409 



and 



Is that any contradiction ? It is a direct affirmative. But if halt-a-dozen captainB were 

 put on the stand and said they liad been iic((uaintcd with the (isherics ail their lives, and 

 for the last two years tlmt no sucii <;at(li ot iicnini,', as was alloi;ed, was ever made by the 

 American tjeet. which wc know Iroiii (Mir ox|)fncncc is not possible, that would be no 

 evidence in contradiction. So liir Crom Ibis evidence, to wliicli .Mr. Foster has called 

 attention, bcinc; contradiction, it is direct evidence in conllrmatioii. 



Mr. Dfina. — Is your position that wo caught the lierriniu; ? 



Mr. Thomson. — I say you cither (lur^iit tiiem or went down and hired people to 

 get thcni, and by the rule tiuifttcil jm nllnin/aril prr .ie, you caught them yourselves. 



Mr. Fn.sler. — Do you say we caught I hem or bought them ? 



Afr. Thomson. — I say you did both. I say that a larj^c portion of them, according to 

 the evidence, you bou!,dit. This man comes down and buys. Suppose C-OO people did 

 buy, does it prove that 900 people did imt come down and catch. 



Mr. Foster, — Wc hud Gloucester vessel-owners here who testified that they fitted out 

 their vessels, carrying no appliances lo catch herring ; that they curried money and brought 

 back herrring, leaving the money behind them. 



Mr. Thomson. — With great derercnce for Gloucester merchants — I shall have to deal 

 with their evidence by-and bye — those wlio iiavc appeared before ti:n Commission in affida- 

 vits do not stand so well that much attention can be given to their eviUcncc. I want the 

 evidence of men on the spot, of men who cumc down and fished. It was quite possible for 

 some of the captains, uf whom there is a large body, to have been brought down ; they could 

 have been produced. Wc have produced positive affirmative evidence that they come down 

 and catch tisii, while no evidence has been given against that, and it is a significant fact in 

 regard to the Grand Manan fisheries that not a single tittle of contradictory cv idcnce of such 

 a character as to diminish one pin's weight from tlie Uritish evidence bus been advanced. 



Mr. Dana. — Your statement was not that you did not believe the evidence, but that 

 there was no such evidence. 



Mr. Thonuson. — I am not going to say I do not believe the witness. I take the 

 witness to whose evidence Mr. Foster called attention, and I say I am willing to admit you 

 could produce twenty such witnesses, and so far from their testimony being contradictory 

 it is aflSrmatory. The American Counsel have not shown that every man who obtained 

 , herring bought them ; they could not prove their proposition in that way. It did not 

 prove that because somebody bought therefore nobody caught any. 



I pass from that to a principle which is laid down by Mr. Foster at page 41 of his 

 speech, in which he says : " You nmst look at this case as you would at a mere business 

 matter, pencil in hand, and figure up how much to charge against the Gloucester fisher- 

 men." This is the error, the fallacy that underlies the whole American defence to our 

 case — that the (|uestion to be decided is one between Great Britain and Gloucester fisher- 

 men. It is no such thing. It is a ((ucstion between the United States and Great Britain, 

 and not whether these fishermen have been injured or the reverse. The question is 

 whether the United States have got a greater benefit by the advantages which have been 

 given them under the fishery clauses of the Treaty than we have by the advantages given 

 to us. 



What is the effect of free fish going into the United States ? Is not the effect that 

 the consumer gets it chea|)cr ? and the consumers are inhabitants of the United States. 

 It is alleged that the business is going to be broken down. When that happens it is time 

 enough to talk about it. It is said that the fresh tish business is going to entirely destroy 

 the trade in salt fish, for fresh tish can be packed in ice and sent over the Dominion, and 

 as far as Chicago and St. Ix)uis. I do not doubt but that that may be done to some 

 extent, but it will be very expensive. I doubt whether fresh fish can be carried as cheaply 

 as .salt fish ; it must be very expensive to carry it in the refrigerator cars ; besides, fresh fish 

 of that description can only he purchased by large hotels and by people win have plenty 

 of money ; but the ordinary consumer cannot afford to eat fresh tish, which is much more 

 costly than salt fish. The trade in fresh fish must be confined to the line of railroads ; it 

 cannot be taken by carts into the country, while barrels of salt lish could be rolled off at 

 any station. Therefore, this point is entirely out of the argument. But the principle laid 

 down is entirely incorrect. 



The question is what benefit is the Treaty to the whole United States ? I will show 

 you by figures, which cannot possibly be mistaken, that previous to the Reciprocity T'-eaty 

 the pnee of mackerel in the United States was at a pretty large figure. The moment the 

 Reciprocity Treaty threw o|)en the American market and there was a large infiux of our fish, 

 the prices fell. That state of things continued tiom 1854 to Htiti. In 18GG, when by the 

 action of the United States' Government the Reciprocity Treaty became a dead letter, the 

 same state of things as existed before the Treaty again existed. FLjh, which during those 



