honors to understand that although the heading of this affidavit is that it purports to be a statement of all the trips made since the Washington Treaty up to the time when the affidavit was made, it is in fact a suppressio veri, and that they only swear to six trips.

Mr. TRESCOT. I do not say anything about it. I have not as yet had a chance to look at it.

Mг. THOMSON. A discrepancy at all events exists between the number 1,800 barrels and the number 10,033 barrels, and a difference of 8,283. That is against us this time; and, moreover, this is a pretty large sum. The first affidavit was entirely against us, as they say in it that their catch in the bay was only 1,800 barrels.

Mr. FOSTER. I have already called your attention to the fact that the last statements are more correct than the earlier ones.

Mr. THOMSON. What must be the character of these books, when this gentleman who sends this last statement swears that it was taken from them? What can be the character of these books, or the character of the men who have made up this statement from the books, and sent in such an affidavit as No. 59, from which I have just read. It is either a gross attempt to deceive the Commission, or else the books are wholly inaccurate and unreliable.

If your excellency and your honors will now look at letter T, to which I call your attention, you will find the statement of James Tarr & Bro.; the corresponding affidavit in Appendix M is No. 72. It is stated in affidavit No. 72 that the number of trips made in the Bay of St. Lawrence in 1871 was four, and the catch 1,287 barrels of mackerel, while, according to this other statement, in 1871 they made three trips, with a catch of 1,054 barrels. In 1872 two trips were made, according to the affidavit No. 72, and 888 barrels were taken, while in 1872 two trips were made, according to this statement, Appendix O, with a catch of 727 barrels only. In 1873, according to the affidavit, four trips were made, and 672 barrels were caught, while in 1873, according to this last statement, the catch of mackerel in the Bay of St. Lawrence was only 660 barrels. In 1874 three trips were made, according to affidavit No. 72, with a catch of 1,124 barrels, while in 1874, according to this last statement, they only caught 774 barrels in the Bay of St. Lawrence, thus cutting down the former statement very materially. In 1875 they say they got nothing in the Bay of St. Lawrence, and in 1876 they say in the affidavit that they caught 190 barrels of mackerel, while in the statement, Appendix O, they state that in 1876 their catch in the bay amounted to 197 barrels. Now these two affidavits cannot be reconciled-the discrepancy

is too great.

The next one in the list to which I will direct your attention is letter U, and the corresponding affidavit is No. 74, made by Clark and Somes. They say that "since the Washington Treaty, so called, our vessels have been employed as follows"; and then state that the number of trips which they made in the Bay of St. Lawrence in 1872 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 affidavit No. 74 as 812. They swear, in fact, in the affidavit-which was sworn to on the 6th of July last-that they only caught 812 barrels of mackerel in the Bay of St. Lawrence in 1872, while in this other affidavit 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 680 barrels, while in 1873 they admit in this other statement that they

made seven trips and absolutely got 2,333 barrels. 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 O, they made four trips and got 1,407 barrels. In 1875 they say that they got none in the bay, and in 1876 60 barrels, while in this other statement they represent that their catch in the bay in 1876 was 51 barrels. Now, the discrepancy between these two statements amounts to 4,128 barrels; and this is the kind of testimony on which the United States expects to get an award.

Mr. TRESCOT. It is still in your favor.

Mr. THOMSON. We will now turn to the very next page, letter V, appendix O. 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 163 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 1874, 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 Government by the Amer. ican witnesses with reference to the value of our inshore fisheries. They swear that these inshore 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 forward, 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 does not contain the same statement. Select any one of them, and you will see 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. 66. 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. 66, 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 statement which is filed here in Appendix O, I find that for 1872 and 1873 he absolutely swears that no trips were made to the bay during these two seasons, and that no mackerel were caught there at all by him. How do you think that this gentleman would figure if he was brought up here and put to the test of cross-examination on that stand!

Taking the next statement, C C, the statement of William S. Wonson; the corresponding affidavit is 64. He states that the firm of Wonson & Company, "since the Washington Treaty, so called, has been in effect, have employed their vessels as follows."

In 1872, they made two trips to the bay and caught 350 barrels of mackerel, according to affidavit No. 64, while in 1872, according to this last statement, not a single trip was made to the bay by any of their vessels, as you see. In 1873 they say that two trips were made, when they got 400 barrels; while in 1873, according to the last statement, they caught in the Bay of St. Lawrence 923 barrels. In 1874, according to affidavit No. 64, 325 barrels, and according to Appendix O, 885 barrels. In 1875, they swear in their first affidavit, they made two trips to the bay and got 300 barrels; and in 1875, they declare in this last statement that they made but one trip and caught 156 barrels. In 1876 they made one trip to the bay, as they swear in their first affidavit, and caught 150 barrels of mackerel, while in this last statement they say that they got none at all in the bay in 1876.

I think I might go on if I chose, but it seems to be running them almost to the death to follow up this subject. These are affidavits obtained from persons whom they took care not to bring here to be examined.

