitted. 
 
 The committee concur in the foregoing reconunendations and submit the same 
 for approval. 
 
 Thus, for the term of the war, and hirgel}^ on account of war, 
 this question, which for more than 100 years has been the catise of 
 ahnost contintiotts international irritation, at times verg'ing on war, 
 has been settled. 
 
 The conference had the advantage of observing the initial opera- 
 tion of the arrangement before holding its hearings on the Pacific 
 coast. As the past restrictions there had been removed, many 
 grounds for complaint on the Pacific coast of the United States were 
 taken away. At the hearings at both Seattle and Ketchikan there 
 Avas unanimous approval of the arrangement as a war meastire, 
 so as to assure the largest supply and the freest flow of food, but 
 there was a general feeling that it wotild not be satisfactory as a 
 permanent meastire unless there was the same access to the markets 
 of both countries. It was urged that while the Canadian market 
 is the smaller one, it is important, and that at present the Canadian 
 dealers having the markets of the United States available to them 
 on precisely the same terms enjoyed by Americans and also their 
 OAvn markets, and being able to produce as cheaply, are in a elecidedly 
 adA'antageous position. There would apparently be general sup- 
 port of such an arrangement as a permanent one if this condition 
 were changed as indicated. 
 
 On the other hand, one important Avitness in British Columbia 
 claimed that sitch an arrangement Avould have the effect of handing 
 oA'er to the United States dealers the Canadian fishing business, 
 which had been Avorked up through years of effort. 
 
 There Avas, howcA^er, a strong undercurrent of feeling among 
 United States fish buyers, particularly in Ketchikan, that if open 
 ports Avere continued, since Prince Eupert is by far the nearest rail- 
 way port to the fishing grounds, the arrangement Avould result in 
 building up Prince Eupert, at the expense of Ketchikan and other 
 Alaska ports, and in transferring I'^nited States A'essels to Canadian 
 registry. 
 
 As Avas preA'iously stated, it had from time to time been urged that 
 in recent years there had been on both coasts a lieaA^y tide of trans- 
 fers of fishing A^essels from the United States to Canada. 
 
 An examination of the record shoAvs that these claims are im- 
 founded, and most careful consideration fails to indicate that there 
 are substantial grounds for the fear that Alaska's best interests would 
 not be serA'ed by the continuance of the present arrangement. 
 
 The transfer of vessels from either cotmtry has been restricted since 
 1916. Lists of transfers from either country- to tlie other during the 
 three years prior to 191T Avill ])e found in the exhibits to the evidence. 
 The United States list contains the transfers to all foreign countries. 
 It Avill be obserA'ed that in 1914, 2-4 A-essels of all kinds were sold to 
 all countries from the United States. Of these, five were sold in 
 
18 
 
 Canada, and of these fi\'e only two appear to have gone into fishing.. 
 In the same year, 20 vessels were transferred from the Canadian 
 to the United" States registry alone. It has not yet been ascertained 
 whether any of these vessels have gone into fishing. 
 
 In 1915, 18 vessels were sold from the United States to all countries. 
 Of these, only five were sold in Canada, and of these five but two 
 went into fishing, both into the British Columbia salmon fishery. 
 They were small craft. In that year 14 vessels were sold to the- 
 United States from Canada. 
 
 In 1916, 32 vessels were sold from the United States to all countries. 
 Of these, 10 were sold in Canada. So far as ascertained three of 
 these went into halibut fishing. They w-ere small vessels, 45 feet 
 long. In the same year, 21 vessels were transferred from the Cana- 
 dian to the United States registry. The above are taken from th& 
 official records of both countries and do not include craft under 5 tons. 
 
 There is no evidence that residents of Alaska fishing ports are- 
 moving with their families to Prince Rupert. On the contrary, 
 the fishermen stated that they are well satisfied to live where they 
 are and to use Canadian ports when it suits their convenience. This 
 is also the case on the Canadian Atlantic coast, where the conditions 
 are largely like those in Alaska. Indeed, there seems to be unan- 
 imity among the fishermen themselves on this point. At the hearings 
 at Ketchikan the fishermen expressed themselves as a unit, urging 
 that the existing new arrangement of open ports should be con- 
 tinued. The representativ^e of the Alaska labor union, which em- 
 braces the fishermen, explained that the fishermen as a whole held 
 similar views to those expressed by the fishermen present. It was 
 stated that the Ketchikan fishermen are more prosperous since Prince 
 Rupert became a railway terminus, and that their deposits in the 
 local bank are larger. 
 
 It is evident that there was considerable misconception as to the 
 facilities afforded United States fish buyers and shippers at Prince 
 Rupert and as to the conditions under which the business is there 
 handled. Inquiry demonstrated that there is no substantial ground 
 for complaint against the manner in which either the railway or 
 the Canadian Fish & Cold Storage Co. does its business. The fish are 
 sold daily by public auction ; all dealers have even chances to pur- 
 chase. 'The cold-storage company accepts and efficiently handles 
 all fish that its competitors wish frozen, and at rates about which 
 there was no local complaint. Indeed, the local manager of each 
 United States fishing company expressed himself as having received 
 proper treatment from the cold-storage company. 
 
 It had also been claimed that comi)eting United States fish com- 
 panies were not given proper facilities by the railway, and that no 
 suitable location would be made available to them for a cold-storage 
 ]ilant should they desire to build such. This was not found to be 
 the case. None of the companies have so far desired to establish 
 permanent facilities in Prince Rupert, and the railway company 
 leased them most convenient temporary locations on its wharf on 
 the written agreement or contract that should it find it necessary 
 to move them it would afford them other suitable sites. It was further 
 provided that should permanent sites be desired they would be 
 available in the immediate vicinity of the plant of the Canadian 
 
19 
 
 Fish & Gold Storage Co., which area was set apart when the town 
 -site was laid out for such plants. 
 
 Your commissioners have at all times kept clearly in view the 
 double purpose in dealing- with this matter — the duty that in this 
 critical period ever}- obstacle to producing the largest supply of 
 fish and to the freest movement thereof over the length and breadth 
 of this continent should be removed and the determination that this 
 question which has alwaj'S been annoying, occasionally becoming 
 intolerable, should be settled for all time in a spirit of mutual con- 
 cession and in a manner equitable and just to both countries. It 
 is, moreover, their earnest belief that that which is to the best ad- 
 vantage of each of the two countries as a whole can not fail to 
 be of the largest permanent advantage to the fishing industry itself. 
 
 The question has been settled for the term of the war by the re- 
 moval of all the past port restrictions in either country. This settle- 
 ment as a war measure has, so far as your commissioners have been 
 able to ascertain, the hearty indorsement of all those engaged in the 
 different branches of the business. Some months have elapsed since 
 the new order of things Avas inaugurated, and your commissioners 
 have attentively watched its working. While Canadian fishing 
 vessels would be expected to visit the United States ports toward the 
 end rather than in the earlier part of the fishing season, already a 
 number of vessels have landed their catches directly at Xew England 
 ports, and up to September 1 had added to the United States suppl}'- 
 of food by over 5,000,000 pounds of fresh fish. On the other hand, 
 Ignited States fishing vessels are freely availing themselves of the 
 privileges afforded them in Canadian ports. Up to the end of 
 August approximately 150 calls have been made by United States 
 A'essels at Canadian ports for bait and other requirements in con- 
 nection with their operation over and above those covered by the 
 treaty of 1S18. 
 
 On' the Pacific coast all the artificial conditions that were hamper- 
 ing the fullest and freest operation of United States fishing vessels 
 have been removed, and the industry has proceeded from that stand- 
 point with the utmost satisfaction, but the barrier of a tariff on one 
 side and not on the other operates there much more than on the 
 Atlantic coast as a serious obstacle to a permanent and satisfactory 
 settlement. 
 
 Keeping in view the peculiar nature of this industry, which is 
 carried on by the fishermen of both countries in the same waters and 
 under the same conditions, while in a large measure the same mar- 
 kets must be used by both, your commissioners wish to express the 
 belief that this question can never be permanently removed from 
 the field of discord unless the markets of both countries are available 
 to the fishermen of both on the same terms. 
 
 In the light of these facts your commissioners feel constrained to 
 recommend that tlie Canadian duty on fresh and fresh frozen fish, 
 not including shellfish, l^e removed." and, with a view to assuring sta- 
 bility in the industry, that the two countries enter into an agreement 
 by Avhich such fish Vill be admitted customs duty free from either 
 country into the other, and that such arrangement remain in force 
 for 15 "years, and thereafter until 2 years after the date when either 
 party t^hereto shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate 
 the same. 
 
20 
 
 Our peoples are to-day associates in a world conflict for the vin- 
 dication of the principles of liberty, justice, and righteousness. This 
 drawing together has enabled us to see as we could not otherwise have 
 seen — what has frequently been asserted but will bear the emphasis 
 of frequent repetition — that it was failure in the past to appreciate 
 the purposes, aspirations, and desire of one another that has so long 
 kept aliA'e (piestions involving international friction. The ideals of 
 both countries are the same. It is the general experience that no 
 man can go into warfare of any kind Avithout feeling at the end of 
 the struggle that his heart is warm toward his associate and that 
 new regard for and confidence in him have resulted. So it must 
 be with nations, and we would be derelict in our duty if advantage 
 were not taken of this opportunity to forever remove this fishery 
 question from the field of controversy. 
 
 Your commissioners are convinced that this can best be achieved 
 and the fishing industry as well as the people of both countries as 
 a whole can best be served by permanently removing all barriers to 
 the production and movement of fish in the two countries. 
 
 They therefore recommend that article 1 of the treaty of Octo- 
 ber 20, 1818, be am.ended so as to make available in either country, 
 to the fishing vessels of the other, the privileges covered by the in- 
 structions of the United States Secretary of Commerce to collectors 
 of customs of that country, dated Februarj^ 21, 1918, and by the 
 Canadian Order in Council, dated Msrch 8, 1918, in substance as 
 follows : 
 
 1. That the fishing vessels of either country may enter, from the 
 high seas, any port of the other and clear from such port back to 
 the high seas and the fishing grounds. 
 
