AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2963 



1877 33,307 tous, which is an increase, though not a very large in- 

 crease? A. You will observe that in 1869 24,000 tous were engaged in 

 li.shiug as against 22,000 tons in 1877. The gain is on the coasting. 



Q. 1 suppose I would be correct in saying that in an equal number of 

 years, immediately preceding 1809, the tonnage had largely increased. 

 For iustance, from 1859 to 1869 ? A. I could not say about that with- 

 out referring to the books. 



Q. Does it not strike you as curious that you have come here to give 

 statistics to the Commission, and yet do not produce from j'our books 

 statistics showing what the tonnage was at the time of the commence- 

 ment of the Eeciprocity Treaty ? A. I am perfectly willing to produce 

 them. My only object is to place the facts as nearly as I can before the 

 Commission. 



Q. There were some statements put in by you. You know nothing 

 about them ? A. Not personally. 



Q. Who handed them to you ? A. They have been sent to me since 

 I have been here. 



Q. Have you read them f A. I have looked them over. 



Q. You kuow nothing about them ? A. Not of uiy own personal 

 knowledge. 



Q. You did not prepare them ? A. No. , 



o. You had nothing to do with their preparation ? A. No. 



Q. You cannot speak of the correctness of the preparation ! A, 

 Other than I can vouch for the fidelity of my own officer. 



Q. Those papers were put in your hands, and you handed them to the 

 Commission ? A. They were sent to me. 



Q. It appears from the affidavit that those papers were furnished to 

 Mr. Blatchford by certain firms in Gloucester, and were not made up by 

 (him f A. Not made up by him, but he went to the firms direct. 



Q. And asked them for the statements, and they gave them to him? 

 A. Yes. 



Q. Those statements are not under oath? A. No; they are not 

 sworn, except so far as Mr. Blatchford's affidavit covers them. 



Mr. DAVIES asked if it was intended to put in the statements in regard 

 to the business done by the Gloucester firms. 



Mr. FOSTER said that Mr. Davies, in cross examining one of the 

 Gloucester witnesses had expressed a desire to have a statement of the 

 business of all the firms in Gloucester, and accordingly he (Mr. Foster) 

 sent down to Gloucester and had that statement obtained. He put it in 

 for whatever value may be attached to it. It bore a somewhat striking 

 resemblance to the return of the catches made by the collector at Port 

 Mulgrave, printed as an appendix to the British Case, except that these 

 L-ontain the catches from 1809 to 1870 or 1877, while the collector at Port 

 Mulgrave gave them for 1873, 1874, and 1877, omitting 1875 and 1876. 



Mr. DAVIES said he asked for a statement covering the period of years 

 luring which the Reciprocity Treaty was in force, and these statements 

 lid not cover that period, but, on the contrary, covered a period of time 

 .vhich he did not ask for and did not want. 



Mr. FOSTER said he did not hear anything about the period of the 

 Reciprocity Treaty until a few days ago, and he had told Mr. Davies 

 : hat if a counsel was sent to examine the books of merchants of Glou- 

 cester, they could have access to them. 



Mr. DAVIES submitted that there was an important difference between 

 he submission of the Port Mulgrave returns and these returns. The 

 brmer were embodied in the British Reply, while the latter they could 

 tot cross-examine upon, because the witness said he knew nothing 



