1810 AWARD OF THE FISHEEY COMMISSION. 



by his own admission, that they had been in the harbor of Margaree 

 that morning, or somewhere on the coast ot Cape Breton, and had then 

 taken more than 25 barrels of mackerel within the three-mile limit. 



So that, if his statement were true, all that Captain Derby had done 

 was, instead of putting the law into force and seizing that vessel, and 

 confiscating her tackle and apparel and furniture and all the cargo she 

 had on board, he had let the man off by taking only 25 barrels, which 

 had been caught within British limits. 



Does that look like the act of a man who was a "harpy" or a " pirate," 

 or who was disposed to " divide the plunder" ? But I say, moreover, it is 

 convenient to make these charges I speak now of the witnesses, and 

 not of Mr. Dana it is convenient for a witness to make charges against 

 a man who is dead. Captain Derby is now lying in his grave. The 

 tongue that could come forward and show the falsehood and slander of 

 that statement is silent forever ; and it is cheap work for this witness, 

 with respect to a dead man, to say that such and such a thing was done, 

 when he knows that the falseness of his statements cannot be proven. 

 I pay very little respect to such testimony ; and, with the exception of 

 this, not a particle of evidence has been presented in the course of this 

 long inquiry which would justify the making of this very serious charge 

 by Mr. Dana. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I repudiate 

 that language ; I say that it is not called for in this case, and that 

 there are no facts proven to warrant it. 



Again, we have very strong language used in reference to Mr. Pattilo, 

 and it has been said that if a portion of his blood had been shed the 

 seas would have probably been " incarnadined." But what is Pattilo's 

 own statement? A curious subject was Mr. Pattilo to go to war about. 

 What kind of a character he was when young I know not; but some 

 person told me that he had experienced religion before he came into this 

 court. I thought that if he had, the old man was not entirely crucified 

 in him when he gave his evidence there. What did he tell you ? That 

 he was a Xova Scotian by birth ; that he went to the United States, as 

 he had a right to do, and that he took the oath of allegiance there, as 

 he had a right to do. And when I put him the question as to whether, 

 when he had taken this oath of allegiance, he had not taken an oath of 

 abjuration against Queen Victoria and everything British, he admitted 

 that be had. Now, in this there was nothing criminal. He had a per- 

 fect right to take the oath of allegiance there; and certainly nobody 

 cared to have him remain in Nova Scotia. But what did he do ? After 

 becoming an American citizen, and a citizen more American than they 

 are themselves, he takes his vessel into the gulf and systematically 

 trespasses on our fisheries. It is not attempted to say that when it 

 suited his convenience he did not go in and trespass on our fishing 

 rights. He had no scruples, when it suited him to do so, about fishing 

 inside the limits, and so far did he carry this matter that he absolutely 

 sailed up into the territorial waters of Newfoundland, and got into the 

 ice close up to the shore ; and when some officers came there he armed 

 his crew and set them all at defiance. He said that he drove away the 

 " whole calabash " of the officers. At all events he kept them ofl^ and 

 staid there the whole winter, cutting holes in the ice, fishing, taking 

 herring up, and walking off with them. This man did not appear to 

 understand that there are national rights which he could at all infringe. 

 Was a man like that a man to go to war about ? 



Take his own account of the circumstances and of the shots fired at 

 his vessel, and what was it ? He was passing through the Gut of Canso, 

 and having the advantage of those very lights which one of the consuls 



