2842 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



of the witnesses here, in answer to questions put them, and what not 

 have I understood you rightly ? A. Partly. 



Q. And your assistant has verified them by his affidavit have I under- 

 stood you rightly ? A. Yes ; they are verified by the affidavit of the 

 assistant who made them up. 



Q. What sort of an affidavit is it ? Does he state that these figures 

 are correct, or simply that they are there ? A. He certifies that he has 

 compiled them, and what they represent. 



(For this affidavit see No. 3, Appendix O.) 



Q. In point of fact you cannot yourself swear that this statement is 

 correct ? A. I cannot swear that ; but it is made up from the statistics 

 of the Fishery Commission and investigations. 



Q. Even to that I do not think you can swear ? A. No more than 

 Mr. Whitcher or Mr. Smith can swear to the correctness of Canadian 

 statistics. 



Q. You directed it to be made up by one of your assistants! A. Yes. 



Q. And you do not know whether it has been made up correctly or 

 not ? A. No more than any man can swear to the accuracy of his assist- 

 ant's work. 



Q. As a fact, you have no personal knowledge as to its correctness? 

 A. Certainly not. 



Q. You directed it to be done ? A. Precisely ; it stands on the same 

 footing as any table made up by a clerk. 



Q. Did you directly take into consideration statements made by wit- 

 nesses here? A. I have very largely taken into consideration inquiries 

 made by Mr. Goode, my assistant, of witnesses here, according to the 

 same definite plan which I have adopted elsewhere. 



Q. Inasmuch as we have not the results of what these inquiries were, 

 and since the Commissioners have not them before them, none of these 

 inquiries which you made, and none of the information which you thus 

 obtained, are before us, the papers being locked up in your desk. A. 

 They are all in the archives of the Fishery Commission. 



Q. Then we have no means of testing the accuracy of those figures? 

 A. No ; not the slightest. They are there for what they are worth. I 

 present them with the affidavit which was made by my assistant. 



Q. You admit that you have not furnished us with any means of at- 

 testing their accuracy ? A. You must take them for what they are 

 worth. They are of the same value as any table published by the Fish- 

 ery Department of Canada or the United States or anywhere else. 



Q. If I rightly understood your answer to Mr. Dana yesterday, you 

 rather think that the throwing over of offal amounts to nothing ? A. 

 No; I do not think that it does amount to anything. 



Q. I thought you gave a rather interesting description of sea-fleas. 

 A. I merely say that it is a question whether it is or was injurious to 

 the food of fishes on the coast, as has been maintained. It is a question 

 as to which we have no definite proof that it injures the fishes; and I 

 am inclined to believe that it has more of a local and immediate effect 

 on the fish than it does injury to the fish. 



Q. Would it not necessarily injure the spawn in its neighborhood? 

 A. No. 



Q. You think not ? A. No. 



Q. Not if thrown over on the top of spawn ? A. No ; you might 

 throw it over all day long and try to injure a load of floating spawn and 

 you could not do it. Nobody has ever suggested that gurry affects the 

 spawn. By spawn I suppose you mean eggs. 



Q. Yes. A. No ; nothing of the kind is to be thought of. 



