* 



197 



Let mo now turn your attention to two American affidavits, numbered 18 and 19 

 (Appi-ndix M.) Look at question 11 in No. 18. It is as follows: — 



"<,'. Will tlio iiilmiM!4iiiii of ('mindiiiu lishuriiKMi to our inslioru Hf)1torius cnuso any detrimout or 

 Iiiriflrimn' to llic innlitulili' |>iir.siiil nl'tln'Mi' lislii'iii's )iy oiii' nwii llsliciint'ii ; iiud il'Hn, in wlmt niiinner, 

 mill 111 \\lmtc\lci;i iiimtiiilly !' — A. Il will |inili;ililv in^ ii tliiliimi'iit lo niii' m:irki'U tn tlu! iiiuoiint of 

 L'(t(),(l(MI,(M)(l," 



On pngc 45, No. 10, the same question is put, and it, with the answer, is a^ 

 follows : — 



" Q. Will tho lulniisnion of C'linndiau fiMlioniU'ii to our iiiHlioru (islnivics cnuso any dotiiinent or 

 liindniiici' to tlu; ]iroliliilil(i pursiiii of ihi'so lislicric-t liy our owu lisln'ruiiin ; iind if so, in what niiinner, 

 and to whulrxtcnt ivniniidly ^ — A. li will, rrnluililv lulclriinciit to nur nmrkfts lo tliu iiiiiount of 

 •JtKi,000,()(l(i." 



We assumed at first that tliis answer was probably a misprint, but on referring to the 

 originals wiucli F hold in my hand, I find that this estimate, Iwn hundred millions, is not 

 only here in black and white, but also that it is not put down in figures, it is set down 

 in plain legible handwriting ; that sueh admission will be " probably a detriment to our 

 markets to the amount of Two Hundred Millions." 



Now, if wo oidy value our fisheries at the same rate, I presume that they must be 

 worth, for tiio twelve years in question, 2,400,000,000. So much at present for these 

 affidavits. 



I will next tin-n my attention to Judge Foster's argument. The argument of the 

 counsel opposite upon all the salient points of the case ot necessity had to be the same; 

 though tliey were rlothcd in did'erent language, and viewed I'lonj different stand-points, 

 they were substantially the same ; and 1 select .Judge Foster's argument, not because these 

 arguments were not put forward with great force by Mr. Dana and Mr. Trescot, but I 

 select .hidgc Foster, simply because he is the accredited Agent of the United States; and 

 therefore, in that respect and in tliat sense, his arguments are entitled, I suppose, to greater 

 weight. 



I tiiink the first point I will have to call attention to is on page 37 of Mr. Foster's 

 affidavit, in which he says : — 



Mr. Foster. — You speak of my affidavit ; I did not make any affidavit. 



Mr. Thomson. — i intended to say Mr. Foster's speech. I should be very sony to 

 suppose Mr. Foster would make an affidavit sueh as this. It is an admirable argument on 

 behalf of a very bad cause, jut I don't think he would like to swear to it. Mr. Foster 

 stated, in spi aking of the affidavit of the British witnesses from Prince Edward Island, that 

 they had been made on the assumption that the three-mile line was a line outsiJe a line 

 drawn from East Point to North (Jape. Now, there is no evidence of that. There is no 

 evidence that the Bend of Prince Eclward Island was ever claimed to be a bay from East 

 Point to North Cape. 



Mr. Foster. — Yes, lliere was. 



Mr. Thomson. — At all events you can find in no official correspondence any sueh 

 view, and I do not, as Counsel for Her Majesty's Government, present any such view now. 

 I refer to this matter because, based on that theory, Mr. Foster made what I think was 

 an unfair charge against the Prince Edward Island affidavits. He says in his speech, page 

 37 : " The affidavits from Prince Edward Island were drawn upon the theory that that is 

 the rule, and in two or three of these I find it expressly stated, ' that all the mackerel were 

 caught within the three-mile line, that is to say, within a line three miles from a straight 

 line drawn from East Point to North Cape.' " 



But there were only two affidavits tliat could by any possible construction be made 

 to bear sueh a meaning. 



Mr. Foster, — Look at McLean's affidavit, page 42. 



Mr. Thomson. — Yes, you referred to him by name. Now let me see what he says, 

 although even if one of them did make his affidavit upon that assumption it would not be a 

 very important matter. 



Mr. Foster. — My argument was that they were all made in answer to the same series 

 of questions, and the only possible interpretation of those questions is that such was the 

 view entertained. 



Mr. Thomson. — Tiiese affidavits were drawn up in answer to no questions whatever. 

 There were no questions put to these people. They were substantive affidavits, drawn up 

 not by one man or by one hand. 



Mr. Foster. — Compare them, and you will see that every man answers in the same 

 paragi-aph of the affidavit to the same question. 



[280] 3 G 



