THE SEA FISHERIES OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA 207 
Q. Then you dissent from that opinion now ?—A. Yes; I do not consider that it has 
a bearing on the mackerel question. 
Q. All that goes to show that all these speculative opinions are entitled to little 
weight ; you see that you have changed your opinion in this respect ?—A. Certainly; 
as the data vary the conclusions also vary. 
Q. I suppose you wiil admit that there eis not the slightest reason why within the 
next three years you may not have come back to the same opinion which you now repu- 
diate, orhave then formed opinions totally different from those which you now express 
before the Commission ?—A. I cannot say; that will depend entirely on the facts as 
they come. 
Q. After all, this is all the purest theory ?—A. It is an hypothesis; it is not a 
theory. ; 
Q. Well, it is an hypothesis ?—A. It is not a theory until it is absolutely certified 
by the facts. 
Q. Then, of course, an hypothesis is more vague thana theory. You gave in amass 
of figures just now, which you state were made up by your assistant, based upon in- 
formation which you have got from some of the witnesses here, in answer to ques- 
tions put them, and what not—have I understood you rightly ?—A. Partly. 
Q. And your assistant has verified them by his affidavit—have I understood you 
rightly ?—A. Yes; they are verified by the affidavit of the assistant who made them 
up. 
Q. What sort of an affidavit is it? Does he state that these figures are correct, or 
simply that they are there ?—A. He certifies that he has compiled them and what 
they represent. 
Q. In point of fact you cannot yourself swear that this statement is correct 7—A. I 
cannot swear that; but it is made up from the statistics of the Fishery Commission 
and investigations. 
Q. Even to that I do not think you can swear ?—A. No more than Mr. Whitcher or 
Mr. Smith can swear to the correctness of Canadian statistics. 
Q. You directed it to be made up by one of your assistants ?—A. Yes. 
q@. And you do not know whether it has been made up correctly or not?—A. No 
more than any man can swear to the accuracy of his assistant’s work. 
Q. As a fact, you have no personal knowledge as to its correctness 7—A. Certainly 
not. 
Q. You directed it to be done ?—A. Precisely ; it stands on the same footing asany 
table made up by a clerk. 
Q. Did you directly take into consideration statements made by witnesses here ?7— 
A. I have very largely taken into consideration inquiries made by Mr. Goode, my as- 
sistant, of witnesses here, according to the same definite plan which I have adopted 
elsewhere. 
Q. Inasmuch as we have not the results of what these inquiries were, and since the 
Commissioners have not them before them, none of these inquiries which you made, 
and none of the information which you thus obtained, are before us, the papers being 
locked up in your desk.—A. They are in the archives of the Fishery Commission. 
Q. Then we have no means of testing the accuracy of those figures ?—A. No; not 
the slightest. They are there for what they are worth. I present them with the 
affidavit which was made by my assistant. 
Q. You admit that you have not furnished us with any means of attesting their ac- 
curacy ?7—A. You must take them for what they are worth. They are of the same 
value as any table published by the Fishery Department of Canada or the United 
States or anywhere else. 
Q. If I rightly understood your answer to Mr. Dana yesterday, you rather think 
that the throwing over of offal amounts to nothing ?—A. No; I do not think that it 
does amount to anything. 
