PEEIOD FROM 1836 TO 1854. 503 



and after having detailed at length in the body of his statement the 

 transactions of the 8th instant, he adverts in its conclusion to an inci- 

 dent which, as he says, took place " later on the 9th than the events 

 I have narrated." The undersigned by no means points out these 

 errors for the sake of impeaching the general character of Mr. Daven- 

 port's statement, but to show that similar errors on the part of the 

 Doughtys are not conclusive proof of wilful misrepresentation and 

 falsehood. 



As far as Mr. Dodd's conduct is concerned, the greatest inaccuracy 

 of the deposition of the Doughtys consists in ascribing to him what 

 was done by order of Mr. Davenport, the collector of Sydney. It 

 appears by Mr. Davenport's statement that these orders were not 

 given by him in person, but by a " waiter or searcher." The under- 

 signed thinks that it is very much the custom of officers of this class 

 in delivering orders not to describe very particularly from what 

 superior functionary the orders emanate; and it seems natural that 

 these uninformed fishermen, the Doughtys, might have supposed that 

 the orders brought them to quit their vessel and the prohibition to 

 remove any of her stores with them, proceeded from the officer by 

 whom the capture was made. The undersigned sees no bad motive 

 which they could have had in ascribing to Mr. Dodd what was done 

 by Mr. Davenport. Their doing so may argue ignorance and care- 

 lessness, but not necessary malice. 



It is worthy of remark that Mr. Dodd does not, with one exception, 

 seem to discredit the statement of the Doughtys as to what took place 

 before there was any opportunity to fall into this confusion, that is, 

 after the capture and before the bringing into port, although that 

 portion of their statement contains a report of Mr. Dodd's observa- 

 tions about what is called the " annexation document " and his hav- 

 ing seized the vessel in order to settle a question under a treaty, which 

 if incorrectly alleged, it may be thought he could hardly have failed to 

 contradict. Mr. Dodd states, indeed, that it was impossible that the 

 master of the Argus as asserted by the deponents, could have thought 

 himself outside the line drawn from Cape North to the head of Cow 

 bay, because if he had so thought he would have gone to trial against 

 the captors at Halifax. But Lord Aberdeen is aware that it is one of 

 the grievances which the government of the United States has had 

 repeatedly to complain of, and which was prominently brought for- 

 ward in connection with this very capture by the undersigned in his 

 letter of the 9th of October, that, no defence can be made in such a 

 suit without giving security in $300, besides encountering the delay 

 and the heavy expenses of court After adverting to this fact, the 

 consul at Halifax in his letter of the L9th August, which was sent by 

 the undersigned to I iord A berdeen with his uote of 9th ( October, adds, 

 "so that, generally speaking, it is better to let the suit go by default 

 and purchase the vessel after condemnation." 



Mr. Dodd on this subject proceeds to say, that "all on board the 

 Argus were too well Bati fied of their liability and of their having 

 violated the treaty which excludes them from our shores, to have 

 asked the tesi of an examination as witne <• in (he case, and (here- 

 fore they abandoned the attempt as u Bless." But not to dwell on 

 the circumstance thai Mr. Dodd himself opposes do specific contra- 

 diction to the assertion of the Doughtys that he stated thai he made 



