408 



taincfl an nllcpftlion that tliere was no Captain Swett, that there was no other " Sarah 0. 

 Pylc," iiiid tliiit this deponent Imd been in command of her during the whole time. Even 

 had all tliut i)cen done, there would have been this important question, w'lietlier a man 

 who ( oiiies here uiid subjeets himself to cross-examination, and whose evidence is sub- 

 stantially imshaken, can be, or ouijbt to be, contradicted by an affidavit made in a chamber 

 by some interested person buiiind the back of the ])erson to be affected by it, and absolutely 

 protected against any hostile cross-examination. I say that any writing produced under 

 suelj circumstances to contradict such a witness is not worth the paper it is written on, and 

 ought not to be. What is the reason Ik did not come iicre? If he was intended to con- 

 tradict our witness, why, in common fairness, didn't he cither come here or show some 

 reason that ])revcntcd him from attending as a witness in person? Shoals upon shoals of 

 witnesses have come here from Gloucester and been examined. What is the reason that 

 Swim did not come as Smith did and subject himself to cross-examination ? Smith was 

 not afraid of cross-examination. Why was Swim? I dismiss his affidavit as no contradic- 

 tion whatever. 



Mr. hosier. — Don't dismiss it until I call attention to the fact that further on in the 

 cross-examination of Smith he says he does not know where the " Sarah C. Pyle " caught 

 her halibut at all, an I that all lie knows is that he supplied the bait. 



^fr. 77(om.sOH.— Where is that ? 



^[r. Fouler. — Read right along in Mr. Dana's cross-examination. His statement on 

 cross-examination is as follows : — 



" (). Villi liavi; ^^ ith you !i mcimiraiuluin cmicoruinj; this ves.scl tu which von .sold these mackerel ? 

 —A. Yes. 



" <J. Wmt dill thuy ilo with tlio uiiickerol ? — A. Tlioy put the lish iu ico ou board. I do not know 

 what lii'cami' of the lattiT artunvanls. 



" y. ^VIlllt iliil ihi- vi'ssul ilo thi;n ? — A. She went out to fish. 



" Q. Dill yiiu sill' luT ilo so ? — A. Yos. 



" (,>. Dill "she fontiuuc lisliiiiy with 2,81 K) I'rosli markercl on lioanl ? — A. The captain took them for 

 part ol his iiait. AVo iliil not sujijily liim alloiretiiev with liait. 



" Q. Jiiil you 1,'!) on Imanl of hi?r alter sliu Irl't the liai'buur ? — A. No. 



"Q. Dii you know what she cauglit ? — A. No. 



" il WliL'thcr i:oil or iiiackiirul >—A. No. 



" Q. It nu.u;lit liavi- been cod ?— A. Yes. 



"f). Why iliil you say it was liabbut ? — A. I said that we supplied him with bait, but I do not 

 know tliat she c,aui;lit halibut. 



" (). As to tliose vo.''Hels, can you tell with your ^dass at that distance whether what they haul on 

 boanl is halibut or coil I — A. I do not know wliat they catch, but they say that they come there to fish 

 for halibut. I I'reiiuenily convei'se with them." 



^^r. ThomsniK — He says this Capt.tin Swett is a neighbour of his, that the " Sarah 

 C. Pyle," of which Captain Swett was master, fished for halibut, that he supplied him with 

 2,800 mackerel, that she went out to fish, and in answer to the question why he said it 

 was halibut she caught, he says, wc supplied licr with boit ; and in answer to the next 

 (juestion, he says be docs not know what they catch, but that they say they come there to 

 fish foi' halibut. Captain Swett told Mr. Smith that he came there to fish for halibut, and 

 Smith believed his word, and I say that bis evidence stands entirely uncontradicted ; and 

 in view of what I have seen of his evidence, I shall dismiss the affidavit of Swim as being 

 entirely irielevant, and having no bearing whatever upon the matter. 



liut there is another man that was brought forward to contradict Mr. Smith. Con- 

 fronted with the maps, and shown that the soundings were there that he had undertaken 

 to say were not there, he was obliged to admit that he had not been there for eleven years, 

 while Mr. Smith had given (jvidence referring to a period within a couple of years. 



There is another witness that they put forward to contradict Hopkins* testimony. On 

 page 417 of the Hritish evidence, Hopkins testifies as follows: — 



" (i>. Are you aware that halibut is taken inshoi-e by boats, iw well as cod imd pollock i — A. By 

 our boats i Yes, it is taken iusiiore. 



" (,). I lliink ynu saiij yoii bad Iieanl ol' Americans eomini; in within three miles, but you did not 

 know ^ — \. 1 lid nut know. .Mr. ('unninu'hani will know more tiiau I tin. It is a little :iside from 

 where my liusine.ss lakes mo. 1 have unilerstootl that they have been hi a good deal arouud St. John 

 Isknil, jii.st we.st of where I am. 



" (,t. 'I'hat is within three miles ? — A. Close in." 



In this connection I will turn your attention to the evidence of Joseph Coutoure, 



page 280. He says : — 



■'(,», 1 am lli years ol' age. I live at Cape Despair, in the eounty of Oiuspe. I am a tishennan, 

 and at pieaeui employ men in the lislmib' business, This lishery is caiticd on along thu coast, from one 



