1830 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



find the same question, although you will find divers answers given to 

 it. The question is as follows : 



Do American fishermen gain, under the Treaty of Washington, any valuable rights of 

 landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack them, or to transship cargoes, which were not 

 theirs before? If so, what are those rights, and what do you estimate them to be worth 

 annually in the aggregate ? 



And the answer of this particular witness in the first affidavit is: 



I do not know how valuable the privilege granted by the Treaty of Washington may 

 prove. 



That is the question which is put throughout, and I say that this is 

 the best evidence you can have in support of the view that the United 

 States entertained at a time when these questions were framed a very 

 different opinion from that which they entertain now with reference to 

 the privileges which they obtained under this treaty. 



I made, in an earlier portion of my address, some remarks with respect 

 to the little value that is to be attached to affidavits as a rule ; and I 

 think that I have exemplified the validity of my contention tolerably 

 well. 



Let me now turn your attention to two American affidavits, num- 

 bered 18 and 19. (Appendix M.) Look at question 11 in No. 18. It is 

 as follows : 



Q. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our inshore fisheries cause any detriment 

 or binderance to the profitable pursuit of these fisheries by our own fishermen ; and, if so, in 

 what manner, and to what extent annually ? A. It will probably be a detriment to our 

 markets to the amount of two hundred millions. 



On page 45, No. 19, the same question is put, and it, with the answer, 

 is as follows : 



Q. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our inshore fisheries cause any detriment 

 or binderance to the profitable pursuit of these fisheries by our own fishermen ; and, if so, in 

 what manner, and to what extent annually ? A. It will ; probably a detriment to our mar- 

 kets to the amount of two hundred millions. 



We assumed at first that this answer was probably a misprint, but on 

 referring to the originals, which I hold in my hand, 1 find that tnis esti- 

 mate, tico hundred millions, is not only here in black and white, but also 

 that it is not put down in figures ; it is set down in plain legible hand- 

 writing; that such'admission will be " probably a detriment to our mar- 

 kets to the amount of two hundred millions." 



Now, if we only value our fisheries at the same rate, I presume that 

 they must be worth, for the twelve years in question twenty-four hun- 

 dred millions. So much at present Vor these affidavits. 



I will next turn my attention to Judge Foster's argument. The ar- 

 gument of the counsel opposite upon all the salient points of the case 

 of necessity had to be the same; though they were clothed in different 

 language and viewed from different stand-points, they were substan- 

 tially the same; and I select Judge Foster's argument, not because these 

 arguments were not put forward with great force by Mr. Dana and Mr. 

 Trescot, but 1 select Judge Foster simply because he is the accredited 

 Agent of the United States; and therefore, in that respect, and in that 

 sense, his arguments are entitled, I suppose, to greater weight. 



think the first point I will have to call attention to is on page 37 of 

 Mr. Foster's affidavit, in which he says: 



Mr. FOSTER. You speak of my affidavit; I did not make any affidavit 



Mr. THOMSON. I intended to say Mr. Foster's speech. I should be 

 k-ery sorry to suppose Mr. Foster would make an affidavit such as this. 



is an admirable argument on behalf of a very bad cause, but I don't 

 think he would like to swear to it. Mr. Foster stated, in speaking of 