 2. That the fishing vessels of either country may dispose of their 
 catches and purchase bait, ice, nets, lines, coal, oil, provisions, and 
 all other supplies and outfits in the ports of either country. 
 
 3. That the repairing of fishing implements in the ports of either 
 country be allowed to the vessels of the other country. 
 
 4. That the fishing vessels of eitlier coiuitry may dress, salt, and 
 otherwise prepare their catches on board such vessels within the ter- 
 ritorial waters of the other country. 
 
 5. That the fishing vessels of either country may ship their crews 
 and transship their catches in the ports of the other country. 
 
 6. That the fishermen of either country may sell their catches in 
 the ports of the other country, subject to local tariff, if any. 
 
 If these recommendations meet with the approval of the two Gov- 
 ernments, your commissioners suggest the propriety of arranging^ 
 that the amending treaty be signed on October 20 next (1918). Such 
 would be a most appropriate method of marking the one-hundredth 
 anniversary of the original treaty. 
 
 REII-VIULITATIOX AND PKOTECTTOX OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON OF THE 
 
 FRASER RIVER SYSTEM. 
 
 For the purposes of the sockeye salmon fishery the Eraser River 
 system embraces not only the Fraser River itself and its estuary 
 but the southern portion of the Oulf of Georgia, Washington Sound, 
 and Juan de Fuca Strait. 
 
21 
 
 Five species of salmon frequent this system, viz. the sockeye, the 
 Chinook or sprin<r. the coho or silver, the pink or humpback, and the 
 chum or dog*. There is also the steelhead. which, though not of the 
 same genus, is commercially regarded as a salmon. 
 
 Of these the sockeye has always been the most valuable on the 
 market as a canned fish. Its flesh is of a much deeper color and 
 more oily than that of the other species. Moreover, the Eraser River 
 system sockeye is the choicest of its kind, and brings a higher price 
 than the sockeye of any other region. 
 
 All these species are anadromous. That is, they run up from the 
 sea to spawn, and the young are hatched out in the fresh waters of 
 the streams and lakes, from which they descend to the sea while 
 young. The fish remain at sea until they reach maturity and then 
 return to the fresh waters to spawn. A peculiarity of all the Pacific 
 salmons is that they die after spawning, so that thej- never repro- 
 duce more than once. 
 
 The salmons return to the watershed in which they Avere hatched. 
 Indeed, the theory is now commonly held, and has much to support 
 it. that they return not only to the same watershed but to the identical 
 stream or tributary of a stream in which they were born. Thus, each 
 watershed, and possibly each stream, presents its own problem ; and 
 so it is that the Fraser Eiver system of salmon fisheries may fail 
 or improve without affecting one way or the other the fisheries of 
 the neighboring areas. 
 
 While salmon oi' all five species spawn in the Fraser River basin 
 and in streams of Washington, Vancouver Island, and the mainland 
 of British Colimibia. the sockeye resorts almost exclusively to tlie 
 Fraser for spaAvning purposes: and it is the sockeye and its fishery 
 which at this time constitute the most important international ques- 
 tion affecting the fisheries of the Pacific coast of the two countries. 
 
 A small run of sockeye salmon resorts to the Skagit River, in 
 Washington, but it is relatively unimportant, and its commercial pos- 
 sibilities, owing to the restricted area of the spawning grounds, are 
 sharply limited. For all practical purposes it may be said that all 
 the sockeye salmon that enter Juan de Fuca Strait from the ocean 
 originated in the Fraser and are making their way back to it to 
 reproduce and die. 
 
 In coming from the ocean these fish enter the strait on hot\\ sides 
 of the boundary line, but after reaching the vicinity of the southern 
 extremity of Vancouver Island the great majority pass over to the 
 United States waters and do not emerge therefrom to any noteworthy 
 extent until they have passed through the fhannels among the 
 United States islands in Washington Sound. Thus it is that while 
 these fish were hatched in the Fraser River and are proceeding back 
 to it, by far the largest catches have been made in the United States 
 waters. Usually G6 per cent or more of the total catch is taken in 
 the State of "Washington. 
 
 The Fraser River is potentially the greatest sockeye-producing 
 stream on the Pacific coast. Its tributary lakes and rivers cover an 
 area larger than that of any other stream on the Pacific slope. 
 Under normal conditions of the fishery the spawning sockeyes. over- 
 coming what are apparently insurmountable rapids and falls, ascend 
 
for hundreds of miles and proceed ri<r\\t to the headwaters of the 
 Fraser as well as to the headwaters of its tributaries. 
 
 A curious phenomenon of the Fraser Eiver that has occurred at 
 least since the earliest records — those of its discoverer, Simon 
 Fraser — coverin<>- the period from 1806 to 1811, is an extraordinarily 
 lieavy run of sockeyes every fourth year, follow^ed by three years 
 of small runs, so that the seasons have come to be known as " big 
 3^ears " and " off years '' or " lean years." 
 
 What the cause of this was no one can say with finality. There 
 are differeni theories. The most probable is that at some time 
 prior to 1806 there came down from the mountains into the narrow 
 portion of the river at HelFs Gate Canyon or vicinity a slide which 
 entirely or at least almost entirely blocked the ascent of the salmon, 
 and that it took three years for the pressure and rush of the water 
 to sufficiently wear away the obstruction to enable the salmon to pass, 
 so that in those three years the only sockeyes that effectively spawned 
 were those that normally resorted to the comparatively small i:»or- 
 tion of the system below Hell's Gate. This theory is strongly sup- 
 ported by the experience of 1913, which Avill be referred to later. 
 
 The sockeyes of the Fraser Eiver are predominatel_v four-year fish. 
 That is, they reach maturity and return to the river to spawn and die 
 when they are 4 years old. It has been ascertained by Dr. Charles H. 
 Gilbert, the most eminent authority on the Pacific salmons, that a 
 part of the runs each 3^ear consists of three-year and five-year fish, 
 although the percentage of such is small. This being the case, it 
 is easily possible to account for the presence of a limited number of 
 fish on the spawning grounds above Hell's Gate during the "off 
 years" A^'ithout invalidating the theory, for there would be a pro- 
 portion of these fish that would not return to the upper spawning 
 grounds during the fourth years of the cycle of the obstruction but 
 would come back in three or five years and thus begin to build up 
 the " off years." 
 
 As commercial fishing did not begin to any extent until 1876. it is 
 a surprising and disconcerting fact that the " off years." which w^ere 
 known to have existed so far l)ack as 1806, were not built up to a 
 greater extent- 
 
 The year foUoAving the ince]ition of commercial fishing on the 
 Fraser River the industry began in Washington (in 1877). For 
 many years sockeyes were the only species canned, and as the market 
 for them increased fishing for them was carried on more intensively. 
 While the "big-year" runs were so enormous as to be unaffected by 
 the immense catches made during them, the " off years " soon l)egan 
 to show coming exhaustion. As the fishery declined the demand 
 went up, and greater efforts were made to increase the output. 
 More and more fishing equipment was used, until, had it not been 
 for the weekly close time, when all fishing was required to be aban- 
 doned for a given period so as to give the fish a free run to and up 
 the Fraser Eiver, it does not seem that any appreciable number 
 could bave escajied. Tlie fish are met as far out to sea as they can 
 be located with ]>urse seines. Nearly 500 of these great nets were in 
 use in Juan de Fuca Strait and among the islands in AVashington 
 Sound last year (1917). Then, nearly 200 trajis were placed in 
 
23 
 
 their path along the shores of Washington and among the United 
 States islands in the sound, as well as a few on the west side of Van- 
 couver Island. Some gill nets, ranging up to 3,000 feet in length, 
 were in use in the United States waters, and in the river itself and 
 its estuary over 2,600 gill nets, each 900 feet long and 60 meshes deep, 
 were used. 
 
 The Fraser is fished more intensively in proportion to its area 
 and to the supply of sockeyes running therein than are the waters 
 of Juan de P\ica Strait and Washington Sound. The combined 
 length of the nets operated on the Fraser in 1917 was over 445 
 miles, of which about 400 miles were used in the 15 miles of river 
 between its mouth and New Westminster Bridge. The degree of this 
 intensity is indicated by the fact that for every square mile of river 
 there were, in the section below the bridge, more than 30 linear 
 miles of nets. In the year 1914 the total number of gill nets in use 
 on the Fraser River was in excess of 3,000. 
 
 In the development of the fishery, the comparatively light runs of 
 the '' off years " were having a greater and greater proportion taken 
 from them, so that fewer and fewer fish were reaching their spawn- 
 ing grounds. The result was inevitable. The fishery is now verging 
 on exhaustion. The depletion of the spawning grounds above Hell's 
 Gate, wliere during the '' off years " the number of fish had always 
 been comparatively small, became so marked as to make it necessaW 
 since 1913 to close, for want of an egg supply, the hatcheries estab- 
 lished there by the Canadian Government, and thus the river, during 
 the " off years," was back once more to almost complete reliance on 
 the spawning grounds below Hell's Gate. 
 
 For years past the success of the sockeye industry in this district 
 has depended on the ''big-year"' runs. Several of "the canneries on 
 both sides of the line were idle during some of the "off years," and 
 some of them more recently have operated only in " big years." In 
 1913, howover, which was a ''big year," a disaster occurred which 
 put an end, at least temporarily, to the " big-year " runs and reduced 
 them to the dimensions of an average " off year." In Hell's Gate 
 Canyon there was a small baylike indentation just above the "gate," 
 which, it subsequently transpired, afforded the only available resting 
 place to enable tlie salmon after rusliing through the " gate " to 
 gather their streflgth sufficiently to proceed through the remainder 
 of this difficult canyon. Blasting operations in the construction of 
 the Canadian Xorthern Eailwa}^ roadbed along the side of the canyon 
 caused this resting place to become so filled by rock slides that the 
 salmon could not resort there, and so were carried back below the 
 " gate " by the force of the current. This obstruction was formed 
 shortly before the heavy run of salmon began. As soon as it devel- 
 oped that the salmon were being held back the best engineers availa- 
 ble were sent to the spot to consult on the quickest means of over- 
 coming the difficulty. Work Avas immediately started to clear the 
 obstruction, and a temporary sluiceway to enable salmon to pass up 
 was constructed. Some fish got through this, others w^ere carried 
 beyond by hand, and some got up at the time of high water at the 
 beginning of the run, but not more in the aggregate than in a good 
 " off year," so Avhile the removal of the obstruction was pressed along 
 with all possible energy it could not be completed in time to save 
 
24 
 
 the situation. Countless thousands of sockeyes wore themselves to 
 death in repeated fruitless efforts to get beyond the " oate/' tlieir in- 
 stinct com])ellinfi; them to keep on trying instead of falling back and 
 going up the lower tributaries, as is evidenced by the fact that these 
 spawning areas were not more thickly resorted to by sockeyes than 
 in other " big years." 
 
