AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1829 



mackerel. Now, on looking at his statement which is filed here in Ap- 

 pendix O, I find that for 1872 and 1873 he absolutely swears that no 

 trips were made to the bay during these two seasons/and that no mack- 

 erel were caught there at all by him. How do you think that this gen- 

 tleman would figure if he was brought up here and put to the tent of 

 cross-examination on that stand! 



Taking the next statement, C, the statement of William S. Won- 

 son ; the corresponding affidavit is 64. He states that the firm of Wou- 

 'son & Company, " since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in 

 effect, have employed their vessels as follows." * 



In 1872, they made two trips to the bay and caught 350 barrels of 

 mackerel, according to affidavit No. 64, while in 1872, according to this 

 last statement, not a single trip was made to the bay by any of their 

 vessels, as you see. In 173 they say that two trips were made, when 

 they got 400 barrels; while in 1873, according to the last statement, 

 they caught in the Bay of St. Lawrence 923 barrels. In 1874, accord- 

 ing to affidavit No. 64, 325 barrels, and according to Appendix O, 885 

 barrels. In 1875, they swear in their first affidavit, they made two trips 

 to the bay and got 300 barrels; and in 1875, they declare in this last 

 statement that they made but one trip and caught 156 barrels. In 

 1876 they made one trip to the bay, as they swear in their first affidavit, 

 and caught 150 barrels of mackerel, while in this last statement they 

 say that they got none at all in the bay in 1876. 



I think I might go on if I chose, but it seems to be running them al- 

 most to the death to follow up this subject. These are affidavits obtained 

 from persons whom they took care not to bring here to be examined. 



There is another matter to which I wish to call your attention, in con- 

 nection with these affidavits, to show how peculiarly they have been pre- 

 pared. I do not at all seek to quarrel with the decision which was given 

 by this Commission some time in September last, by which you excluded 

 from the consideration of the court the question of the value of the priv- 

 ilege which the Americans enjoyed, of buying bait and ice and of trans- 

 shipping cargoes. It was contended with great force by my learned 

 friends on the other side that those privileges did not fall within the 

 provisions of this treaty ; and I contended, on behalf of Her Majesty's 

 Government, that at all events in the view of that government they did 

 fall within the provisions of this treaty ; but of course if the American 

 Government put a different construction upon it, and accepted the exer- 

 cise of these rights at merely our will and pleasure, I thought that the 

 consequences would be worse to them than to us. Your excellency and 

 your honors adopted the view of the American Government on this 

 point, and ruled that those privileges did not fall within the province of 

 this treaty. As a matter of interest, now, perhaps, only historic, because 

 I do not ask you to reverse your decision on that subject, I wish to call 

 your attention to the fact that the United States at one time held a very 

 different opinion from that which was here put forward by my learned 

 friend, Judge Foster, and his able coadjutors. If you look at question 

 No. 29 in all these affidavits you will observe a peculiar fact a great 

 number of these affidavits are prepared by question and answer, am 

 they were taken a number of years ago, for some of them are date 

 far back as 1873 and 1872, and possibly previously. 



Mr. FOSTER. Those were taken in reply to a series of quest 

 pounded by the Treasury Department. 



Mr. THOMSON. Now, the Treasury Department is a govort 

 partment of the United States, and this question No. 2 

 each affidavit. Wherever in these affidavits you find that number, yoi 



