2166 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



the Government of the United States, he (Mr. Foster) presented them 

 as evidence quantum valuit. 



Mr. THOMSON said that hearsay evidence, though it was not usually 

 admitted by judicial tribunals, was admitted of this description: evi- 

 dence of information parties had obtained in the course of conversa- 

 tion in regard to the particular matter in hand, at a time, in nine instan- 

 ces out of ten, when they had no reason to know of this particular 

 tribunal or inquiry, and the persons, therefore, had no object to over- 

 reach. That was not the character of the evidence now offered ; this 

 consisted of hearsay evidence obtained from different firms in Glouces- 

 ter, for the especial purpose of affecting this tribunal, and made by no 

 person under oath. If the official had visited the different stores and 

 asked the different persons to show him their books, and if he had 

 sworn on examining those books the statements submitted were true 

 copies, then it would be evidence. But here were people under no oath, 

 but knowing well that an inquiry was going on in which their country 

 was interested, who gave to the official just what they thought proper. 

 True, he might state that he believed the statements true copies from 

 the books, but unfortunately the Commission had no knowledge of the 

 fact. That was the difference between the testimony which had been 

 admitted and that now offered. 



Mr. FOSTER said he understood from the secretary that the Port Mul- 

 grave statement had not been printed as part of the evidence ; it ap- 

 peared in the cross-examination, which was as follows : 



Q. Do you know anything about other vessels ? Some have got as many as 270 bar" 

 rels, from that down ? I will read from the returns: (Reading the names of vessels 

 and catches.) These are gathered from the returns reported by them. 



Mr. FOSTER. Do you submit that to our inspection. 



Mr. DA VIES. Certainly. I would not have read it otherwise. (Explain in answer 

 to Mr. Foster that these are returns of vessels that have been in the bay and gone 

 home, as they reported themselves at Canso.) 



Q. Now, have you heard of any of these vessels that made any of these returns ? A. 

 I have heard of some of these vessels writing home. 



Q. Have the returns you have heard accorded with those I have read ? A. I should 

 think not. 



Q. You dcn't know whether these returns are correct or not ? A. I don't know that 

 they are. 



Q. If they were would you be inclined to modify your statement as to the catches in 

 the gulf? A. No ; I would not. 



Q. You still persist in the statement you made ? A. I don't anything about it. 



Q. Bat supposing it correct, if it turns out to be correct, from comparison with pub- 

 lished returns in Gloucester papers ? A. Well, that might perhaps have the same 

 information upon which that is based. 



Q. You would consider the reports in Gloucester papers to 'be incorrect ? A. I didn't 

 say any such thing. 



Q. Would you place reliance upon them ? A. As a general thing I would. 



Q. What did you mean by saying that the Gloucester papers might have the same 

 information as that I have read ? A. The crews sometimes report more than they 

 actually catch. 



Q. Then we cannot believe the reports we see in those papers? A. Well, there is 

 difference between sea barrels and packed barrels. Perhaps the mackerel would fall 

 short. 



Q. That is by the difference between sea barrels and packed barrels ? A. Yes. 



Q. But could not any person easily allow for that! 



Hon. Mr. KELLOGG asks if the returns just read are official. 



Mr. DA VIES explains that the returns are those which the vessels make as they i>a-> 

 through the Gut of Canso that they are not official, bat that the information is gull'- ' 

 ered by persons engaged by the inspector to ascertain the catch from the captains. 



If this had not gone in with the evidence, he proposed to put it in a* 

 a paper on which the witness was cross-examined. 



Mr. DAVIES said that when cross-examining a witness, with respect 

 to the number of American vessels in the bay, and the number of bar- 

 rels they caught, he held up a paper in his hand and asked whether the 