 Many of the persons engaged in the salmon business clung to the 
 hojje that after all sufficient sockeyes had got up to maintain the 
 " big year," and preparations were made by such accordingly for 
 1917, the returning year of the cycle, but only to find that their hope 
 was vain and that the "big year" was a thing of the past, unless 
 extraordinary measures are taken to restore it. 
 
 The fact that these fish pass through the waters of the two coun- 
 tries makes it impossible to properly protect them by independent 
 action. The fishermen of either side are inclined to operate to the 
 limit when the fish are in their waters and place the responsibility 
 for untoward results on those of the other country. 
 
 How the fishery has declined Avill be realized from the following 
 statement of the packs of sockeye salmon for a series of years : 
 
 Year. 
 
 Fraser 
 
 River 
 
 (number 
 
 of cases). 
 
 Puget 
 
 Sound 
 
 (number 
 
 of cases). 
 
 Total 
 number 
 of eases. 
 
 1902 
 
 293,477 
 204, 809 
 
 72, 688 
 837, 489 
 183, 007 
 
 .59, 815 
 
 63, 126 
 542, 248 
 133, 045 
 
 .58, 487 
 108, 784 
 684, 596 
 185, 483 
 
 89, 040 
 
 27, 394 
 123, 614 
 
 15.000 
 
 372, 301 
 167,211 
 109, 264 
 825, 453 
 178,748 
 
 93, 122 
 170, 951 
 1,097,904 
 248,014 
 127, 761 
 184, 680 
 1,673,099 
 335, 230 
 
 64, 584 
 
 84, 637 
 411,538 
 
 50, 000 
 
 665, 778 
 372, 020 
 
 1903 
 
 1904 
 
 181,952 
 
 1905 
 
 1 662 942 
 
 1906 
 
 361,755 
 
 1907 
 
 1.52,937 
 
 1908 
 
 234 077 
 
 1909 
 
 1,640,152 
 
 1910 
 
 381,059 
 
 1911 
 
 186, 248 
 
 1912 
 
 293, 464 
 
 1913 
 
 2 357 695 
 
 1914 
 
 520 713 
 
 1915 
 
 153,624 
 
 1916 
 
 112 031 
 
 1917 
 
 535 152 
 
 1918 (estimated) 
 
 65, 000 
 
 
 Two facts are outstanding: (1) The yearly ppssibilities of the 
 Fraser River must be measured by the conditions in the " big year." 
 All that is needed to produce tlie run of a " big year " any season is 
 to have the spawning beds of the whole system seeded as plenteously 
 as in the " big years " of the past. The riA^er is as free from ]X)llu- 
 tion or artificial obstruction as it ever was, and all the conditions 
 for successful si)awning are as favorable as in early times. The only 
 deficiency is in the spawning fish. (2) ITnless drastic action is taken 
 internationally to save the situation the fishery will become com- 
 mercially exhausted in a few years. Tlie figures for 191S clearly 
 evidence this. 
 
 It would be an international calamity, involving almost criminal 
 neglect on the i)art of both countries, if the latter condition were 
 allowed to obtain. On the basis of the present prices the sockeye 
 ]>rogeny of this river should be producing annually a food worth 
 over $80,000,000, this figure being based on the actual pack of the 
 
2D 
 
 last " big year," 1913. As it is, the average value for the four years 
 ending 1918 is about $3,000,000. 
 
 In the face of the foregoing, and in view of the fact that there can 
 be no question but that the river can be restored by the proper pro- 
 cedure so that it will produce to maximum capacity every year, it 
 is confidently believed that the interests in the two countries will 
 stand behind the authorities of both in procuring the necessary action 
 to bring this about. 
 
 Efforts have been made in the past for mutual arrangements to 
 afford adequate protection, but without success. Tlie most impor- 
 tant of these was in connection with the treaty of 1908 for the inter- 
 national protection of the fisheries in the contiguous waters along 
 tlie entire boundary line. This treaty failed, owing to the fact that 
 the United States Congress refrained from approving the regula- 
 tions drawn up under its provisions, though they had been approved 
 by the Parliament of Canada. But even if the regulations under that 
 treaty had been approved and made effective they would not have 
 met the present requirements. 
 
 The situation is surrounded by outstanding difficulties, and great 
 mutual concessions and forbearance must be exercised by those en- 
 gaging in the industry on both sides of the line if the necessary 
 steps to restore the fishery are to be taken. 
 
 In British Columbia the fishery interests feel very strongh^ that 
 they have been in an unfair position all through the past years. 
 They point out that while all the fish are bred in the Fraser River 
 the fishermen have been sharply restricted in their operations, being 
 allowed to use gill nets only, in addition to having to submit to a 
 longer weekly close time than is effective in the State of Washington ; 
 while their competitors have been permitted to use traps and purse 
 seines, much more capable and economical fishing appliances than 
 gill nets: and they urge that while the fish are bred in Canadian 
 waters and must there be properly ]:)rotected if the fishery is to be 
 saved from depletion they obtain only one-third or less of the total 
 catch. They contend that they have been called on to do too much 
 of the protecting and are entitled to a more equitable proportion 
 of the fish. 
 
 On the other hand, the fishing interests of the State of Washing- 
 ton contend that they have not been taking unreasonable advantage 
 of their more favorable geographical position: that the quantities 
 of fish caught have not been out of proportion to the area of the 
 fishing grounds, the amount of capital invested, and the number of 
 persons dependent on and engaged in the fishery; that the fishing 
 appliances used are suited to their waters and are not only of a 
 character that can be efficiently^ and adequateh^ regulated, but they 
 are so regulated as to admit of a reasonable escapement of fish to the 
 waters l)eyond. 
 
 Both sides, however, fully realize the absolute need for inter- 
 national action, and are prepared to make sacrifices in order to 
 assure relief. While the proper disposition for essential action may 
 have been lacking in the past it seems now to obtain. The interests 
 on both sides of the line are fully alive to the conditions, and they 
 are evidently prepared to cooperate to save the industry. 
 
 While the Canadian Government is fully able to cope witli the 
 situation in British Columbia, it is recognized by the commissioners 
 
26 • 
 
 of both countries that a different condition exists in Washington 
 because of the jurisdiction of that .State over the fisheries. The Amer- 
 ican commissioners have no desire to impair or invade the powers 
 which the State of Washiniiton exercises over the fisheries: they 
 realize that any proposed remedial action, to be effective, should 
 receive the official support of the State and the general approval 
 of the local public opinion. 
 
 As regards any particular remedial action that may be proposed, 
 it must be conceded that it is impossible to state with certainty what 
 the full results may be or when they may be achieved because the 
 experience is lacking on which reasonably safe predictions can be 
 based. Therefore, taking cognizance of the best information avail- 
 able, it will be necessary to adopt a tentative course, in the expecta- 
 tion that, after proper trial, new measures or modifications may 
 be required. In fact, in view of the rapidly changing conditions 
 f under which the salmon fisheries are now conducted, it would be 
 strange if modifications in laws and regulations were not demanded 
 at comparatively short intervals. Hence, action so drastic as to 
 cause a virtual suspension of the industry would not, in the opinion 
 of the conmiissioners, be justified at this time. 
 
 The honorable commissioner of fisheries for British Columbia has 
 recommended that the two Federal (Tovernments take over the fishery 
 and compensate any who might be found entitled to such owing to 
 this action, so that the Governments might be free to regulate the 
 fisheries without interference and operate them in the interests of 
 the two countries. This ccmrse has much to commend it, but your 
 commissioners feel that at this time, and under existing conditions, 
 it is not feasible. Furthermore, in the case of the United States, 
 there is no way known to the commissioners by which the Federal 
 Government can acquire by purchase or otherwise fishery rights that 
 are vested in the seA^eral States, unless such rights are voluntarily 
 relinquished by the States. 
 
 Some of the specialists on the natural history of the solmons 
 recommended that all sockeye fishing be stopped for a term of years, 
 but in the light of the facts (1) that they regard one cycle, or four 
 years, as the minimum of closure and that two, tliree, or more cycles 
 would likely be found necessary; (2) that as this course would force 
 the closing of many canneries and render them worthless (the e^i- 
 dence shows that the machinery of a cannery will become scrap in 
 five years if unused) ; (3) that as it would be impossible to stop all 
 fishing during a sufficiently long period to cover the sockeye run with- 
 out interfering with the spring salmon fisher^' each year and with 
 the |)ink salmon fishery at least every second year; and (4) that as 
 the fact that tlie "off" years'' were not built up to anything like "big 
 year-' proportions during the long pei-iod knoAvn to have ehijised 
 since the ''off years" have existed and before commercial fishing 
 began, thus leaving little ground for hope for speedy results from 
 this course alone, your commissioners are not ])repared to indorse 
 this recommendation, at least until the trial of other methods has 
 failed to yield reasonably effective results. 
 
 The stopping of all salmon fishing long enough to allow an escape- 
 ment of 50 per cent of the sockeye run in both the State of A\ ash- 
 irtgton and British Columbia was favored by most of tiiose engaged 
 
27 
 
 in the industry on both sides of the line as a basis for international 
 action, though it developed that there is considerable difference of 
 opinion as to how this can best be done. It was suggested in the 
 State of Washington that a closure of all fishing from July 20 to 31 
 on the United States side, and from July 25 to August 5 in Britisli 
 Columbia, so as to allow for the time that presumably would be 
 taken by the salmon in passing from the strait to the Fraser River, 
 AA^ould achieve the end in view : but this proposition was vigorously 
 opposed in British Columbia on the ground that tlie difference in 
 dates is too long and that it is doubtful if any such sliding scale 
 would be justifiable, in view of the lack of positive knowledge regard- 
 ing the movements and rate of travel of salmon. 
 
