AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1839 



Mr. FOSTER. That was In 1857 ? 



Mr. THOMSON. Yes ; I want to show that the fish were there. The 

 whole evidence shows that the codfish do not fall off. 



Now on page 293 we have the evidence of Louis Iloy, of Cape Chatte, 

 Gaspe", fish merchant, formerly fisherman. His evidence is this: 



Q. Is the cod as abundant now as it was 30 or 40 years ago ? Do you got a.s much T A- 

 O, yes ; as much as 30 or 40 years ago. I am sure of it. 



I will not read but simply refer to the evidence of James IJorton, 

 James Jessop, and the Hon. Thomas Savage, which is all to the same 

 effect as to this question of the cod fishery, and therefore I submit that 

 this was not a part of our Case to be summarily dismissed upon the 

 principle that there are no snakes in Ireland. 



Now I pass from the cod fishery to the question of bait. 



Upon that subject I want to be distinctly understood. I will just 

 refer you in general terms to the question. Under the decision of this 

 Commission the bait which the Americans who come into our harbors 

 purchase cannot be taken into consideration. The point, therefore, that 

 I have to make in view of that decision is this, that so far as the evi- 

 dence shows that the Americans have gone in for the years that are 

 passed, and have themselves fished for bait or employed others to fish 

 for it, that must be taken into consideration, upon the principle that 

 the man who employs another to fish for him in point of law fishes him- 

 self. I presume that will not be disputed. In reference to the years 

 that are to come, the proposition that I submit is this : That this Com- 

 mission having decided that under the Treaty of Washington the privi- 

 leges of buying bait and ice, and of transshipping cargoes, are not 

 given by that treaty, American vessels have no right to exercise them, 

 and if they do so, they are liable to forfeiture under the Convention of 

 1818. Therefore, as regards these rights, we go back to that conven- 

 tion, and American vessels exercise them at their peril. In reference, 

 therefore, to the future of this treaty, American fishermen must be pre- 

 sumed to bow to your decision and obey the law. That being so, what 

 will they do? They must get bait. They cannot do without it. And 

 they will, therefore, have to fish for it themselves. In any case you 

 must assume that they will get whatever bait they require from our 

 shores during the next eight years, according to law, either by fishing 

 themselves or going and hiring persons to fish for them, which, under 

 the treaty, they undoubtedly have a right to do. 



Therefore, the only remaining question is whether this bait is abso- 

 lutely necessary for them or not. Now the whole evidence shows that 

 without the bait they cannot prosecute the fisheries at all. Even their 

 own codfisheries it is really impossible for them to carry on, unless they 

 get our bait. That must be thoroughly understood by American fisher- 

 men, as indicated by the extraordinary efforts made to get rid of the dil 

 culty. That is clear, because Professor Baird was put upon the stood 

 to give evidence that a new process had been discovered by which 

 clams couid be kept fresh for an indefinite length of time, and that these 

 could be used for bait. They were so fresh when so preserved, 

 know for how many weeks, by this process, that the Centennial 

 missioners made up their minds, and bold men indeed they must have 

 been, to eat these clams that had been preserved for six weeks. 



But Professor Baird omitted to tell this Commission a matter 

 was very essential to the inquiry, and that was what was the cheii 

 process and what was the cost of that process by which 1 

 would become putrid and useless under ordinary circumstances 



