AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1851 



they prove just the contrary. I repeat what I said yesterday, that Mr. 

 Davies captured that gentleman morally by his own confession. 



We will now turn to another portion of his testimony. I call your 

 honors' attention to a statement put in by Major Low. at page 338 of 

 his evidence. He is asked by Mr. Dana, as follows : 



Q. Have you ever made up any statistics relative to the shore and gulf fisheries, howin? 

 the difference between the American-shore fishery and the Gulf of St. Lawrence fitberr? 

 A. Yes ; and the statement is as follows : 



Number of fishing vessels in Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishing and the Amtrican tkore 



mackerel fishery. 



B.IT.U. 



1869. 194 vessels in gulf, average catch 209 barrels 40, 546 



1869. 151 vessels offshore, average catch 222 barrels . . 33] K& 



Mackerel caught by boats and some eastern vessels packed in Gloucester. .. 19.088 



Mackerel inspected in Gloucester 13, 126 



1875. 58 vessels in gulf, average catch 191 barrels 11,079 



Ib75. 1 17 vessels, American shore, average catch 409 barrels 47; 853 



68, Wl 



The average catch is based on the average catch of 84 vessels from 17 firms in 1869; and 

 28 vessels in bay and 62 vessels off American shore from 20 firms in 1075. Thvae firms 

 have done better than the rest. 



I desire particularly to call your honors' attention to this extraordinary 

 statement. They select as a specimen of the catches on the American 

 shore, not a series of years, say from 18G9 down to the present time ; 

 but they select 1869, which, according to the evidence, was the worst 

 year of the fishery in the gulf, and 1875 happened to be the beat year 

 the American fishermen have had on their own coast, and put the state- 

 ment before this Commission as a fair average of the result of the two 

 'fisheries. Now, this man was under oath, and this statement was put in, 

 and if I can show you from his testimony that he afterwards had to ad- 

 mit it was not a fair way of submitting the matter, and the average was 

 totally different, I say I am justified in characterizing this piece of con- 

 duct on the part of Major Low as a gross attempt to deceive the Com- 

 mission. 



Mr. FOSTER. Major Low had made a collection of statistics in 1809 

 for the purpose of a report, as town clerk of Gloucester, long before the 

 treaty was made, and wholly without reference to it. In 1875 he made 

 another, for the purpose of the Centennial, both of them wholly aside 

 from the purpose of this investigation. Now, in seeking for light, we 

 sought from him only the statistics he had made. As to 1875 being the 

 best year on our coast, that is a very great mistake. If you will turn 

 to Table B, Appendix O, which shows the number of barrels of_ mack- 

 erel packed and inspected in Massachusetts, from 1850 to 1 76, you 

 will perceive that 1875 was a very bad year, and far below 1870 and 

 1874, and the shortest year for quite a series of years. So the state- 

 ment that 1875 was selected as a good year is quite out of the way. 



Mr. THOMSON. In view of what I showed this morning to be the con- 

 tents of Appendix O, I think Mr. Foster is very bold to refer to it 



Mr. FOSTER. It shows that the catch in 1875, even that of Hay St. 

 Lawrence, was a very small one. 



Mr. THOMSON. Let us see what Major Low says about this 

 page 389. 



Mr. FOSTER. It is given at page 359. Four questions and 