 Very material progress in the study of the life history of the 
 sockeye has been made in recent years, but there is yet a great deal 
 to learn. This can only be done by comprehensive and sustained 
 study on the spawning grounds as well as otherwise. 
 
 Salmon hatcheries have been in operation for j^ears and have 
 turned out ten^ of millions of active, healthy fry annually, but neither 
 in Canada nor the United States can sufficient results be pointed to 
 so far as the runs of sockeye are concerned. This is not the case with 
 all species. Hatchery work, supported by reasonably provident 
 regulations, must, for instance, be given the credit for restoring the 
 Chinook salmon fishery of the Columbia River, but the chinook or 
 spring salmon is a different species with different habits of both 
 adults and young. The young of the chinook salmon can readily be 
 held at the' hatcheries until they are several months' old and have 
 reached a size when they are strong, active, and fairly capable of 
 protecting themselves against natural enemies. So far. however, 
 efforts that have been made at the Fraser River hatcheries to simi- 
 larly retain young sockeye have not been successful, but information 
 as to Avhy this should be so and how it can be overcome is lacking. 
 
 Xew niethods of hatching by the ingenious use of gravel in a 
 manner that largely reproduces the conditions on the natural spawn- 
 ing grounds are being tried with considerable promise of success by 
 the officer in charge of the Canadian Government hatchery at Har- 
 rison Lake on the lower Fraser, and it is possible that through these 
 and other such experiments the present methods of sockeye hatchery 
 operations may be revolutionized or at least vastly improved. 
 
 The fact that in all the "big years'' of the past the spawning 
 areas of the Fraser svstem, above as well as below HelFs Gate, were 
 abundantlv seeded, while in the " off years " the upper areas were very 
 lightly seeded, though normal seeding took place in the lower areas, 
 indicates the necessitv through hatchery or other methods of restor- 
 ing the runs to the upper waters if this fishery is to be rehabilitated. 
 
 Further direct aid to the fisheries may be afforded by the syste- 
 matic reduction in the numbers of predatory fishes that frequent the 
 spawning grounds. There seems little room for doubt, in the light 
 of the cA^dence before the commissioners, that the destruction of the 
 eggs and young of salmon on the natural spawning grounds chiefly 
 by other fishes is appalling. The mutilation and destruction by 
 seals and sea lions of mature salmon on their way to the Fraser 
 River is likewise large and serious, and its mitigation would have 
 a highly beneficial effect on the supply, especially at this critical stage 
 of the industry. 
 
-28 
 
 The foregoing considerations serve to emphasize the urgent need 
 for comprehensive and continlious observation and study by experts, 
 and indicate that in the meantime any action which would put the 
 fisherman and canners entirely out of business would not be justified. 
 
 In the light of all the existing conditions, your commissioners are 
 of the opinion that a treaty or convention for the proper regulation 
 and protection of this fishery should forthwith be entered into by 
 the tAvo countries ; that commissioners should be appointed, under 
 this treaty, to thoroughly study tlie situation, and that they should 
 have to assist them two experts, one appointed by the Government 
 of each country, who should conduct continuous investigations into 
 the life history of the sockeye, hatchery methods, eradication of 
 natural enemies on the spawning grounds and in salt water, and 
 other related subjects; and also that the sockeye hatchery opera- 
 tions on the Fraser should be inspected by the commissioners so 
 ;ip])ointed. 
 
 Your commissioners also recom.mencl tliat the commission to be 
 appointed cause an examination by competent engineers to be made 
 of the sides of the Fraser Eiver, at Hell's Gate and at other places 
 Avhere slides into the river that might bar the ascent of salmon are 
 probable, such examination being for the purpose of ascertaining 
 wliat may be feasible to aA^ert such danger. 
 
 It is tiie judgment of your commissioners that the hatchery Avork 
 on the Fraser EiA^er system should be extended, as rapidly as aA'ail- 
 able supplies of eggs Avill Avarrant, by the establishing of new hatch- 
 eries on spaAvning areas noAv being sparsely seeded, and that to this 
 end eggs of sockeye and possibly other species of salmon be made 
 available from Avaters of the United States, as well as from other 
 Canadian waters, for the Fraser EiA^er hatcheries to as large an 
 extent as practicable. 
 
 It is also important that the tAvo GoA^ernments arrange to ascertain 
 accurately hoAv long it takes sockeye salmon from the time they enter 
 Juan de Fuca Strait to reach and enter the Fraser River and, as far 
 as possible, to pass from point to point along the said strait and the 
 Gulf of Georgia. 
 
 And also that the tAvo GoA^ernments arrange to carry on iuA'es- 
 tigations and experiments with a vieAV to finding some feasible means 
 of oA'ercoming the seal and sea lion menace to the salmon fisheries 
 in the treaty Avaters, and if such means be found to put them into 
 operation. 
 
 Your commissioners append a draft of a proposed treaty (Ap- 
 pendix A) and of regulations thereunder for tlie restoration and 
 protection of this fishery (Apjiendix B), the adoption of Avhich, 
 subject to such modifications in terms as the responsible officers of 
 the tAvo GoA^ernments may consider desirable, is urgently recom- 
 mended. 
 
 These regulations Avill enable the industry to be conducted on a 
 diminished scale for the next eight years. They will afford a much 
 greater escapement pf fish to the spaAvning grounds than has been 
 the case heretofore, and they Avill enable observation as to the results, 
 which Avill begin to show themseh^es in 1928 if, as contemplated, the 
 regidations become effective in 1010. With the information that Avill 
 then be before them, the commissioners Avill be in a position to knoAV 
 
29 
 
 whether further restrictions are needed or what modifications in the 
 re<ruhitions are desirable. 
 
 In connection with these regulations it may be useful to make 
 the following notes in regard to those that are exceptional in their 
 character. 
 
 Section 5 will have the effect of stopping all fishing by Indians 
 above the tidal boundary for commercial fishing. From time im- 
 memorial it has been the practice of certain tribes of Indians to 
 provide their winter supply of fish for themselves and their dogs 
 by catching salmon by spearing and otherwise as they were passing 
 through difficult channels in the upper reaches of the ri^'er, and even 
 on the s])awning grounds themselves. The number of fish so taken 
 has, in the aggregate, been very large, and it was stated in the hear- 
 ings that the number of salmon eggs consumed by the Indians 
 annually would offset the operations of several hatcheries. Having 
 regard for the value of each fish that succeeds in escaping all the 
 appliances of the commercial fishermen and reaching the spawning 
 areas and its importance in maintaining the volume of future runs, 
 this Indian fishing is far from an economical method of supplying 
 their food requirements. There exists prejudice on the part of the 
 Indians to using fish prepared otherwise than in the manner fol- 
 lowed by them, but keeping in view the welfare of the salmon fish- 
 eries this prejudice should be overcome or should be considered of 
 secondary importance. 
 
 Every reasonable facility and encouragement should be given the 
 Indians to catch necessary supplies of salmon for their family uses 
 in the tidal waters and to transport them to their homes, but should 
 it be found necessary for the proper authorities to furnish them with 
 certain quantities, either in a canned or cured form, it seems reason- 
 able that the canning and fresh-fish interests on both sides of the 
 boundary should cooperate in providing such food. 
 
 The annual close season provided for by section 6 is designed to 
 give the sockeye a free run to their spawning grounds during a por- 
 tion of the time when the run is heavy. This protection is additional 
 to that afforded by the present weekly close season, and it is antici- 
 pated that approximately a number of fish equal to 50 per cent of 
 the usual pack will thus escape to the spawning grounds. 
 
 In the absence of final information as to the speed at which sockeye 
 travel, after entering Juan de Fuca Strait and until they reach the 
 Eraser, your commissioners do not feel justified in recommending 
 any difference in the time of beginning and ending of this close 
 jjeriod in either country. As will be noted in the recommendations 
 forming part of this report, your commissioners urge, however, that 
 the two Governments take the necessary steps to procure this infor- 
 mation. A beginning of this work has been made during the present 
 year (1918). It may be found that if any difference is desirable, it 
 should be provided not only so far as United States and Canadian 
 Avaters are concerned, but as between different fishing regions in each 
 country. The blanket method is obviously much more desirable 
 from an administrative standpoint, and the fact that the fish are 
 distributed over a large area while active fishing is going on, so 
 that if all nets are lifted at one time fish that are in the river at 
 that time will escape above the fishing limits may render it uncertain 
 
30 
 
 whether in the long run there is any real advantage in a progressive 
 close season. 
 
 It was urged by several witnesses that this annual close time 
 should be established in lieu of the weekly close time. It is certain, 
 however, that the good effects of the proposed annual close time 
 would be practically nullified if this were done. Both the proposed 
 annual and weekly close times together can not be relied upon to 
 permit the escapement of more than 50 per cent of the fish. This 
 is clearly shown by figures for a series of years furnished for the 
 purpose by the associations acting in behalf of the fishery interests 
 on both sides of the boundary. These figures for British Columbia 
 are complete ; for Puget Sound they cover the catch handled by only 
 a portion of the canneries, but are offered by the Washington Fish- 
 eries Association as being typical of the entire catch. Assuming 
 that this is correct, the percentage of the total catch taken during 
 the period from July 20 to 31, inclusive, on the tw^o sides w^as as fol- 
 lows for each of the years indicated : 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1914 28.44' 
 
 1915 16.31 
 
 1916 - 36.99 
 
 1917 40.10 
 
 The total quantity packed during these 12 days in the four years 
 named would be 32.5 per cent of the total pack for these years. 
 
 The weekly close time provided by the proposed regulations, 
 namely, 36 hours, is 21.4 per cent of each week. Assuming that 
 during these four years there had been no weekly close time, the 
 catch during these 36 hours per week would have added 18.5 per 
 cent to the pack. Combining this figure with the 32.5 per cent for 
 the 12-day periods would give an escapement of 51 per cent of the 
 packs during both the annual and weekly close times. It is not 
 claimed that these figures represent exact conditions, as there are 
 various unknown factors, but they are a fair deduction from the 
 figures submitted. 
 
