Page images
PDF
EPUB

Holland C. Payson, Westport, Nova Scotia, at p. 399, says:
The small American schooners fishing in our vicinity catch their own bait.
John Purney, Sandy Point, Nova Scotia, p. 421, says:

The other day Americans were fishing for bait inside of Shelburne lights. One of the captains of the vessels told me he had taken 3 barrels that day in the harbor of small mackerel for bait. The United States vessels could not carry on their deep-sea fishery without getting fresh bait.

That is an epitome of the evidence, not the whole of it, and your hon ors will find on examination that the evidence is strong on the point, and that nearly all the witnesses agree that they cannot get on without the fresh bait. I am not going to touch on that point, because it was successfully dealt with by my learned friend Mr. Whiteway, who, I think, effectually settled the question of salt bait. It is admitted ou all hands that it cannot for a moment compete with the fresh bait.

The next point to which I turn your honors' attention is a part of our case which has been made the object of attack on the other side, the Grand Manan fishery; I mean the fishery around the island of Grand Manan, Campobello, and Deer Island, and adjacent islands, and on the main shore of Charlotte opposite. I do not intend to call your attention to the evidence, for the time which has been given me in which to close my argument will not enable me to do so; I therefore pass it over by calling your honors' attention simply to the result of that evidence. It is proved by Mr. McLaughlin, who is admitted on all hands to be not only an able man, but an honest, straightforward man, a man who had a practical knowledge of the fishing business, and a personal friend of Professor Baird, that the British catch was in value over $500,000 on the island of Grand Manan alone. He had especial reasons for know. ing it, because he was fishery warden, and it was his business to find out what the catch was; and he says the catch put on paper was below the actual catch, for this sufficient reason, that the men to whom he went-and he went to every person engaged in the fishing—were afraid of being taxed to the extent of their full catch, and therefore gave him an underestimate of the quantity. When he explained to them that in point of fact he was only fishery warden, they said they knew he was something else, and that he was a county councillor, and they were afraid he would carry the information he obtained as fishery warden to the county council. Mr. McLaughlin says that the figures are entered under the mark. He then says that the catch of the island of Campobello and Deer Island is as large as the catch of Grand Manan. He says in regard to those three islands of Grand Manan, Campobello, and Deer Island, and the adjacent islands, that the American catch round those islands is as great or greater than the British catch; that is to say, there are two million dollars' worth taken round those islands. Upon the main shore, he says, from all he can learn, and he has talked with different men engaged in the business on the main shore, from Lepreau to Letite, there is as great a catch on the main shore as is taken round the islands.

That statement of Mr. McLaughlin, which was a matter of opinion, is corroborated as a matter of fact by Mr. James Lord and Mr. James R. McLean, who were not only practical fishermen, but were personally engaged in the trade, and own fishing-vessels. Mr. Foster says: "If you admit the statement to be true, look what follows. A larger quantity of herring is taken round Grand Manan than the whole foreign importation of the United States." We have nothing to do with that. The American counsel have undertaken to show that away out in the Bay of Fundy, on some ledges far beyond the three-mile line, at what they call the

"Rips," they catch a great many herring, as also at different places along the coast; but it does not appear by the returns. The United States do not import a great many herring. There is no pretense for saying that we make use of the United States market for our herring. A number of witnesses have proved (I have not time to read their testimony, but I state it as the fact) that the large market for salt herrings is to be found in this Dominion, in the different cities and towns from St. John to Toronto, and one witness stated that he had at Toronto met American salt herrings coming over the border, and competing with him in the market. And our herrings are also shipped to Sweden and elsewhere. Therefore, the remark of Mr. Foster, though true in fact, really has no bearing on the case.

How was this evidence sought to be met? It was sought to met by Eliphalet French, who is a merchent living at Eastport, a man who, if I recollect aright, had never been on the island of Grand Manan. He said he had knowledge of the fishery there, and he put his knowledge against the personal knowledge of McLaughlin, Lord, and McLean, because, said he, the whole trade comes through Eastport. There happens to be a division in the American camp on that point, for Pettes, who was another witness brought to contradict the statements made by British witnesses regarding Grand Manan, swears that very few herring go to Eastport. Whether he told the truth or not I do not know and do not care. They are not our witnesses, and it is not my business to reconcile their statements. It is curious that when those people were brought to contradict our evidence they could not agree. They not only undertook to contradict the British witnesses, but they contradicted each other. Then we had Wilford J. Fisher, who formerly lived at Grand Manan, but afterwards became a naturalized citizen of the United States, and now resides at Eastport. For eleven years back, for a number of years, at all events, his foot had never been placed on Grand Manan; he had no personal knowledge as to what the fisheries were for the last eleven or twelve years. Another witness was Pettes, who, after having stated that he was largely engaged in the fishing business, it turned out, caught about two hundred dollars' worth of herring in a year, was a boarding-house keeper in winter, and at other times ran a packet to St. Andrews. This is the man who contradicted French as to the herring trade with Eastport, and said none went there. And these are the men brought up to contradict McLaughlin! Asked if McLaughlin was an honest and respectable man, they acknowledge that he was; but Pettes, having no personal knowledge, undertook to say that his judgment in regard to the catch off the mainland and the islands was just as good as the judgments of those three men whose particular business it was to make themselves acquainted with it in every particular.

