of Paris-France and England have claimed the right and used the word. When God Almighty made the banks of Newfoundland, at three hundred leagues distant from the people of America, and at six hundred leagues distant from those of France and England, did He not give us as good a right as to the latter? If Heaven, at creation, gave a right, it is ours at least as much as yours. If occupation, use and possession give a right, we have it as clearly as you. If war and blood and treasure give a right, ours is as good as yours. We have been continuously fighting in Canada, Cape Breton, and Nova Scotia for the defense of this fishery, and have expended beyond all proportion more than you. If then, the right cannot be denied, why should it not be acknowledged and put out of dispute? Why should we leave room for illiterate fishermen to wrangle and chicane?'' 1

The argument presented by Adams was unanswerable. Eventually the whole of his proposal was embodied as an article in the treaty of peace that was signed September, 3, 1783. Article III of that treaty 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 Grand Bank, and on the other banks of Newfoundland; also in the Gulph of Saint Lawrence, and at all other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. 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 also 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 bays, harbours and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled; but so 1 Works of J. Adams, III, p. 334.

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 settlements, without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors or possessors of the ground."

1

The rights thus secured for the American fishermen were generous beyond expectation. It was little in the nature of a concession for Great Britain to grant the "right" of fishing on the different banks to the inhabitants of the United States. The possession of those rights can never be monopolized, any more than the navigation of the ocean can be. But the granting of the liberty to take fish on all the coasts of the British provinces in America equally with British fishermen was more than our statesmen had hoped to secure; with this liberty of taking all kinds of fish went the privilege of curing the same in certain parts of the different provinces-another concession that the American statesmen had little grounds for demanding. When it is considered how the French were excluded from the privileges of the shore fisheries of these colonies by the treaty of 1763, it is a matter of considerable wonder that the Americans were granted, by the treaty of 1783, privileges as an independent government almost equal to what they had enjoyed as colonies of Great Britain. Great credit should be given to our negotiators, and to Adams in particular, for the granting of such satisfactory terms by the British government. The dictatorial attitude that Adams assumed during part of the negotiations, his evident transgression of his instructions as an accredited commissioner to make terms for a treaty of peace, and his bold stand for "the fisheries or no peace," undoubtedly were the means for securing the insertion of the third⚫ article in the treaty of 1783.

1 Snow, p. 65.

CHAPTER VIII

THE RENAISSANCE OF THE FISHERIES

The history of the fisheries subsequent to the Revolutionary War falls naturally into three divisions: the first embraces the period of our Federal Government down to the treaty of 1818; the second extends from 1818 to the close of the Civil War; and the last reaches from that conflict to the present time. The first period is characterized by a war with Great Britain which destroyed the fisheries during the continuance of active hostilities, by a steady increase in the extent and importance of the industry during the years of peace, but by no radical changes either in methods of catching fish or in establishing new industries. The second period marks the expansion of the deep-sea fisheries, the rise and development of the mackerel fishery, and important beginnings in the oyster, herring and menhaden industries. The last period witnesses the introduction into general use of revolutionary methods for taking ground-fish, mackerel and menhaden, the origin and growth of the canning industry, the evolution of processes of fish-culture chiefly by the establishment of a national fish commission, and the introduction of new methods for preserving and transporting the products of the sea.

The recovery of the fisheries after peace had been declared was slow. In the earlier years there had been rapid recoveries after colonial wars in which there had been more

or less interference with the progress of the business. Such a recovery, however, was not possible after the Revolutionary War. The fishing industry had been shaken to its foundation by a decade of inactivity and suspension. There had been rapid and disastrous depreciation of the property used for the furtherance of fishing interests. Wharves had fallen into decay, mainly through lack of trade to keep them in repair. Many vessels, too, had become valueless for the same reason; others had been employed in the privateering service, never to return as fishing vessels. Flakes and other shore apparatus used in curing fish had long since disappeared. Men, too, had lost the habit of their old vocation in following varying fortunes of service in the army or navy. The younger generation of boys had received little training in the shore fisheries such as their fathers had, and none of them had acquired practical experience in deep-sea fishing by a trip to the Grand Bank as "cut-tail" aboard a New England schooner.

Added to the discouraging domestic conditions was an order, proclaimed by the British council the very year of the treaty, prohibiting American fish from being carried to the British West Indies. The order worked injury to our fishermen in two ways; first, in distinctly narrowing the markets for the larger part of our fish; secondly, in encouraging the rival fisheries of Nova Scotia and other British possessions in the vicinity of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. The Congress of the Confederation declared that retaliatory measures were necessary to prevent our commerce from falling into the hands of foreigners, and asked the States for power to provide suitable remedies. But no such power was granted to the Congress.1

The condition of the codfishery of Massachusetts for the 1 Sabine, p. 155.

period between 1786 and 1790 is shown in the table below.1 During that time there were 539 vessels employed in the fishery, of a total tonnage of 19,185 tons, and carrying 3,292 men. The average size of the vessels was 35 tons, and of the crews six men. Marblehead, with over onefourth of the total tonnage employed, still held the position of the first in the number of vessels employed. The other principal fishing towns were Plymouth, Salem, and Beverly, the three together doing about one-fifth the fishing business of New England at this time.

The exports of the products of the New England codfishery for the five years 1786 to 1790 inclusive show that there were annually sold in European markets 108,600 quintals of fish valued at $325,800, and in the markets of the West Indies 142,050 quintals valued at $284,100.2 Allowing, on a liberal estimate, that one-half the value of the sales went as wages to the fishermen, the average amount 1 The state of the codfishery of Massachusetts between 1786 and 1790: