2964 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



about the contents, and they must be accepted by the Commission with- 

 out cross-examination. 



Mr. FOSTER said he put in the statement to resist the exhibit that 

 appeared on the appendix E, " Documents filed with the secretary of 

 the Halifax Commission, and read at the sitting held on the 30th day of 

 July, 1877, in support of the case of Her Britannic Majesty's Govern- 

 ment," being a '' return of United States mackerel-fishing vessels and 

 their catch in 1873, as reckoned at port Mulgrave, "N. S., by the col- 

 lector of customs at that port," and a similar return for the next year. 

 At the end it was signed David Murray, collector of PortMulgrave, Feb- 

 ruary 9, 1875. 



Mr. DAVIES said the statement from the collector at Port Mulgrave 

 had been before the American counsel almost since the commencement 

 of the sittings, and they had had ample opportunities of ascertaining its 

 truth and cross-examining witnesses on it. The papers now sought to 

 be put in were not verified in any sense whatever. They appeared, 

 however, to show a comparison of the catches on the American shore 

 and in the bay, and yet omitted the time during which the vessels were 

 employed in their respective trips. It would be remembered that they 

 always cross-examined on that point, holding that the value of the com- 

 parison depended on the length of time the vessels were employed. 



Mr. FOSTER said he thought such a position should not be taken by 

 gentlemen who had introduced hearsay evidence from the beginning to 

 the end of the case, and who on 30th July put in those Port Mulgrave 

 statements for selected years, omitting the years 1875 and 1876, when 

 it was well known the fisheries failed in the gulf, and refused to produce 

 the returns for the years upon his request, which he put on the motion- 

 book, that there might be no mistake about it. If an appeal was made 

 to him with regard to the evidence, he thought the evidence he now 

 proffered was quite as good as the statement put in from the collector of 

 Port Mulgrave. But if what the British counsel really wanted was in- 

 formation on the subject, let them accept the offer that had been made 

 and send some one to Gloucester and have the whole returns taken. 

 The statement he submitted stood like all statistical evidence, none of 

 which was based upon the oath of the original source. 



Mr. THOMSON cited the rules regarding notice to produce, and said that 

 by the notice given by Mr. Foster he required them to produce substan- 

 tive evidence, and if he had been right he might have required them to 

 give any evidence he thought proper. As to the statement of the col- 

 lector of Port Mulgrave, it was put in with the British Reply. The Brit- 

 ish counsel had not time to test the accuracy of the statement that had 

 been tendered. In the former instance it was not put in as part of the 

 evidence, but was filed as part of the case in reply 5 but in the latter 

 the statement was put in as evidence. 



Mr. FOSTER said the British counsel had, hundreds of times, put in as 

 evidence what somebody told somebody else. 



Mr. THOMSON said they had given hearsay evidence because it was 

 admitted originally, and the American counsel commenced it themselves 

 by cross examining on hearsay statements. In this inquiry it was not 

 possible they could carry it on without giving to a very great extent 

 hearsay evidence; but the moment a tabular statement was presented, 

 verified by no one. and not coming in as part of the answer on the Arueri - 

 can side, they had the right to refer to the rules to see whether it fell 

 with the evidence to be admitted. He held it did not. Moreover, it was 

 put in on the very last day. 



Mr. FOSTER. Whose last dav ? 