 There can be no question that the toll taken in the past " off years " 
 has been far tho great to maintain the runs, even at their present 
 proportions, and that a much -larger escapement of fish to the 
 spaw^ning areas must be assured if the annually declining runs are to 
 be turned into annually increasing runs. 
 
 Fishing is now j^ermitted in the Fraser Kiver up to Mission Bridge, 
 about 50 miles from its mouth, although fishing from New West- 
 minster Bridge, 12 miles above its mouth, to Mission Bridge is 
 limited to residents along that portion of the river. The evidence 
 shows that the fishermen in this area make practically their whole 
 catches in the first two or three days following the weekly close 
 time, or, in other words, when the mass of nets below the bridge 
 gets into full operation too few fish escape beyond it to make the 
 fi.shing above Avorth while. 
 
 On the other hand, the fishermen above the bridge are bona fide 
 residents, wlio settled there with a view to the fishing, on which they 
 depend to an important degree to enable them to become established 
 on the land. In the circumstances your commissioners feel that it 
 would be unfair to deprive these people of all fishing privileges, but 
 it is evident that the fish must have more protection. It is therefore 
 
;n 
 
 recommended that the weekly close time above the bridge be 24 hours 
 longer than below it and that other restrictions be thrown around 
 the exercise of the fishing- privileges in this region. 
 
 The proposed method in section 7 of arranging the traps during 
 the close time is that required in the Columbia Eiver. The opinion 
 is fairly general that, with jiggers attached to the traps, the mere 
 closing of the entrance for a short time does not assure that salmon 
 will escape, which is the sole object in view, but rather that they will 
 play between the leader and the jigger until the trap is again opened. 
 By opening a portion of the lead in addition to closing the trap the 
 fish will be given a much better chance to move onward. 
 
 Sections 9 and 10 relate to purse seines. At the present time purse 
 seines may be operated right up to the entrance to a trap. The purse 
 seiners urge that as the trap is in fishing order during the whole 
 fishing season, both night and day, excepting when it is being lifted, 
 and that purse seines can be used only in the day and when evidence 
 of fish are visible, the existing provision of law is fair and should 
 be continued. 
 
 Your commissioners do not so regard the matter. The trap is a 
 stationary appliance, and so can only take the fish that come to it. 
 whereas the purse seiner can follow a school of fish in all portions 
 of the area where fishing is permitted. In the circumstances, to re- 
 quire purse seiners to refrain from casting their nets within 2,400 
 feet of a stationary fishing appliance is not a hardship. 
 
 The use of purse seines in the narrow channels among the islands 
 in Washington Sound and the Gulf of Georgia should not be per- 
 mitted. Such seines can be so used in these passages as to practically 
 block them and so prevent a reasonable escapement of the run ot fish. 
 Their use might as fairly be permitted in the Fraser River itself. 
 The purse seine is an extremel}^ capable fishing device and from its 
 A^ery nature should be restricted to the open waters. 
 
 The other proposed regulations involve no neAv principles and 
 therefore need no special comment. 
 
 In closing 'consideration of this matter, your commissioners again 
 emphasize the vast importance of this fishery to both countries. 
 Every year's delay means added depletion that will require several 
 3'ears longer of sharp restriction to undo, while, on the other hand, 
 immediate action will assure much more speedy recuperation, as 
 there will be a larger body of fish to work with, and thus hasten the 
 return of the day when the river system will be producing over 
 2,300,000 cases of sockeye, not only one year in four but every year, 
 instead of about one-fifth of that quantity, which, under existing con- 
 ditions, must rapidly grow less and less. 
 
 Your commissioners gratefully acknowledge the generous and 
 capable assistance afforded by the local fishery authorities, interests, 
 and associations, and especially by Commander Miller Freeman, 
 publisher of the Pacific Fisherman; Mr. Frank Warren, president 
 of the Association of Pacific Fisheries ; Mr. L. H. Darwin, commis- 
 sioner of fisheries for Washington; Lieut. Col. F. H. Cunningham, 
 chief inspector of fisheries in British Columbia for the Federal Gov- 
 ernment of Canada ; Mr. John P. Babcock, assistant to the provincial 
 commissioner of fisheries; and Dr. A. -McLean Fraser, the representa- 
 tive of the Canadian biological board in British Columbia. These 
 
gentlemen voluntarily served with the subcommittee of your com- 
 missioners in considering a proper system of regulations for thii 
 fishery, and so greatly facilitated the inquiries and findings of your 
 commissioners. 
 
 PROTECTION or THE PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHERY. 
 
 There exist off the coasts of Alaska. British Columbia, and Wasli- 
 ington the most productive halibut grounds the Avorld has known, 
 but in recent years there has been much overfishing, many of the 
 grounds have become depleted, and the general supply of halibut is 
 threatened with commercial exhaustion. As most of the halibut are 
 taken on the high seas the situation can only be effectively dealt with 
 by concerted international action. This fishery has not been parti- 
 cipated in by any other countries than the United States and Canada, 
 and, in view of the great distance of the Asiatic coasts, there seems 
 no reason to anticipate that the fishery will be prosecuted from the 
 ports of that coast, so that an arrangement between the Ignited 
 States and Canada is all that is now needed. 
 
 Owing to the excellent shipping qualities of halibut which enable 
 it to be placed on far distant markets in a fresh condition the demand 
 for this fish grew rapidly, and the production kept up with the 
 demand. 
 
 At first sufficient halibut to meet requirements were taken from the 
 banks off Cape Flattery, but as the demand increased new areas of 
 production had to be sought. Hecate Strait was early visited, and 
 later banks off' the west coast of Vancouver Island were located. The 
 Hecate Strait banks Avere of extraordinary productivity, and the 
 halibut taken there are of the best quality. 
 
 The evidence shows that in the early years the larger vessels could 
 catch a full fare of 300,000 pounds in two or three days of good 
 weather. Fish of undesired sizes were not retained, or at best not 
 more than a limited ]Dercentage of them would be accepted by the 
 dealers, and all fish other than halibut that were taken were thrown 
 aw^ay as caught. As these would not survive they were a dead loss. 
 
 As the halibut is a slow-growing fish, investigations indicating 
 that even at 12 yea is of age only 50 per cent have reached matui'ity. 
 the nearer grounds could not long stand this intensive fishing, but 
 the ever-groAving demand with the rise of prices was a sufficient in- 
 ducement for greater and greater efforts in producing the fish. The 
 older banks were combed over and over, new ones Avere being con- 
 tinuously sought for, and the fishery moved farther and farther 
 northward as the older banks became depleted. 
 
 In 1913 or 1914 it was learned that in autumn large numbers of 
 halibut resort to the Yakutat Banks, off Alaska. A large Avinter 
 fishery immediately developed there, and noAv fishing has been ex- 
 tended to Kodiak Island, and CA^en farther AvestAvard, so that A-es- 
 sels from the more southern jjorts visiting these banks haA^e to sail 
 1,800 or 2,000 miles before they wet a line. Obviously it is only 
 because there is no large halibut fishery on the Atlantic coast and 
 that no other fish up to the present fills the place of the halibut that 
 this fishery is maintained. 
 
 The opening of Prince Rupert as a transcontinental railway ter- 
 minus in 1915 increased the activity of the fishery, as that port is 
 
33 
 
 some 600 miles nearer the main fishing grounds than Vancouver and 
 Seattle; also a company equipped with a lar^e cold-storace plant 
 to enable it to eng;age in this fishery was located there. The open- 
 in<r of this port furthermore made this fisheiy feasible for a very 
 considerable fleet of small two and three dory vessels that can oper- 
 ate within a radius of approximately 300 miles. 
 
 Excepting on the far northwestern banks, the depletion is every- 
 where apparent and most serious. As would be expected, the weight 
 of fishing fell on the large mature fish. Consequently the propor- 
 tion of mature fish that is left on the more southern banks is so 
 alarmingly small as to render the future of the fishery thereon pre- 
 carious. JFishing on these banks still goes on, but mainly by the 
 smaller vessels that can operate more cheaply, and unless the neces- 
 sary steps are taken without delay to properly protect the halibut, 
 not only will the more distant banks fall into the exhausted condi- 
 tion of the nearer ones, but these nearer ones will be depleted to the 
 extent of commercial exhaustion. If. on the other hand, effective 
 measures are now put into operation, the more southern banks can 
 probably be restored in time and the distant ones can be maintained 
 at their maximum productivity, so that a large annual yield there- 
 from can be assured. One of the important witnesses before the 
 conference expressed his well-considered opinion that these distant 
 banks must be depended upon in future to supply 75 per cent of 
 the halibut production. 
 
 Remarkably little investigation into the natural history of the 
 halibut has been made in any part of the world. By far the most 
 complete studies are those conducted by Prof. W. F. Thompson, who 
 for several seasons was employed for such purpose by the provincial 
 department of fisheries in British Columbia. His investigations indi- 
 cate that the halibut of the various banks are of different races and 
 do not comingle, so that there are no common spawning areas, and 
 each bank has its own problems. He found that all the fish do not 
 spawn at or even near the same time, but that the spawning season 
 is embraced within the period between the middle of December and 
 the last of April or the middle of May. The evidence given before 
 your commissioners by the practical fishermen and others engaged 
 in the industry all tends to show that the main spawning period 
 lies between the 15th of December and the 15th of February. 
 
 With remarkable unanimity all those engaging in the industry — 
 the small boat and independent vessel fishermen, as well as the com- 
 panies owning numbers of vessels — strongly urged that all halibut 
 fishing should be stopped during three winter months, the majority 
 favoring the period from the 15th of November to the 15th of Feb- 
 ruary, so as to protect the spawning fish. Indeed, there was but one 
 important exception to this recommendation, and that witness ad- 
 mitted that during the past season his company did not operate any 
 of its own vessels during that period, but depended for its supplies 
 on the purchase of the catches of independent fishermen. 
 
 While it would seem ix)ssible. in view of the fact that the lialibut 
 carry their eggs for months before they are extruded, to undo any 
 good effects of a close season during the suggested period by fishing 
 operations, additional to those now carried on, during the remainder 
 
34 
 
 of the year, it was generally contended that this would not be com- 
 merciall}^ l^racticable. 
 
 Apart altogether from the standpoint of conservation of the hali- 
 but, exceedingly strong reasons were placed in evidence for pro- 
 hibiting halibut fishing during this time, viz : 
 
 1. The weather conditions are then at their worst, and all, or nearly 
 all, of the serious loss of life and vessels in this fishery has occurred 
 during this time. 
 
 2. It is during this period that practically all the loss of fishing 
 gear takes place, and such loss is then enormous. It is claimed that 
 50 per cent of the gear of every vessel is lost or has to be cut away 
 during this time. When it is stated that the larger vessels " set " 
 what is equal to 48 miles of line per day, and that hooks are fastened 
 to these lines at intervals of about 10 feet, what this loss of gear 
 means in the aggregate will be realized. 
 
 3. Apart from the monetary loss involved in the destruction of 
 gear, which in itself is exceedingly heavy, this midwinter fishery 
 tends to drive the fish from the grounds. As the fish bite with 
 avidity during the spawning season, it is reasonable to assume that 
 when this gear is left in the water fish will become impaled on most 
 of the hooks and will eventually die and decompose. 
 
 4. The evidence shows that 15 per cent of the annual catch is made 
 during these three months, but in addition thereto it is estimated 
 that 10 per cent of the total catch is taken and destroyed on this 
 lost gear. 
 
 5. The fish caught at this time are in a very inferior condition 
 from a food standpoint and should not be marketed. They are thin, 
 their flesh is flabby, and they are known to the trade as '"' slabs." 
 
 6. Thiee months in the year are needed to properly overhaul and 
 prepare the vessels, so that these three montlis would be used to ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 It seems obvious in the light of the foregoing that the only 
 reason that fishing is carried on during these months is owing to 
 competition. The practice in the business is to freeze and store for 
 use during the winter, when production is not equal to the demand, 
 the quantities that can be taken during the remainder of the year 
 that are in excess of the immediate market requirements, but as at 
 the present time frozen fish can not be sold in competition with fresh 
 fish, the firm having fresh fish at all times has a trade advantage in 
 the markets over one that ha§ not. If all were on the same footing 
 in this respect, all or almost all would favor no fishing being per- 
 mitted during this period. 
 
 Prof. Thompson, in his informative and capable reports, favors 
 the method of dividing the ocean into zones and closing these zones 
 alternately, or as may be found desirable, for a term of years to all 
 halibut fishing. This method is opposed by all the fishing interests, 
 and for the following reasons your commissioners do not regard it 
 as feasible : 
 
 1. It would make it impossible for the small boats wliich can not 
 conveniently operate beyond a radius of 150 to 200 miles, or 300 
 miles at the outside, to remain in the business when the areas in 
 the vicinity of their home ports were closed, whereas, in the opinion 
 of your commissioners, the greatest promise for development of the 
 
35 
 
 fisheries on the Pacific coast of both countries lies in the growth of 
 this small-boat fisheiy operating out of local ports. 
 
 2. Fishing would be so centralized and concentrated on the open 
 areas that the good effects of the close time would be more than offset. 
 
 3. The end in view would not be achieved unless all fishing were 
 prevented in a closed area, and this would very seriously retard the 
 development of fishing for other species of fish, many of which are 
 now coming into favor and are capable of supporting an important 
 industry. 
 
 4. The temptation to fish in closed areas would be very great, and 
 an extensive and expensive patrol would be needed to prevent it. 
 
 The situation is much more difficult to deal with effectively than 
 it would have been a few years ago, because recently an extensive 
 demand has been built up for the different kinds of so-called " cods," 
 skate, grayfish, etc., which are taken incidentally when fishing for 
 halibut ; furthermore, such a large demand has been created for the 
 various species of flounders that abound on the Pacific coast that 
 steam trawling for them is now being engaged in as a regular in- 
 dustry, and limited quantities of halibut are taken by such trawlers. 
 
 As previously explained, in former years all the fish other than 
 halibut were thrown away as caught, as there was no market there- 
 for. In this way millions of pounds of excellent food fish, among 
 them the same kind of cod that is the mainstay of the Atlantic fish- 
 eries, were each year destroyed and wasted. This waste still goes 
 on to far too great extent, owing to the limited local demand and 
 sale for these excellent food fish. 
 
 It is of the utmost importance to both countries that the demand 
 for these fish should become general, as it will when their excellence 
 is generally known. Owing to the fact that they can be produced 
 in large quantities they can be sold at less than one-half the price 
 of halibut. It is, therefore, imperative that no action should be taken 
 which would retard the development of these fisheries. 
 
 While these other fisheries make more difficult the adequate protec- 
 tion of the halibut fishery, they may possibly be the sa\dng factor in 
 the halibut situation by replacing in a large measure the demand for 
 halibut and thus reducing the incentive to the overexploitatdon of that 
 fishery. 
 
 As all these lesser known but excellent food fish can be best placed 
 on distant markets in a frozen condition, it is doubtful whether the 
 stopping of fishing therefor during the period between the 15th of 
 November and the 15th of February, as was generally recommended 
 by those appearing before your commissioners, would be harmful to 
 the industry, as at the present time sufficient quantities can be readily 
 taken during the remaining portions of the .year to more than meet 
 all requirements ; but as the demand is growing rapidly this condition 
 may not long continue, and it is not considered wise to adopt any 
 measures that might prove detrimental to it. Moreover, it is undesir- 
 able that there should be any interference with the development of 
 small-boat fishing that is being carried on to some extent to supply 
 the fresli fish demands in the coastal centers of population. 
 
 If such minor fishing is allowed to go on, there is no doubt that 
 while what are regarded as special halibut grounds may not be re- 
 sorted to, small quantities of halibut will necessarily be caught, as the 
 gear that is used to catch cod, etc., as well as the steam trawlers, will 
 
36 
 
 take halibut also. Experience shows that approximately 6 per cent of 
 the catches of the steam trawlers so far operating for flounders con- 
 sists of halibut. However, if the sale of such halibut outside of the 
 local coastwise markets were forbidden during the close time for hali- 
 but fishing it would serve to prevent halibut fishing, as such, under the 
 cloak of fishing for other species, because fishing for halibut on the 
 remote banks during this period costs so much that it would not pay 
 if the fish had to be sold at the rates obt,ainable for frozen halibut. 
 
 It is true that the evidence indicates that on some of the remote 
 northwestern banks halibut are now found during fall and winter 
 only, so that the adoj^tion of a close season between the 15th of 
 November and the 15th of February would mean that these fish would 
 not be caught to any great extent. But with the depleted state of the 
 halibut fishery as a whole it is not objectionable that the resources of 
 some of the producing areas should be largely withheld from ex- 
 ploitation for the present and until the effects of international pro- 
 tective action can be measured. 
 
 In the light of all these conditions your commissioners recom- 
 mend that there shall be a close time on halibut fishing on the Pacific 
 coasts of the United States and Canada from the 16th day of Novem- 
 ber in each year to the 15th day of P'ebruary following, both days in- 
 clusive, for a period of 10 years beginning in November, 1919, during 
 which close time it shall be unlawful to fish for, land, discharge, 
 kill, ship, receive for shipment, or offer for sale at any port or 
 place in the United States or Canada any halibut caught in viola- 
 tion of this restriction; provided, however, that halibut taken inci- 
 dentally in fishing for other species of fish during the said close 
 period may be sold fresh for local consumption only or may be 
 frozen at the port where landed, but no halibut other than in a 
 frozen condition may be shipped until after the close season for the 
 year then current shall have expired. Proper penalties for Adolation 
 of these requirements should be provided by the two countries. 
 
 Your commissioners also recommend that joint investigation into 
 the halibut, as contemplated by the resolution which forms Ex- 
 hibit P to the hearings attached, should be ordered and provision 
 should be made for the reopening of the matter of regulation 
 after a period of four years if investigation warrants and demands 
 such action. 
 
 The commissioners that may be appointed under the suggested 
 treaty for the protection of the sockeye salmon fishery of the Eraser 
 Kiver system might properly be charged with the supervision of 
 the proposed halibut close season and investigations and be re- 
 quired to report to the two Governments the effects of such close 
 season. 
 
 Your commissioners are impressed with the undesirability of 
 making any regulations that would not be subject to modification 
 within a reasonable time, as the conditions surrounding this fishery 
 are liable to change rapidly. 
 
 FISHING BY UNrrED STATES LOBSTER WELL^SMACKS OFF CANADIAN COAST. 
 
 When at an early meeting of the conference the Canadian section 
 explained the unfair position in which the Canadian lobster fisher- 
 men on certain parts of the Nova Scotia coast were being placed by 
 
'M 
 
 United States lobster well-smacks fishing just outside the territorial 
 waters during the close time for lobster fishing inside such waters 
 and using the local harbors as a base for this fishery by resorting 
 thereto each night under the cloak of coming in for shelter, which 
 seems a clear breach of the spirit or intention of the treaty of 1818, 
 the unfairness of the position was admitted by the United States sec- 
 tion, and forthwith the Secretary of Commerce ordered that there be 
 prepared for submission to Congress a bill designed to prevent such 
 fishing. 
 
 This prompt action was indorsed at the hearings at Boston by all 
 the people who had been engaged in the industry, all of whom said 
 they would not put any vessels in this fishery. 
 
 Thus, even before congressional action could be completed, the end 
 in view has been achieved, and there has been settled a question, 
 which, though affecting up to the present only a limited portion of 
 the coast of Nova Scotia, was causing such growing unrest among 
 the lobster fishermen there as to threaten the total breakdown of the 
 protective regulations designed for the conservation of the fishery, 
 both inside and outside territorial waters. 
 
 PROTECTION OF THE FISHERIES OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN. 
 
 At the Boston hearings representatives from the States of New 
 York and Vermont appeared to urge better protection of the fisheries 
 in Missisquoi Bay, the Canadian portion of Lake Champlain. This 
 matter had received preliminary consideration by the conference 
 during its sittings in Washington, D. C. 
 