I never heard more reckless swearing-with great deference to the other side-in my life, except, indeed, the extraordinary affidavits may perhaps have out-Heroded it. For living witnesses, I never heard much more reckless swearing than was done by those gentlemen to contradict those whom they were obliged to admit were honest men, and whom they ought to have admitted possessed better means of knowledge. This is all I have to say on this point, except this: one of the witnesses, I believe Pettes, absolutely said he had never heard of the American fleet coming down there for herring.

Mr. FOSTER. I think not.

Mr. THOMSON. Then it was one of the others.

Mr. FOSTER. I think not.

Mr. THOMSON. It is not very important, except for the purpose of

arriving at the conclusion as to whether this man told the truth or not. That is the only manner in which it is important. That the American fishing fleet comes down here every year is a settled fact. But there is an important point connected with this fleet, to which I respectfully call the attention of the Commission. It is a confessed fact that the Amer ican fleet does come down there, that very large quantities of herring are taken, and have been taken yearly, and will be taken for all time to come, I suppose; but not one single captain of all that fleet-and the names of the captains and vessels they commanded are known-has been put on the stand for the purpose of contradicting the British evidence in regard to the fisheries of Grand Manan and the adjacent shores of New Brunswick to the north of it. That is a most extraordinary coincidence that not a single man of all that fishing fleet has been called for the purpose of giving evidence on that point.

Mr. FOSTER. You are entirely mistaken about that. Here is Ezra Turner, and Sylvanus Smith had been there.

Mr. THOMSON. He had not been engaged in the fishery for eleven years back, if my memory serves me right. We will take Ezra Turner first. I am speaking now of within the time covered by the testimony of those witnesses whom the four witnesses were called to contradict. If you say Ezra Turner comes within the reference, I am quite willing to be shown that such is the fact.

Mr. FOSTER. What time do you say is covered by the witnesses? Mr. THOMSON. I say it was during the time of the Reciprocity Treaty, and possibly a few years later.

Mr. FOSTER. If you look at Ezra Turner's evidence, on page 227, you will find the following:

Q. In regard to the herring fishery at Grand Manan, have you been in that neighborhood after herring ?-A. Yes; I suppose I was the man who introduced that business.

Q. How many years ago was that?-A. That is 25 years ago, I guess.

[ocr errors]

Q. Did you go there to catch herring or to buy them?-A. That is the way all our vessels do they go and buy them from the inhabitants there, who fish the herring and freeze them. Q. When were you there last?-A. I was down there last year; last winter. I only stopped a little while.

Mr. THOMSON. Was he down there as captain of one of the vessels! Mr. FOSTER. He is a man who has been captain all his life.

Mr. THOMSON. What I said was, that of all the fishing-fleet coming there, not one of the skippers had been called for the purpose of contradicting the evidence given by McLaughlin, Lord, and McLean, and they could not contradict it unless they were down there as captains during the period over which the testimony of these men runs. Now, as far as I remember, Turner has not done so.

Mr. FOSTER. Here is the evidence of Lawrence Londrigan, who was there last winter in the J. W. Roberts. He does not come within the

terms of the statement because he was not captain. P. Conley was captain of the vessel. Londrigan, in his evidence, says:

Q. What were you doing last winter?-A. I left to go in a vessel for frozen herring. Q. What is the name of the vessel ?-A. J. W. Roberts.

Q. Where did she hail from?-A. From Rockport, Me.

Q. Who was her captain ?-A. P. Conley.

Q. When did you start from Rockport ?-A. 16th December.

Q. How long were you gone?-A. We were at Beaver Harbor and around Grand Manan about two weeks.

Q. Were other vessels there ?-A. Yes.

Q. How many?-A. Electric Flash, Madawaska Maid, Mary Turner, Episcatawa

Q. How many frozen herring did you get ?-A. Some were bought frozen and some were bought green and took ashore, and some we froze on the deck of the vessel.

