404 



to three ini1(>s from slioi'e, nnd also on Miscou Bauk. Tho Americans tish there. I have seen m many 

 OS forty anil Ksliin;,' there at a time." 



Mr. Foster.— That was in 1857 ? 



Mr. Thomson. — Yes ; I want to show that the fish were there. The whole evidence 

 shows tliat the codfish do not fall off. 



Now on page 293 we have the evidence of Louis Roy, of Cape Clintte, Claspc, lish 

 merchant, formerly fisherman. His evidence is this : — 



" Q. Is the cod as iibundniit now ns it was thirty or forty years ago ? Do ymi ;,'ct as much ? — A. 

 Oh, yes, as much as thirty or forty years ago. I am .'^urc of it." 



I will not read, but simply refer to, the evidence of James Horton, James Jessop, and 

 the Hon. Thomas Savage, which is all to the same cflect ns to this fpiestion of the 

 cod-fishery, and therefore I submit that this was not a part of our Case to be summarily 

 dismis^^ed upon the principle that there are no snakes in Ireland. 



Now I pass from the cod-fishery to the question of bait. 



Upon that subject I want to be distinctly understood. I will just refer you in general 

 terms to the question. Under the decision of this Commission the bait which the 

 Americans, who come into our harbours, purchase cannot be taken into consideration. The 

 point, tiierefore, that I have to make in view of that decision is this, that so far as the 

 evidence shows that the Americans have gone in for the years that are passed, and have 

 themselves fished for bait or employed others to fish for it, that must be taken into con- 

 sideration, upon tiic principle that the man who employs another to fisli for him in point 

 of law fishes himself. 1 presume that will not be disputed. In reference to the years that 

 are to come, the proposition that I submit is this : — That this Commission having decided 

 that undir the Treaty of Washington the privileges of buying bait and ice, and of trans- 

 shipping cargoes, arc not given by that Treaty. American vessels have no right to exercise 

 them, and if they do so, they are liable to forfeiture, under the Convention of 1818. 

 Therefore, as regards these rights, we go back to that Convention, and American vessels 

 exercise them at their peril. In reference, therefore, to the future of this Treaty, American 

 fishermen must be presumed to bow to your decision and obey the law. That being so, 

 what will they do ? They must get bait ; they cannot do without it ; and they will there- 

 fore have to fish for it themselves. In any case, you must assume that they will get 

 whatever bait tlicy require from our shores during the next eight years, according to law, 

 either by fisliing themselves or going and hiring persons to fish for them, which, under the 

 Treaty, they undoubtedly have u right to do. 



Then arises the question, is this bait absolutely necessary for them or not ? Now 

 the whole evidence shows that without the bait they cannot prosecute the fisheries at 

 all. Even their own cod-fisheries it is really impossible for them to carry on, unless 

 they get our bait. That this must be thoroughly understood by American fishermen, is 

 indicated by the extraordii ary efforts nmde to get rid of the difficulty. That is clear, 

 because Professor Baird was put upon the stand to give evidence that a new process had 

 been discovered by which clams could be kept fresh for an indefinite length of time, and 

 that these could be used for bait. They were so fresh when preservcti, I don't know for 

 how many weeks by this process, that the Centennial Commissioners made up their minds 

 (and bold men indeed they must have been) to eat them. 



But Professor Baird omitted to tell tliis Commission a matter which was very essential 

 to the inquiry, and that was what was the chemical process and what was the cost of that 

 process by which bait which would become putrid and useless under ordinary 

 circumstances within the usual time, was prevented from becoming in that condition ; 

 and I think until that fact is made clear, your Honours must dismiss it from your minds. 

 1 only refer to it to show that the American Government felt that upon that subject it was 

 in a very difficult position. It is clear ther.'*ore to my mind, and I think it must be 

 assumed by this Commission, that without fresh bait American fishermen caimot 

 get on. 



The next question is, can they get a supply of fresh bait on their own shore ? There 

 is a consensus of evidence given by witness after witness who went on the stand and stated 

 that be came once, twice, three times or four times during one season for fresh bait 

 into ports of Nova Scotia, along the Cape Breton shore. I did not examine as to the 

 Grand Bank fishing vessels, for that part of the case I left to my learned colleague, 

 Mr. Whitcway ; but as to the George's Banks fishery, the supply of bait is obtained from 

 our own shores. It is one of the matters your Honours must take into consideration, 

 that il' American fishermen were kept out of our waters so that they could not get bait. 