 It was explained that for some years past these two States, with the 
 cooperation and assistance of the Federal Government, were endeav- 
 oring to make Lake Champlain a favorite tourist resort, as, owing to 
 its character, it could not support any extensive commercial fishing. 
 To this end both States were prohibiting all net fishing, but the most 
 important spawning grounds for pike-perch, the most valuable fish 
 in the lake, are in the portion thereof that is in Canadian territory, 
 and there each spring, when the fish crowd into these waters to spawn, 
 they are caught with seines. Thus the good effects of the work of the 
 two States were being largely nullified. 
 
 It was also explained that the United States Bureau of Fisheries 
 operates a pike-perch hatchery on the lake and that it was prepared 
 to enlarge the hatchery and increase its work if the net fishing were 
 stopped. 
 
 While this matter was not explicitly referred to the conference for 
 consideration, it was one of which it could take cognizance. It was, 
 therefore, left with the Canadian delegation for such action as they 
 felt justified in taking. 
 
 Following the return of the Canadian section to Ottawa, after 
 hearings at'^St. John, it laid the facts before the Canadian Govern- 
 ment, and recommended that all net fishing in Missisquoi Bay should 
 be stopped. This recommendation was approved, and the fishery reg- 
 ulations for the Province of Quebec were amended accordingly by 
 Order in Council of February 18, 1918. 
 
. REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON CANADIAN FISHING VESSELS PASSING 
 THROUGH TERRITORIAL WATERS OF ALASKA. 
 
 The Canadian section of the conference brought up for considera- 
 tion the difference in treatment accorded to Canadian fishing vessels 
 by the United States authorities on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. 
 
 On the Pacific coast, the United States fishing vessels leaving 
 Washington ports for the northern fishing grounds of Alaska sail 
 through the narrow territorial channels along the coast of British 
 Columbia, between the islands and the mainland, so as to escape the 
 rougher outside waters, and are required neither to enter nor report 
 at any Canadian customs office, while Canadian fishing vessels pass- 
 ing through similar channels along the coast of Alaska to the fishing 
 grounds on the high seas beyond have been required to enter and 
 clear at Ketchikan, thus not only losing time but involving the pay- 
 ment of fees, which usually amount to from $12 to $15 on the larger 
 vessels, on each occasion. 
 
 On the other hand, on the Atlantic coast, Canadian fishing vessels 
 were not permitted to come from the fishing grounds to United States 
 ports, nor were they given clearances from such ports to the high 
 seas, but had to clear for a port in a foreign country. 
 
 This matter was investigated during the hearings on the Pacific 
 coast, and was found to be substantially as above stated, for while 
 the vessels were not cleared from Ketchikan for the fishing grounds, 
 tlie}^ were cleared for a Canadian port by way of the fishing grounds, 
 and thus went from Ketchikan to the fishing grounds and thence back 
 to a 'Canadian port. 
 
 The law under which entry and clearance was required was an 
 enactment to prevent smuggling, and as there was some question as 
 to whether a proper interpretation was being placed upon it, in re- 
 quiring passing fishing vessels to enter and clear, the question was 
 forthwith taken up by the Department of Commerce, which, after 
 full consideration, found that the practice which had grown up was 
 not warranted by law. It was forthwith discontinued. 
 
 Thus another matter, which has been the cause of complaint and 
 irritation in the Canadian vessel fisheries ever since the beginning of 
 these northern fishing voyages, has been satisfactorily disposed of. 
 
 PROTECTION OF THE STURGEON FISHERIES. 
 
 The question of the very serious and continuing decline of the 
 sturgeon fisheries, not only in the waters contiguous to the boundary 
 but in nearly all the noncontiguous waters as well, was also con- 
 sidered by your commissioners, and the following resolution on this 
 subject was adopted: 
 
 Whereas the sturgeons are iii(Uvi(hi:illy hy far the most vahiahlo tislies inhah- 
 
 itiiifi North America; 
 Whereas the supply of sturgeons in all waters in which tlie fishery has been 
 
 active has heen so materially reduced as to presage commercial extinction, 
 
 which, in fact, has already occurred in certain waters; 
 Whereas it is evident that the measures heretofore adopted are entirely inade- 
 
 (|UMte to arrest (he rajiid decline of the fisheries or even maintain the present 
 
 greatly diminished supply: Therefore be it 
 
 RexohH'd, That tliis conference regards it as necessary that all sturgeon fish- 
 ing in all the contiguous waters of the United States and Canada be suspended 
 
39 
 
 for a period of at least five years, and that each country should undertake to 
 carry this purpose into effect by appropriate legislation or other official action. 
 
 Resolved further, That this conference strongly reconnuends the adoption by 
 appropriate legislative bodies of a similar prohibitory measure for noncon- 
 tiguous waters. 
 
 In this connection, your commissioners wish to commend the adop- 
 tion of a regulation by the Canadian Government on the 22d of 
 March, 1918, providino- for a four years' prohibition of sturgeon 
 fishing in Lake Erie if the bordering States of New York, Penn- 
 sylvania, and Ohio enact similar legislation. This conference urges 
 that such action be taken by these States and that provision for a 
 longer period of closure will be speedily adopted, so far as all 
 boundary waters are concerned, as well as waters not contiguous to 
 the boundary in both countries. 
 
 PROTECTION or WHALES. 
 
 The question of the protection of the diminishing number of 
 whales on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of both countries received 
 the consideration of the conference. The downward trend of the 
 whole fishery is general, not only on the coasts of the .United States 
 and Canada, but in all parts of the world frequented by these mam- 
 mals, and the modern appliances for hunting whales are so efficient 
 as to threaten not only the commercial exhaustion of the fishery 
 everywhere, but the extinction or practical extinction of the species. 
 While an arrangement between the United States and Canada for 
 the protection of whales would no doubt be of some advantage, yet, 
 owing to the wide migrations of these animals and to the fact that 
 they could still be pursued without any restrictions on the high seas 
 off the coasts of both countries hj vessels from other nations without 
 using territorial waters beyond seeking shelter from storms, it is 
 doubtful if the whaling industry on this continent can be safe- 
 guarded in that wa3^ 
 
 Your commissioners are therefore of the opinion that following 
 the ending of this war an international conference, consisting of rep- 
 resentatives of the different maritime countries interested, should be 
 called to consider world-wide international action to assure the sav- 
 ing of the whales from extinction and the perpetuation of the 
 whaling industry. 
 
 William C. Redfield, 
 Edwin F. Sweet, 
 Hugh M. Smith, 
 Commissioners for the United States: 
 J. D. Hazex, 
 G. J. Desbarats, 
 Wm. a. Found, 
 Commissioners for the Dominion of Canada. 
 
 Signed at Lake Champlain, N. Y., Friday, September 6, 1918. 
 
APPENDIX A. 
 
 TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE L'NITED STATES CONCERNING THE SOCKEYE 
 SALMON FISHERIES OF THE FRASER RIVER SYSTEM. 
 
 Whereas the (Governments of Canada and the United States, realizing the 
 necessity for joint action in the protection, preservation, and propagation of 
 the soclceye salmon of the Fraser River system, referred the question to an 
 International .Toint Commission appointed by tlie respective Governments in 
 December, 1917, to consider a settlement of outstanding questions affecting the 
 fisheries between the two countries ; and 
 
 Whereas the said commission, having investigated the matter, recommend 
 the adoption and enforcement by tlie two countries of the regulations appended 
 hereto and the appointment of an International Fisheries Commission to con- 
 duct investigations into the life history of the salmon, hatchery methods, 
 spawning-ground conditions, and related matters, and to observe the effects 
 thereof and to reconuuend any modifications tliereof or additions thereto 
 which may in the light of experience be found desirable ; 
 
 His Majesty George Y, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ii-eland 
 and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King and Emperor of India, and 
 the President of the United States of America, having resolved to enter into a 
 treaty thereto, liave for tliat purpose appointed 
 
 who, having exchanged their full powers, found to be in due form, liave agreed 
 to and .signed the following articles : 
 
 Article 1. 
 
 The times, seasons, and methods of soclveye-salmon fishing in the Fraser River 
 system, as specified in article 3 of this ccmvention, and the nets, engines, gear, 
 apparatus, and appliances wliich may be used therein sliall lie limited to those 
 specified in the system of regulations appended hereto. 
 
 Article 2. 
 
 The two Governments engage to put into operation and enforce by legislative 
 and executive action, with as little delay as possible, the said regulations, 
 restrictions, and provisions, and such others as may from time to time be 
 adopted by the two Governments ; and the date when they shall be put into 
 operation shall be fixed by concurrent proclamations of the Governor General 
 of the Dominion of Canada in Council and of the President of the United States. 
 
 Article 3. ■ 
 
 It is agreed that the aforementioned regulations will apply to the waters 
 included within the following boundaries : 
 
 Beginning at Carmanagh Lighthouse on the southwest coast of Vancouver 
 Island: thence in a straight line to a point 3 marine miles due west astronomic 
 from Tatoosh Lighthouse, Wash. ; thence to said Tatoosh Lighthouse ; thence 
 to the nearest iwint of Cape Flattery ; thence following the southerly shore 
 of Juan de Fuca Strait to Point Wilson, on Quimper Peninsula : thence in a 
 straight line to Point Partridge, on Whidbey Island ; thence following the 
 western shore of the said Whidbey Island to the entrance to Deception Pass; 
 thence across said entrance to the southern side of Reservation Bay, on Fidalgo 
 Island ; thence following the western and northern shore line of the said 
 Fidalgo Island to Swinomish Slough, crossing the said Swinomish Slough in 
 line with the track of the Great Northern Railway ; thence nortlierly following 
 the shf)re line of tlie mainland to Point Grey at the soutliern entrance to Bur- 
 rard Inlet. British Columbia ; theuce in a straight line to the southern end of 
 
 (41) 
 
42 
 
 Gabriola Island ; thence to the southern side of the entrance to Boat Harbor, 
 Vancouver IsUmd ; thence following the eastern and southern shores of the 
 said Vancouver Island to the starting point at Carmanagh Lighthouse, as shown 
 on the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 6300, as corrected 
 to July 20, 1918, and also the Fraser River and its tributaries. 
 