Q. What did you pay for them?-A. For most of them fifty cents a hundred; for about 25,000 forty-five cents a hundred.

Then I can quote from affidavits.

Mг. THOMSON. I believe I am making an admission which is not borne out by the evidence when I say I admit you can turn out twenty such cases as this, which is no contradiction, nor does it fall within that to which I called attention. I said not a captain had been called as a witness-and I am willing to treat this man as a captain-for the purpose of contradicting the British witnesses. Our witnesses swear that the Americans come down and get an immense quantity of fish there, to the value of one million dollars yearly. This man (Londrigan) comes down and partly bears out that evidence. He comes down to tell you how many herring the captain of the vessel bought and paid for. Is that any contradiction? It is a direct affirmative. But if half a dozen captains were put on the stand and said they had been acquainted with the fisheries all their lives, and for the last two years that no such catch of herring as was alleged was ever made by the American fleet, which we knowf rom our experience is not possible, that would be no evidence in contradiction. So far from this evidence, to which Mr. Foster has called attention, being contradiction, it is direct evidence in confirmation.

Mr. DANA. Is your position that we caught the herring?

Mr. THOMSON. I say you either caught them or went down and hired people to get them, and by the rule qui facit per alium facit per se, you caught them yourselves.

Mr. FOSTER. Do you say we caught them or bought them?

Mг. THOMSON. I say you did both. I say that a large portion of them, according to the evidence, you bought. This man comes down and buys. Suppose 500 people did buy, does it prove that 900 people did not come down and catch?

Mr. FOSTER. We had Gloucester vessel-owners here who testified that they fitted out their vessels, carrying no appliances to catch herring; that they carried money and brought back herring, leaving the money behind them.

Mr. THOMSON. With great deference for Gloucester merchants-I shall have to deal with their evidence by and by-those who have ap peared before the Commission in affidavits do not stand so well that much attention can be given to their evidence. I want the evidence of men on the spot, of men who came down and fished. It was quite possible for some of the captains, of whom there is a large body, to have been brought down; they could have been got. We have produced positive, affirmative evidence that they come down and catch fish, 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 evidence, of such a character as to diminish one pin's weight from the British evidence, has been advanced.

Mr. DANA. Your statement was not that you did not believe the evi. dence, but that there was no such evidence.

Mr. THOMSON. 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 affirmatory. The American counsel has 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 must 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 fishermen." This is the error, the fallacy that underlies the whole American defense to our Case-that the question to be decided is one between Great Britain and Gloucester fishermen. It is no such thing. It is a question 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 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 cheaper? 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-fish business is going to entirely destroy the trade in salt fish, for fresh fish can be packed in ice and sent over the Dominion, and as far as Chicago and Saint Louis. I do not doubt but that that may be done to some extent, but it will be very ex pensive. 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; and fresh fish of that description can only be purchased by large hotels and people who have plenty of money; but the ordinary consumer cannot afford to eat fresh fish, 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 fish 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 Treaty the price of mackerel in the United States was at a pretty large figure. The moment the Reciprocity Treaty threw open the American market and there was a large influx of our fish, the prices fell. That state of things continued from 1854 to 1866. In 1866, when, by the action of the United States Government, the Reciprocity Treaty became a dead letter, the same state of things that existed before the treaty again existed. Fish which during those years, had been cheap to the consumer, rose in price. I will show that the moment the Treaty of 1871, the Washington Treaty, under which this Commission is now sitting, was passed and went into operation the same result again followed. The prices of mackerel and other fish, which had been high, fell. What is the argument which necessarily flows from that? It is that the consumer thereby gets his fish a great deal cheaper; there can be no doubt about that. But there is another view which must be taken. If it be true, as has been contended in evidence, that Gloucester merchants could not carry on their fishing operations without having access to our shores, and I think it is clear and conclusive that they cannot carry on the mackerel fishery in the bay, for instance, without going within the three-mile limit, there is an end to the question. They cannot carry on a large business in their own waters without the assistance of our fisheries; they cannot carry on the fishery in the bay-the great mass of the testimony shows that-unless they get access to the shore line. To concede, for the sake of argument, that large schools of mackerel are to be found in the body of the Bay of St. Lawrence, and sometimes taken by seine and sometimes by hook and line; those schools, in order to be available to the fishermen, must be followed by them, and if they undertake to follow the schools they must make up their minds to go within three miles of the shores or lose the fish. The whole evidence shows that, and that the fishermen came into the inshore waters even when the cut

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »