AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1837 



Mr. THOMSON. This is what Swim says. Mr. Smith gave the name of 

 the Sarah C. Pyle, of Gloucester, Captain Swett, as one vessel that had 

 fished near shore iu eighteen fathoms of water. 



Mr. FOSTER. It is not Sylvanus Smith who speaks of that. 



Mr. THOMSON. No ; it is William B. Smith. The question is as fol- 

 lows: 



Can you give us the name of any of these vessels that you say have been finding within 

 that distance of the shore in 18 fathoms of water? Answer. I can fjive the name of one, 

 the Sarah C. Pyle, Captain Swett, of Gloucester. I supplied him in the summer with 2.900 

 mackerel. 



But whose affidavit have we? Not the affidavit of Captain Swett, 

 but of Benjamin Swim, of Gloucester. 



Now, there is no word that during the whole of this season he com- 

 manded the Sarah C. Pyle. This evidence was given a long time ago, 

 while the affidavit, which purports to be a contradiction, is sworn on 

 the 10th of October, months after he had given the evidence. Captain 

 Swim had the printed evidence, I presume; at all events, some person 

 must have had the printed evidence and communicated to him its pur- 

 port. He must have read the statement that it was Captain Swett who 

 commanded her, and that the witness, William B. Smith, sold her 2,800 

 mackerel. Now, this affidavit is altogether silent as to Captain Swett. 

 If it was intended to be a contradiction of the witness's statement, there 

 should have been a statement that there was no such person as Captain 

 Swett in command of that vessel. Captain Swim does not undertake 

 to say that he commanded the vessel during the whole time since April 

 last. He says : ' I am now master," &c.; " have been since April." Fie 

 may have sent another man out as captain and himself remained mas- 

 ter upon the register. It would be quite consistent with anything that 

 he has stated in his affidavit. 



. Mr. FOSTER. The affidavit is dated the 10th of October, while the 

 evidence was given on the 28th of September. So there is not such a 

 great while between. 



Mr. THOMSON. But it is undoubtedly made for the purpose of contra- 

 dicting William B. -Smith, aud I say that it is a most singular circum- 

 stance that they produced no affidavit from Captain Swett. 



Mr. FOSTER. There is no Captain Swett. Probably the short-hand 

 reporter got the name wrong. 



Mr. THOMSON. If this affidavit was intended as a contradiction, it 

 should have contained an allegation that there was no Captain Swett; 

 that there was no other Sarah C. Pyle, and that this deponent had been 

 in command of her during the whole time. Even had all that been done, 

 there would have been this important question, whether a man who 

 comes here aud subjects himself to cross-examination, and whose evi 

 deuce is substantially unshaken, can be, or ought to be, contradicted by 

 an affidavit made in "a chamber by some interested person, behind the 

 back of the person to be affected by it, and absolutely protected again 

 any hostile cross-examination. I say, that any writing, produced under 

 such circumstances, to contradict such a witness, is not worth tbepapc 

 it is written on, aud ought not to be. What is the reason he 

 come here ? If he was intended to contradict our witness, why, i 

 mon fairness, didn't he either come here, or show some reason that | 

 vented him from attending as a witness in j>er8on f 

 shoals of witnesses have come here from Gloucester and been 

 What is the reason that Swim did not come, as Smith did, aw 

 himself to cross-examination ? Smith was not afraid of cross-ex; 



