1828 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



made seven trips and absolutely got 2,333 barrels. In 1874 they say in 

 affidavit Xo. 74 they made two trips to the bay and obtained 300 bar- 

 rels, while in 1874, according to the statement in Appendix O, they made 

 four trips and got 1,407 barrels. In 1875 they say that they got none 

 in the bay, and in 1876 60 barrels, while in this other statement they 

 represent that their catch in the bay in 1876 was 51 barrels. Now, the 

 discrepancy between these two statements amounts to 4,128 barrels ; 

 and this is the kind of testimony on which the United States expects to 

 get an award. 



Mr. TRESCOT. It is still in your favor. 



Mr. THOMSON. We will now turn to the very next page, letter V, ap- 

 pendix O. The corresponding affidavit is Xo. 55. Joseph Friend here 

 makes the same statement which I have already cited, that " since the 

 Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, our vessels have been 

 employed as follows-'; and he states that the number of trips made in 

 the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1872 was four, and the catch 1,500 barrels 

 of mackerel, while in 1872 only one trip was made, and only 163 barrels 

 taken, according to the last statement found in appendix O. Evidently 

 that was not done with the intention of helping the British case much. 

 Then we find it stated that in 1873 three trips were made to the bay, 

 according to affidavit Xo. 55, and 1,200 barrels taken; while in 1873, ac- 

 cording to this last statement, one trip was made, when only 145 barrels 

 of mackerel were taken, cutting down everything. In 1874, they admit 

 by the first affidavit getting 220 barrels in the bay, while here they ad- 

 mit taking that season 201 barrels. There is a discrepancy between 

 these two statements of 2,411 barrels; the number represented in this 

 last statement being so much less than what they admitted in the first 

 affidavit. 



While I am upon this subject of these first affidavits, I will call your 

 attention to one feature which runs through the whole of them, and 

 which may possibly account for the very extraordinary testimony which 

 has been given on the part of the American Government by the Amer- 

 ican witnesses with reference to the value of our inshore fisheries. 

 They wear that these inshore fisheries are worth nothing. You may recol- 

 lect that during my cross-examination of Mr. Pattilo, I asked him the 

 question, "What do you mean by saying that they are worth nothing! 

 I suppose that this is the case because the fish are uncaught! " and he 

 answered, " Yes ; that is the reason." In other words, he meant that 

 swimming fish are of no value; and that was put forward, in fact, by 

 some of the opposite counsel, I think, in the course of their argument. 



Through all their affidavits this very same doctrine is maintained. -I 

 think that there is not one of them which does not contain the same 

 Htatuint'iit. Select any one of them, and you will see it is stated that 

 the actual value of the fish in the water before they are taken is nothing. 

 This is placed near the bottom of the statement ; and it is contained in 

 every one of those affidavits. It is declared, "the actual value of the 

 ish in the water before they are taken is nothing," and "the actual 

 value of the mackerel in the water before they are taken is ditto." 



We will now look over, if the Commission pleases, to B B, the statement 



of Leonard Walen ; the corresponding affidavit is No. 66. 1 do not mean 



to say that I have noticed all the discrepancies which are contained in 



these affidavits, I do not think that I have done so, as we have not had 



the time to examine them with sufficient attention. Leonard Walen, in 



ffidavit, Xo. 66, states that the number of trips made to the Bay 



St. Lawrence in 1872 was two, and in 1873 one; % and that on the trips 



made during these two seasons, 1872 and 1873, he took 900 barrels of 



