393 



1872, 1873, and 1874, for this firm in the second set of offidnvits contained in 

 Appendix (O). What do they here sny for 1872? David Low nnd Company liave been 

 pleased to declare licrc that in 187:^ llicy Imd three vessels in the bay, and tooli 460 

 barrels of maeivercl. In 1873 they had eigiit vessels whieli took 1,944 barrels. In 1874, 

 four vessels, which took 1,328 barrels. In 1875 one vessel, which took 205 barrels ; 

 showing a discrepancy between the two affidavits of 1,297 barrels. I regret to say that 

 this is no solitary instance, as you will sec if you will kindly follow me while I state the 

 result of these conflicting depositions. 



I objected, as your Excellency and your Honours recollect, at the very outset on behalf 

 of Her Majesty's Government, against the system of putting in affidavits at all. I 

 have no faith in tliem — no, not the slightest. I wanted the matter to be tried by living 

 witnesses, who should go on the stand there, tell their story and be cross-examined ; 

 and then if they came out of the ordeal of cross-examination untouched and unscutlied, 

 their evidence would be entitled to weight ; but these deponents can sit down and make up 

 what statements they like, they have not to submit to any cross-examination. No eye 

 can see what they are about except the eye of the Almighty. 



Now, I have shown by the figures which appear in the affidavit No. 70, and the 

 statement in Appendix (O), that a discrepancy of 1,297 barrels exists between these 

 statements, the latter of which was filed by Mr. Foster in October last, only last month ; 

 and I say that these figures cannot be reconciled in any way — or, at least, if this can be 

 done, I will be very glad to hear it. 



Mr, Foster. — You know all that is to be said alS^ut that is this, the last statement 

 is more favourable to you than the first one, and it was prepared with great care. 



Mr. Thomson. — It is an extraordinary fact that both of these statements were 

 produced from the books of David Low and Company, and I can only say that when 

 persons file two statements, one of which is diametrically opposed to the other, that it is 

 very little to the credit of the person who filed them to say that the last statement is more 

 favourable to the persons they were intended to injure tlian the first. 

 Mr. Trescot. — There was no intention to injure. 



Mr. Thomson. — If a statement was put forward with a view of making a correction 

 it would be another matter, but this is not the case, and the next one to which 1 will call 

 your attention is to be found in letter L, Appendix (O), affidavit No. 75, both made by 

 same parties, which says that the number of trips which were made by the vessels of 

 John F. Wonson and Company in the Bay of St. Lawrence, in 1872, was three, in which 

 trips they got 500 barrels, while in this statement in Ap|)endix (O) they say that in 1872 

 they took in the Bay of St. Lawrence 475 barrels, showing a discrepancy of 2a barrels, 

 you may say this is a small number, but recollect, it is said that these two statements 

 were taken from the books of the firm ; and these are the books which we were asked to 

 go to Gloucester and examine, and this matter I beg to call to the attention of your 

 Excellency and your Honours. 



In 1873, they say, in this affidavit, that two trips were made, and 'ISO barrels of 

 mackerel taken, while in this statement. Appendix (O), they say that in 1873, four trips 

 were made, and 980 barrels taken. 



In 1874, according to affidavit No. 75, they say that 610 barrels of mackerel were 

 taken in two trips, and m this statement, Appendix (O), they say that three trips were made, 

 and 620 barrels taken. 



In 1875, they say, in the affidavit No. 75, that one trip was made, and 120 banvls 

 taken ; and, in 1876, according to the statement contained in Appendix (O), two trips were 

 made with a catch of 203 barrels ; or, in other words, there exists a discrepancy of 698 

 barrels between these two statements. One or the other of them must be untrue. 



Mr. Foster. — That gives the same result ; the latter statement was more carefully 

 prepared, and is more favourable to you than the former. 



Mr. Thomson. — You will find that some of these statements are just the other way, 

 80 that argument will not help you. My object is not to show which set of affidavits is 

 more adverse or more favourable to the United States, or which is more favourable to 

 Canada or England, but it is to show that these statements cannot be relied upon. They 

 have been put in here for a purpose, but what that purpose is, of course 1 do not know. 



I will now pass on and examine iho next slatement to which 1 propose to call your 

 attention. If you look .it the statement whieli appears on the next page of Appendix (O), 

 and the corresponding affidavit, whiili is No. 54, you will see that it is staled hi the latter 

 that, over the signature of Sanuiel llasKtll, that in 1872 lour trips were made into the 

 Bay of St. Lawrence, and 1,100 barrels of niackerel taken; while, in the statement 

 contained in Appendix (()), it is represented that they got none at all in the Bay of St, 

 Lawrence. 