 The" two Governments engage to have prepared, as soon as practicable, charts 
 of the waters described in this article, with the international boundary line 
 indicated thereon ; and to establish such additional buoys and marks for the 
 purposes of this treaty as may be recommended by the commission referred 
 to in the following article. 
 
 Article 4. 
 
 The High Contracting Parties agree to appoint a commission, to be known 
 as the International Fisheries Commission, consisting of four persons, two to 
 be named by each Government, to conduct investigations into the life history 
 of the salmon, hatchery methods, spawning-ground conditions, and other re- 
 lated matters, and to observe the effects of the said regulations and to 
 recommend to their respective Governments any modifications of or additions 
 to the aforementioned regulations which may in the light of experience be 
 found desirable. 
 
 Aeticle 5. 
 
 The International Fisheries Commission shall continue in existence so long 
 as this convention shall be in force, and each Government shall have the power 
 to fill, and shall fill from time to time, any vacancy which may occur in its 
 representation oil the comnrission. Each Government shall pay its own com- 
 missioners, and any joint expenses s-hall be paid by the two Governments in 
 equal moieties. 
 
 Akticle 6. 
 
 This convention shall remain in force for a period of 15 years, and thereafter 
 until two years from the date when either the Government of Great Britain or 
 the Government of the United States shall give notice to the other of its desire 
 to terminate it. 
 
 Article 7. 
 
 The regulations, restrictions, and pro^•isions pi-ovided for in this convention 
 shall remain in force for a ])eriod of eight years from the date of their executive 
 promulgation, and tliereafter until one year from the date when either the Gov- 
 ernment of Great Bi-itain or of tlie United States shall gi-\e notice to the other 
 of its desire for their revision, and inunediately upon such notice being given 
 the comnussion shall proceed to make a revision thereof, which revised regula- 
 tions, if adopted and promulgated, as provided by article 2 herei>f, shall remain 
 in force for a period of five years, and thereafter until one year from the date 
 when a further notice of revision is given, as above provided in this ai'ticle. It 
 shall, however, be in the poA\-er of the two Governments, by joint or concurrent 
 action upon the recounnendation of the commission to make modifications at 
 any time in the regulations, and to bring any or all of the other species of sal- 
 nwin, including steelhead. within tlie scope of such modified regulations. 
 
 ' Article 8. 
 
 The present convention shall be duly ratified by His Britannic Majesty and 
 by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the 
 Senate thereof, and the ratifications shall be exchanged as soon as practicable. 
 
 In faith whereof, the resj^ective plenipotentiaries have signed the pres'ent con- 
 vention in duplicate, and have thereunto afiixed their seals. 
 
 Done at in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 
 nine hundred and eighteen. 
 
APPENDIX B. 
 
 A SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION" 
 OF THE SOCKEYE SALMON FISHERIES OF THE ERASER RIVER SYSTEM. 
 
 Section 1. The following regulations shall apply to the waters included within 
 the following boundaries : 
 
 Beginning at Carmanagh Lighthouse, on the southwest coast of Vancouver 
 Island; thence in a straight line to a point 3 marine miles due west astronomic 
 from Tatoosh Lighthouse, Wash. ; thence to said Tatoosh Lighthouse ; thence 
 to the nearest point of Cape Flattery ; thence following the southerly shore of 
 Juan de Fuca Strait to Point ^^■ilson, on Quimjier I'eninsula ; thence in a straight 
 line to Point Partridge, on AVhidbey Island ; thence following the western 
 shore of the said Whidbey Island to the entrance to Deception^ Pass ; thence 
 across the said entrance to the southern side of Reservation Bay, on Fidalgo 
 Island ; thence following the western and northern shore line of the said 
 Fidalgo Island to Swinomish Slough, crossing the said Swinomish Slough in 
 line with the track of the Great Northern Railway ; thence northerly following 
 the shore line of the mainland to Point Grey at the southern entrance to Bur- 
 rard Inlet, British Columbia ; thence in a straight line to the southern end of 
 Gabriola Island; thence to the southern side of the entrance to Bcmt Harbor, 
 Vancouver Island ; thence following the eastern and southern shores of the 
 said Vancouver Island to the starting point at Carmanagh Lighthouse, as shown 
 on the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 6300, as corrected 
 to July 20, 1918, and also the Fraser River and its tributaries. 
 Sec. 2. Interpretations: 
 
 " Drift net " shall mean a floating gill net that is neither anchored nor 
 staked, but that floats freely with the tide or current. 
 " Trap net " shall include a pound net. 
 
 " Commission " shall mean the International Fisheries Commission appointed 
 under the treaty to which these regulations are appended. 
 
 " Treaty waters " shall mean all waters described in section 1 hereof. 
 Sec. 3. (a) Fishing for sockeye salmon in the treaty waters within the 
 tevritorial limits of the State of Washington shall not be permissible except 
 under license from such State, and in the treaty waters of Canada except 
 under license under the provisions of the fisheries act of Canada. 
 
 (&) No greater nuni'ber of licenses for any class of fishing appliance shall be 
 authorized in any year in the treaty waters within the territorial limits of the 
 State of Washington than were issued for such class for the season of 1918, 
 up to August 31, inclusive, thereof, and in the treaty waters of British Colum- 
 bia the number of gill nets that may be licensed in anv year shall not exceed 
 1,800. 
 
 (c) No license shall be granted (o any person, company, or firm in the State 
 of Washington, unless such person is an American citizen, resident in the said 
 State, or to such company or firm, unless it is an American company or firm 
 or is authorized to do business in the said State, and no licenses shall be 
 granted to any person, company, or firm in the Province of British Columbia 
 unless such person is a British subject i-esident in the said Province, or such 
 company or firm unless it is a Canadian company or firm, or is licensed to do 
 business in the said Province of British Columbia. 
 
 {(I) No one other than a British subject who owns or leases land on either 
 side of the Fraser River above New Westminster Bridge, and who actually 
 permanently resides on and is cultivating such land, shall be eligible for a 
 license to fish for sockeye salmon between New Westminister Bridge and 
 Mission Bridge, but fi.shing under such license shall not be carried on below 
 New Westminister Bridge. 
 
 Sec. 4. The use of nets other than drift nets, purse seines, and trap nets 
 shall not be permitted in treaty waters for the capture of sockeye salmon. 
 
 Sec. 5. No net fishing or fishing of any kind, other than with hook and line, 
 excepting for hatchery purposes or scientific purposes, shall be permissible in 
 the Fraser River above the down-river side of IMission Bridge. 
 
 (43) 
 
44 
 
 Sec. 6. During the years 1919 to 1926, liotli years, inclusive, no one shall fish 
 for, catch, or kill any salmon from the 2()th day of July to the 31st clay of 
 July in eiich year, both days inclusive ; and during this close time no nets or 
 appliances of any kind that vvill capture salmon may be used in thase treaty 
 waters: Provided, hoirerer. That sahiion fisliing tor hatchery or scientific pur- 
 poses may be authorized during this period. 
 
 Sec. 7. The weekly close time for salmon fishing shall be from 6 o'clock a. m. 
 Saturday to 6 o'clock p. ni. Sunday, in Canadian waters, excepting in that 
 portion of the Fraser River between New Westminster Bridge and Mission 
 Bridge, where the weekly close time shall be from 6 o'clock a. m. Saturday to 6 
 o'clock p. m. on the following Monday, and in United States waters from Friday 
 at 4 o'clock p. m. to Sunday at 4 o'clock a. m., and during this close time no 
 salmon fishing of any kind, other than for hatchery or scientific puriwses, shall 
 be permissible, and during the full period of each weekly close time or 
 annual close season each trap net shall be closed by an apron placed across 
 the outer entrance to the heart of the trap, which apron shall extend from the 
 surface to the bottom of the water and shall be securely connected to the piles 
 on either side of the heart of the trap net, fastened by rings not more than 
 2 feet apart on taut wires stretched from the top to the bottom of the piles, 
 and such apron, or the appliance l)y which it is raised and lowered, shall be 
 providetl with a signal or flag, which shall disclose whether the trap net is 
 closed, and which shall be of the form and character approved by the com- 
 mission : Provided, That in addition to the foregoing requirement such trap 
 net shall be equipped with a V-shaped opening to the satisfaction of the com- 
 mission, in the lead of such trap net next to the entrance to the heart and 
 immediately adjacent to the apron of at least 10 feet in width at the top and 
 extending below the surface at least 4 feet below low water, which V-shaped 
 opening shall remain open and unobstructed during the full period of each 
 weekly close time or annual close season. 
 
 For the purpose of securing full compliance with this regulation the owner 
 or operator of each trap net shall constantly maintain during the weekly and 
 annual close times a watchman, whose duty it shall be to cause each trap net 
 to be kept closed and the lead to be kept open, as above provided. 
 
 Sec. 8. All salmon trap nets shall be limited to a total length of 2,500 feet, 
 with an end passageway of at least 600 feet between one trap net and the next 
 in linear series, such distances being measured in continuation of the line of 
 direction of the leader of such trap net, but in no instance shall more than two- 
 thirds of the width of any passageway at any point be closed by trap nets. 
 There sliall also be a lateral distance of at least 2,400 feet between one trap net 
 and the next. 
 
 Sec. 9. A salmon purse seine shall not exceed 1,900 linear feet in length, in- 
 cluding the lead and attachment, measured on the cork line when wet. 
 
 Sec. 10. («) No purse seine shall be cast or placed in the water for fishing 
 purposes within 2,400 feet of any trap net. 
 
 (b) The use of purse seines for the capture of sockeye salmon shall be con- 
 fined to the treaty waters southward and westward of a straight line drawn 
 from the lighthouse on Trial Island, British Columbia, to the northwest point of 
 Whidbey Island, State of Washington. 
 
 Sec. 11. A salmon drift net shall not exceed 900 linear feet in length, and the 
 vertical breadth thereof shall not exceed 60 meshes, and the size of the mesh 
 shall not be less than 5-J inches, extension measure, when in use. 
 
 Sec. 12. Any violation of these regulations in the treaty waters within the 
 territorial limits of the State of Washington or within the treaty waters of 
 Canada shall be punishable by the imposition of appropriate penalties to be 
 provided by legislation in each country. 
 
 o 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 002 875 954 P