I 



395 



while, in 1874, accoidinp to this Inst stntemcnt, fhcy only caught 774 barrels in the Bay of 

 St. Lnwrcnco, thus cutting; down the former statement very malcriaily. In 1B75 they say 

 they jj^ot notliiiiff in tlio May of St. Lnwrcnco, and in 187(i they say in the nflidavit that 

 they caught I'JOhiirn Is of mackerel ; wliile, in tlic stalcnicnt, Ai)|)endix (0),thcy state that 

 in 1870 their catch in the I)ay amounted to 197 barrels. Now these two affidavits cannot 

 he reconciled ; the discre[)ancy is too j^rcat. 



The next one in the list to which I will direct your attention is letter U, and the 

 corrcspondini» adidavit is No. 74, made by Clark and Somes. They say that " since the 

 Washington Treaty, so called, our vessels have been employcil as follows : " and then state 

 that the number of trips which they made in the Hay of St. Lawrence in 187i^ was four, 

 with a catch of 812 barrels of mackerel; while, in this statement, they declare that, in 

 1872, they made nine trips to the bay, and got 2,189 barrels — 2,189 against what they 

 are pleased to put down in affidnml So. 74 an 812. They swcnr, in fact, in the affidavit— 

 which was sworn to on the (itii July last, that they only caught 812 barrels of mackerel 

 in the Bay of St. Liwrcnce in 1872 ; while, in this allidavit they swear that their catch 

 during that season in the bay amounted to 2,189 barrels ; the discrepancy is tremendous. 



Then in 1873 they say that they made four trips to the bay and took ()80 barrels, 

 while in 187.3 they admit in this other statement that they made seven trips and absolutely 

 got 2,,333 baiTcls. In 1874, they say in affidavit No. 74, they made two trips to the bay 

 and obtained 300 barrels, while in 1874, according to the statement in Appendix (0),they 

 made four trips and got 1,407 barrels. In 1870 they say that they got none in the bay, 

 and in 187G sixty barrels, while in this other statement they represent that their catch ia 

 the bay in 1876 was tifty-one barrels. Now, the discrepancy between these two state- 

 ments amounts to 4,128 barrels; and this is the kind of testimony on which the United 

 States exj)ccts to get an award 1 



Mr. Trescot. — It is still in your favour. 



Mr. Tlionison. — We will now turn to the very next page, letter V, Appendix (0). 

 The corresponding affidavit is No. 55. Joseph Friend here makes the same statement 

 which I have already cited, that "since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in 

 effect, our vessels have been employed as follows : " and he states that the number of trips 

 made in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1872 was four, and the catch 1,500 barrels of 

 mackerel, while in 1872 only one trip was made and only 1G3 barrels taken, according to 

 the last statement found in Appendix (O). Evidently that was not done with the 

 intention of helping the British case much. Then we find it stated that in 1873 three 

 trips were made to the bay, according to affidavit No. 55, and 1,200 barrels taken, while 

 in 1873, according to this last statement, one trip was made, when only 145 barrels of 

 mackerel were taken, cutting down everything. In 1 874 they admit by the first affidavit 

 getting 220 barrels in the bay, while here they admit taking that season 201 barrels. There 

 is a discrepancy between these two statements of 2,411 barrels — the number represented 

 in this last statement being so much less than what they admitted in the first affidavit. 



While I am upon this subject of these first affidavits, I will call your attention to one 

 feature which runs through the whole of them, and which may possibly account for the 

 very extraordinary testimony which has been given on the part of the American Govern- 

 ment by the American witnesses with reference to the value of our in-shore fisheries. They 

 sxeear that these in-shore fisheries are worth nothing. You may recollect that during my 

 cross-examination of Mr. Pattilo, I asked him the question, What do you mean by saying 

 that they are worth nothing? I suppose that this is the case because the fish are 

 uncaught ? and he answered — Yes, that is the reason. In other words, he meant that 

 swimming fish are of no value ; and that was put forwai'd in fact by some of the opposite 

 counsel, I think, in the course of their argument. 



Through all their affidavits this very same doctrine is maintained. I think that there 

 is not one of them which docs not contain the same statement. Select any of them and 

 you will sec it is stated that the actual value of the fish in the water before they are taken 

 is nothing. This is placed near the bottom of the statement ; and it is contained in 

 every one of those affidavits. It is declared — " the actual value of the fish in the water 

 before they are taken is nothing," and "the actual value of the mackerel in the water before 

 they are taken is ditto." 



We will now look over, if the Commission pleases, to B.B., the statement of Leonard 

 Walen, the corresponding affidavit is No. G6. I do not mean to say that I have noticed 

 all the discrepancies which are contained in these affidavits, I do not think that I have 

 done so, as we have not had the time to examine them with sufficient attention. Leonard 

 Walen. in his affidavit. No. Gfi, states that the number of trips made to the Bay of 

 St. Lawrence in 1872 was two, and in 1873 one; and that on the trips made during these 

 two seasons— 1872 and 1873 — he took 900 barrels of mackerel. Now on looking at his 