There is another matter to which I wish to call your attention, in connection with these affidavits, to show how peculiarly they have been prepared. I do not at all seek to quarrel with the decision which was given by this Commission some time in September last, by which you excluded from the consideration of the court the question of the value of the priv ilege which the Americans enjoyed, of buying bait and ice and of transshipping cargoes. It was contended with great force by my learned friends on the other side that those privileges did not fall within the provisions of this treaty; and I contended, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that at all events in the view of that government they did fall within the provisions of this treaty; but of course if the American Government put a different construction upon it, and accepted the exercise of these rights at merely our will and pleasure, I thought that the consequences would be worse to them than to us. Your excellency and your honors adopted the view of the American Government on this point, and ruled that those privileges did not fall within the province of this treaty. As a matter of interest, now, perhaps, only historic, because I do not ask you to reverse your decision on that subject, I wish to call your attention to the fact that the United States at one time held a very different opinion from that which was here put forward by my learned friend, Judge Foster, and his able coadjutors. If you look at question No. 29 in all these affidavits you will observe a peculiar fact-a great number of these affidavits are prepared by question and answer, and they were taken a number of years ago, for some of them are dated as far back as 1873 and 1872, and possibly previously.

Mr. FOSTER. Those were taken in reply to a series of questions propounded by the Treasury Department.

Mг. THOMSON. Now, the Treasury Department is a governmental department of the United States, and this question No. 29 is repeated in each affidavit. Wherever in these affidavits you find that number, you

find the same question, although you will find divers answers given to it. The question is as follows:

Do American fishermen gain, under the Treaty of Washington, any valuable rights of landing to dry nets and cure fish, or to repack them, or to transship cargoes, which were not ⚫ theirs before? If so, what are those rights, aud what do you estimate them to be worth annually in the aggregate?

And the answer of this particular witness in the first affidavit is:

I do not know how valuable the privilege granted by the Treaty of Washington may prove.

That is the question which is put throughout, and I say that this is the best evidence you can have in support of the view that the United States entertained at a time when these questions were framed―a very different opinion from that which they entertain now with reference to the privileges which they obtained under this treaty.

I made, in an earlier portion of my address, some remarks with respect to the little value that is to be attached to affidavits as a rule; and I think that I have exemplified the validity of my contention tolerably well.

Let me now turn your attention to two American affidavits, numbered 18 and 19. (Appendix M.) Look at question 11 in No. 18. It is as follows:

Q. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our inshore fisheries cause any detriment or hinderance to the profitable pursuit of these fisheries by our own fishermen; and, if so, in what manner, and to what extent annually?-A. It will probably be a detriment to our markets to the amount of two hundred millions.

On page 45, No. 19, the same question is put, and it, with the answer, is as follows:

Q. Will the admission of Canadian fishermen to our inshore fisheries cause any detriment or binderance to the profitable pursuit of these fisheries by our own fishermen ; and, if so, in what manner, and to what extent annually?—A. It will; probably a detriment to our markets to the amount of two hundred millions.

We assumed at first that this answer was probably a misprint, but on referring to the originals, which I hold in my hand, I find that this esti mate, two 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 such admission will be "probably a detriment to our mar kets to the amount of two hundred millions."

Now, if we only value our fisheries at the same rate, I presume that they must be worth, for the twelve years in question twenty-four hundred millions. So much at present for these affidavits.

I will next turn my attention to Judge Foster's argument. The ar gument of the counsel opposite upou all the salient points of the case of necessity had to be the same; though they were clothed in different language and viewed from different stand-points, they were substan tially the same; and I 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 Judge Foster simply because he is the accredited Agent of the United States; and therefore, in that respect, and in that sense, his arguments are entitled, I suppose, to greater weight.

I think 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 sorry to suppose Mr. Foster would make an affidavit such as this. It is an admirable argument on behalf of a very bad cause, but I don't think he would like to swear to it. Mr. Foster stated, in speaking 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 outside a line drawn from East Point to North Cape. Now, there is no evidence of that. There is no evidence that the Bend of Prince Edward Island was ever claimed to be a bay from East Point to North Cape.

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, there was.

Mr. THOMSON. At all events you can find in no official correspondence any such 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 found it expressly stated, that all the mackerel were caught within the threemile line, that is to say, within a line 3 miles from a straight line drawn from East Point to North Cape.'"

But there were only two affidavits that could by any possible construction be made to bear such a meaning.

Now let me see

Mr. FOSTER. Look at McLean's affidavit, page 42. Mг. THOMSON. Yes, you referred to him by name. 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. These 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 paragraph of the affidavit to the same question.

Mr. DAVIES. No, that is not the case.

Mr. FOSTER. Try them.

Mг. THOMSON. I will try McNeil. He says, in section four of his affidavit:

That the fish are nearly all caught close to the shore, the best fishing-ground being about one and one-half miles from the shore. In October the boats sometimes go off more than three miles from land. Fully two-thirds of the mackerel are caught within three miles from the shore, and all are caught within what is known as the three-mile limit; that is, within a line drawn between two points taken three miles off the North Cape and East Point of this island.

He draws the distinction at once. He says two-thirds were caught within three miles of the coast, that is, following the contour of the shore; but if you are going to draw a line from point to point, and take the three-mile line as a line outside of that, then they were all caught within that line. But you see that, for the purpose of our case, the fact that two-thirds were caught within three miles of the contour of the coast, is all that is necessary. There were only two affidavits, I think, that had any allusion of this kind.

Mr. FOSTER. See McLeod's affidavits, page 218.

Mr. THOMSON. In the sixth section of McLeod's affidavit he says: 6. That nine-tenths of our mackerel are caught within one and one-half miles from the shore, and I may say the whole of them are caught within three miles of the shore. There may be an odd catch of mackerel got more than three miles from shore, but that does not often happen. The greater part of the codfish caught by hand-line are caught at from two to five miles from the shore, and all the codfish caught by the trawl or set-lines are caught within three miles from the shore. There are no mackerel or codfish at all caught by the boats outside of the three-mile limit-that is, outside of a line drawn from points three miles