1856 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



Mr. THOMSON. I do not mean to say the offer was not made in good 

 faith. It was also rejected in good faith. We knew exactly where we 

 were. I apprehend that the agent and counsel of the United States 

 could have no possible authority to enable us to go into the stores of 

 Gloucester merchants and search their books. I think that like Pattillo 

 they would have asked for our authority. 



Mr. DANA. It is very well to make sport out of it, but you are calling 

 in question the honor of persons. 



Mr. THOMSON. If Mr. Dana thinks I am calling in question the honor 

 of counsel, I must say I am doing nothing of the kind. I would be 

 very sorry to be misunderstood. We have got along so far very pleas- 

 antly at this Commission, and I hope we will do so to the end. I state 

 most distinctly on my honor that I have not the slightest idea of charg- 

 ing any dishonorable motive on the part of the United States counsel ; 

 but I mean to say, that, though the offer was made in good faith, it was 

 rejected in good faith, and for the reason which I have stated. 



These are the last observations I have to make in regard to Low. He 

 certainly was a most preposterous failure, coming here as he did, paraded 

 as a man of figures and statistics, having the title of major in the army, 

 and having filled the office of postmaster, and I don't know how many 

 more offices. He was brought here to destroy our case, and by his an- 

 swers on cross-examination he really benefited it as much as a witness 

 could possibly do. I think that the only parallel case to that of Low 

 and it may be a parallel case occurred some thousands of years ago on the 

 hills of Moab. I can imagine Mr. Collector Babson, who appeared to 

 have charge of a great number of witnesses, and marshalled them in 

 and out, saying to Low, after he had given his evidence, in the same 

 language as was used by the King of Moab to the Prophet Balaam, "I 

 brought you here to curse mine enemies, and 'Low 'you have blessed 

 them altogether these three times ; now depart into your own country." 

 And I presume he departed. 



There has been some difference of opinion as to the catch taken within 

 the limits. It has been put down by a large number of witnesses as 

 being at least a two- thirds catch ; some of them have said it was a nine- 

 teuths catch. Mr. Foster has based his argument on the assumption 

 that it was a one-third catch. The evidence on our side is overwhelm- 

 ing on this point. I called your honors' attention yesterday to the fact 

 that the evidence produced to answer our case was given by witnesses 

 who had not been on the ground themselves at all; they fished, they said, 

 elsewhere, and did not value the inshore fisheries, simply because they 

 did not choose to use them. 



Let us refer to the testimony of some of our witnesses : 



Mr. Simon Chivirie stated that two thirds at least of the mackerel 

 caught off Prince Edward Island is taken within three miles of the 

 shore, and some seasons none could be caught outside (he spoke from 

 an experience of thirty years), the reasons being that mackerel come in- 

 shore to feed. In the Bay of Chaleur the fishing is all inshore, the 

 reason being that in the center it is deep water with a strong current. 

 On the south side are banks where fish food abounds. 



Mr. McLean .stated that he himself had seen vessels among schools of 

 mackerel, as Jar as the eye could see either way along the coast, right 

 inshore. Jle had seen mackerel taken with jigs in two fathoms of water. 

 Mackerel, he said, are only taken when shifting, excepting in shoal 

 grounds or on banks. When he was in the habit of fishing, all the 

 mackerel he took was within three miles of the shore. 



Mr. Campion said he did not tish outside the limit, because there were 



