y' 



388 



" In iiilJitioii til llii'i n'tiini.tlii'srlhioiiii ' ilnUk'ii Kulc,' ni ( iimicosliM', Uiiitoil Stalp.s, vii,^ ilt'tnilU'rl Iiv 

 the ' Toli'gnipli,' LiciiU'iiiiiU Clu'iwyml, and lii<)\ij,'lit inl(i CiinilniU'iowii. Ituloru sW wiis tli'livi'ivd civur 

 111 ilic jii-oper iinlluiritios, in Icnns nt' tlic Ini)piTiiil Statntc. Vico-Adniiral SirOiMirfji! Soyniour airivod in 

 Her Majesty's steam slnciji ' liasilisk,' to wlioni the Master nf the ' (Suhlen Unle ' ap])ealed, stating 

 he was ])ai't owner nt' the sehudiier, and wonld Im" mined if slie was eondenined. The AdinimI, on the 

 J;?rd Au!,'ust, left authority with the Lieutenant-tiovernor to direct Lieutenant L'hetwynd to libcrnte the 

 schooner, ]irovided the ("a]itain aeknowledjjed the vioialioii of Hie (.'(invention, and that his liberation 

 was an net of ilenieney on ihe )iart of tlie (.'oniniander-in-Chief, Harth'tt, the captain of the ' llolden 

 liule,' left snch an acknowlcdjxnient in wriliiifi, wiiich wa^ furwanlud to Sir (ieorjje Seymour, alon)f 

 with an addition on a (|ncstion from t lie Lientenant-tJovcrnor, that la; had stood insliore to fish, 

 mistaking the ' Tele(,'ra]ih ' tender for one of his countrvmen's schooners. 



" A. r.AXXKI.'MAN, Luntniaiit-Goirnwr. 

 •• I'rlua- Kdminl l^lnml, (hl„l„r U. 1852," 



Here is the case ot a man caught in tiie vet y act, but wlio made his appeal ad 

 iiiiserkordiam, and was permitted to have his schooner back again sin:ply because he said 

 he would otherwise have been ruined. This is the treatment which American vessels have 

 received at the hands of British officers. The treatment which British officers received in 

 return is tu be i'ound recorded in the speech of Mr. Dana. 



1 will now pass to the next point. Mr. Dana, on page 74, says : — 



" We Were told that we were poisoning their fish by throwing giu'ry overlKiard, and for nil that 

 there were to lie daniai^es. Now. these intlammatory liar.ingues, nmde by politicians, or published in the 

 Dominion newspajiers, or circulated by tho.se jiei'sons who went about through the Dominion obtaining 

 aflidavitfi of witnesses, jirochiced their etlect. and the elfect was a multitude of witnesses who swore to 

 those tilings, who evidently eanie here to swear to them, and took more interest in them, and were 

 better informed u]:on them, than upon any of th,' iiiipurtant i|uestions which were to be determined. 

 When «(• came to cvidcni e to be relied uiion, the evidciice of men who keep books, whose interest it 

 was to kce]i liooks, and who keep tla; liest p(j.ssilile liooks - men who have .statisti^'s to make np njion 

 authority and respniisibiiity, men who.se cajiital and intcicst and eveiytliing were invc-ited in the tratlu, 

 then we brought forwanl \vitnl■s^'es to whom all persons Im^king for light \ipon tins cpiestion would be 

 likely to resort." 



A marked distinction is drawn, you will perceive, by Mr. Dana there, with regard to 

 tlic witnesses cailcd on i)fli<!it' of Her Majesty's CJoverninent, ns to credibility, and those 

 heard on helialf of the United States. He refers to our witnesses in sligiiting terms, and 

 says that tiiey were brought here under the induciice of inflammatory harangues, and 

 articles jiublisiied in Dominion newspapers, which Mr. Dana may have read, i)ut which I 

 never had the good or i)iul lortune to see. He states that they were brought here under 

 that inlluenee, and thus did swear to things wliicii tiicy appeared to know a great deal 

 about. Now, I tliink that I can contrast the te.-.timony given on the part of Her 

 Majesty's (jovernment with that given on the part of the United States, without fear of 

 any damaging conclusion being drawn against our witnesses. .-\nd 1 put it to your Kxccl- 

 leiity and your Honours, ^^hethe^ , during the loii^ period that we have sat here, and 

 witnesses on botit sides have been called — a period extending over twelve weeks, at least — 

 one single witness called on the part of the British Government broke down under cross* 

 cxaminiition ; and I ask whether it can be with trutii said that this was the result of the 

 cross-examination of the American witnesses. 



1 cntisider that in many respects a numlier of the American witnesses appeared to 

 great disadvantage ; and I am siu'prised not oidy at Mr. Dana's remarks in this respect, but 

 1 am also surprised at his following up his remarks on this point by saying ; — 



" Wiicn we came to evidence A) ic reliof ujn,'i~t.lir ci-iiLnrc of men wlin hep haukti, tfv." 



■m- 



'9 



■ 



Wiiy, if ever there was a break-dowii ot a wiiness in this world, it was the break- 

 down nt Mr. IvOW made under the cross-examination of my learned and clever friend 

 iimi colleague from Prince ICdward Island, Mr. Davies. That man came forward to repre- 

 sent tlie fishiiig-vcssel owners of Gloucester, and the tish-denlers of Giouees'ter; and he 

 broiiglit forwtird their books — or at least sueli hooks as they were pleased to show, and not 

 tiu' books we required to hnvi', but their trip-books ; and he put in statistics — to which 1 

 will liavethe honour hereafter to call the attention of your Excellency and your Honours — 

 for the purpose of showing very small catches made in the Bay, and very large catches off 

 on the American siiore; and also for the purpose of showing that the catches in the Bay 

 resulted almo.st in the ruin of those who sent vessels there, while they made large sums of 

 money out of their catches taken on the American shore ; but when under cross-examina- 

 tion by Mr. Dnvics, what was the result? It was this: that those figures which were 

 intended to establish, and which were brought forward here lor Ihe purpose of showing 

 ihul stiite of facts, showed conclusively and proved directly the opposite. 



