sal 



According to Mr. Dnna, duiinp all this time, diirin;^ the twelve years that this Treaty was 

 in force, our cutters were iyins '" 'I'l our harhours, with their fires barikeii, tiriH new- 

 fledged oHicials, ciotlud in a little brief authority, slriittinjf the (niarter-dcck, waiting to 

 coine out and make piratical excursions against American fishing-vessels. 



Is that description borne out by the evidence ? 1 appeal to your Excellency and 

 your Honours whether that is language which ought to have been used on this occiision. 

 1 emphatic! 'ly say that it is not. I say that it is cdculated to excite a bad feeling amongst 

 these fishc men, who are not too much disposed to be governed by the law any way, and to 

 make then more lawless in the future than they have been in the past! 



I will now read another statement to which I take exception. It is to be found on 

 page 73. While speaking of the imposition of the licences, and of their prices being raised, 

 &c., he said this : — 



" Wliy, lliis was tlic result — I do imt sny it wns tlie motive— that it left our fishermen unpro- 

 lected, mill linmgiil out llieir <utU'r-i luid eruizcis, iiiid lliiil wiioie tribe of liiirpies tlmt line the const, 

 like so luiuiy wreekineii, rt'iidy to .seize u)ioii iiiiy vessel and take it into port and divide the plunder. 

 It left us a jirey to tliciu and unprotected." 



Now, may it please your Excellency and your Honours, 1 would be less than a man, 

 and be doing less than my duty, if I did not repudiate that language, and if I did not say 

 there is not a tittle of evidence to warrant that language being used in this Court. This 

 is not a matter to laugh at and joke about at all. These are serious statements which go 

 forth to tlic public, and stiteniciit ■ wliicli, it' they arc uncontradicted, are calculated to 

 prcjudico iicjt only the good relationships which subsist between the United States and 

 Great Jiritain, but also those that e.\ist between Great IJritain and the Dominion of Canada 

 herself. If it were true that her officers were, a set of harpies, preying on the United 

 States' fishermen and seizing their vessels, taking them into her harbours, and dividing the 

 plunder, it would be time that England should interfere, but such is not the cr ;. 1 

 appeal to every member of this Commission, to your Excellency and your Honours, 

 whether there has been a tittle of evidence adduced warranting the use of language such 

 as that. We have had no evidence at all upon this subject, except the testimony, I think, 

 of a witness whose name I forget, and who gave evidence about a Mr. Derby, who com- 

 manded one of the Government vessels. He stated that Captain Derby came on board, 

 and was going to seize the vessel, when the master said that he would go on board of the 

 cutter, sec Mr. Derby, an<l settle the matter uj) ; and that tlie master, when lie came back, 

 said that he had settled it up with Mr. Derby for 25 barrels of mackerel. On cross- 

 exainination of this man, I discovered by bis own admission that they had been in the 

 harbour of Margaree that morning, or somewhere on the coast of Cape ikcton, and had 

 then taken more than 25 barrels of mackerel within the three-mile limit. 



So that, if his statement were true, all that Captain Derljy had done was, instead of 

 putting the law into force and seizing that vessel, and confiscating her tackle and apparel 

 and furniture, and all the cargo she bad on board, he had let the man off by taking only 

 25 barrels, which had been caught witliin British limits. 



Does that look like tiic act of a man wlio was a " harpy," or a " pirate," or who was 

 disposed to "divide the plunder?" But I say, moreover, it is convenient to make these 

 charges — 1 speak now of the witnesses, and notof Mr. Dana — it is convenient for a witness 

 to make charges against a man who is dead. Captain Derby is now lying in his grave. 

 The tongue that could come forward and show the falsehood and slander of that statement 

 is silent for ever, and it is cheap work for this witness, with respect to a dead man, to say 

 that such and such a thing was done, when be knows that the falseness of his statements 

 cannot be proven. I pay very little respect to such testimony; and, with the Exception of 

 this, not a particle of evidence has been presenteil in the course of this long inquiry which 

 would justify the making of this very serious charge by Mr. Dana. On beiialf of Her 

 Majesty's Government, I repudiate that laiigu; ge. I say that it is not called for in this 

 case, and that there are no facts pioven to warrant it. 



.Again, wc liave very strong language used in reference to Mr. Pattilo, and it lias been 

 said that if a portion ol liis blood had been shed, the seas would have probably been 

 " incarnadined." Hut what is Pattilo's own statement ? A curious subject was Mr. Pattilo 

 to go to war about. What kind of a character he was when young, I know not ; but some 

 person told me that he had experienced religion before he came into this Court. I thought 

 that if he bad. the t)ld man was not entirely crucified in him when he gave his evidence 

 here. What did be tell you ? That he was a Nova Scotian by birth, that he went to the 

 United States, as he had a right to do, and that he took the oath of allegiance there, as he 

 had a right to do. And when I put to him the (juestion as to whether, when he had taken 

 this oath of allegiance, he had not taken an oath of abjuration against Queen Victoria and 

 [280] 3 E 



