1850 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



the summer season, an average of $442. That table was put in for the 

 purpose of showing the comparative values of the several fisheries the 

 cod-fishery by itself, the mackerel-fishery on the American shore, and 

 the mackereLfishery in the bay; and the result is just what I state. 



Sir ALEXANDER GALT. The statement, I think, must be made as 

 part of your argument. 



Mr. THOMSON. There is no intention to offer the statement as evi- 

 dence it is argument ; but I think it would be very unfair if I did not 

 point out where the result stated was to be found. Surely, it is easy to 

 see what the result is. 



Mr. FOSTER. We do not object to your assertion as to that being the 

 result. 



Sir ALEXANDER GALT. It is now, I judge, the business of the Com 

 mission to say whether the evidence bears out the statement. The time 

 has passed for receiving evidence. 



Mr. FOSTER. I assent to that, with a certain qualification. That is the 

 ultimate business of the Commissioners; but when, at the end of the last 

 argument, a statement of that sort is brought forward, of which no pre- 

 vious notice has been given, although ample notice might have been 

 given, then common justice and the rules that apply before all tribunals 

 that I ever heard of, give to the parties who have not the last word the 

 right of making an explanation. It is just what we gave notice would 

 happen, if, after all our arguments were made, the other side were al- 

 lowed to reply, and sometimes in derision, and sometimes sportively, 

 the phrase that fell from me, that I believed masked batteries would be 

 opened, has been repeated during the investigation. It is just what I 

 meant by the phrase; it is bringing out at the end something that re- 

 quires explanation, and then trying to cut off the opportunity of giving 

 that explanation. I never knew that attempt to succeed in a court of 

 justice, and I do not mean that it shall succeed here till we have done 

 our utmost to prevent it. So, then, the learned counsel puts in these 

 statements at this time; we will have overnight to examine them, and 

 if we require an opportunity to make an explanation, we expect to be 

 heard upon it to-morrow. 



Mr. THOMSON. I can only say that not one figure has been referred to 

 by me on this point that is not to be found in Major Low's statement, 

 put in a long time ago. But he absolutely admitted it himself, in so 

 many words, in his cross-examination. I call attention to his evidence 

 on page 389, given on 5th October, more than a month ago. At the 

 bottom of that page you will find his cross-examination by Mr. Davies, 

 .> follows : 



Q. Dividing the number of the vessels into the results, what will it leave you ? A. 8623. 

 o that tlit average catc.h per month of the vessels employed in the American shore fishery 

 from Jfc58to JSf>f> amounted in ralue to $6'23, while the average catch per month of the vessels 

 ingiiged in the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishery realized 99d? A. Yes. 



Q. And the average value of the catch of the vessels engaged in the gulf Bshing for the 

 name period of time was $998 f A. Yes. 



Jfow, how can my learned friend say that we are springing any new 



matter upon them. Here is their own testimony, given by the m*n of 



itics from Gloucester, the great man who came here literally 



shielded by Ktecle. It is the most extraordinary thing I ever heard in 



my life. 



Now, I want to follow this matter up a little. These statistics were 

 put m for the purpose of proving two results, viz, that the mackerel 

 catch on the United States shores was a first-rate one, and the catch in 

 the bay was a very bad one ; but it happens that, by their own showing, 



