But when the time for proving arrived, they not only fail- 

 ed to substantiate their averments ; but even, by producing 

 mutilated and fallacious statements, left room to believe, 

 that, if the truth were told, the very opposite of what they 

 had alleged would turn out to be the case. From one state- 

 ment which was exhibited by them, it appeared that the 

 average produce for the ten years immediately preceding 

 the introduction of stake-nets, was 31,063 salmon, and 

 6,443 grilses. And if a corresponding statement of the 

 produce during the immediately succeeding ten years had 

 been exhibited, there would have been a fair means of com- 

 parison. But, instead of the statement exhibited for 

 the succeeding ten years, being a counter-part to the first, 

 it did not comprehend all the fisheries, an account of 

 the produce of which had formerly been given. It contain- 

 ed only some of them, some fisheries one year, and some 

 another. In the first statement, the fisheries included, 

 were eighteen in number ; but only seven of these eighteen, 

 were noticed in the account for the year 1807 ; and so, in 

 a similar proportion, for other years. Of course, no direct 

 comparison could be instituted. There was no second ave- 

 rage to set against the first. And thus, it is a fair and na- 

 tural presumption, that, if the whole truth had been ex- 

 posed, it would have appeared that there was no percep- 

 tible diminution in the produce, while the stake-nets were 

 in operation. * 



* No useful result could be derived from contrasting the 

 produce of the river fisheries, for any one or two years, with 

 the produce for any other one or two years. It fluctu- 

 ates so much, that no regard would be due to the result of 

 such a comparison. A curious example of this fluctuation 

 may be thought worthy of notice. During the year 1804, in 

 consequence of an interdict which had been granted, but which 



