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 will admit that there is not the slightest reason why within the 

 next three years yon may not have come hack to the same opinion which you now repu- 

 diate, or have then formed opinions totally diiferent from those which you now express 

 before the Commissiou ? — 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 than a theory. You gave in amass 

 of figures just now, which you state were made up by your assistant, based upou 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. Iu point of fact you cannot yourself swear that this statement is correct ? — 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 ? — 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 iuto consideration statements made by witnesses here ? — 

 A. I have very largely taken iuto 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 whatthese'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. 1 present them with the 

 affidavit which was made by my assistant. 



Q. You admit that you have not furnished us with auyjneans of attesting their ac- 

 curacy ? — 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. 



