contain an explanation of how they were made up, only you do not happen to read them. Just read them.

Mr. THOMSON. This question is put to Major Low by Mr. Dana.

Q. In order that the Commission may understand whether these Gloucester merchants, when making these statements here, are guessing at what they say, or have absolute data to go upon, and know what they are about, you have, at our request, made an examination of the books of one of the firms?-A. I have examined the books of the most successful firm engaged in the bay mackerel fishery.

Q. That is the firm of Mr. Steele ?-A. Yes. I did this of my own accord, because I wanted the Commission to see how these books are kept.

Q. Will you produce these books?—A. I have the trip-book, which I have numbered one, for the years since 1858 and 1859; their previous books were burned in the great fire at Gloucester in 1864. I have the trip-books for the years extending from 1858 to 1876 inclusive 19 years.

Mr. FOSTER. Go back to what you were upon.

Mr. THOMSON. It is as follows:

Q. You do not, I suppose, include in this statement any but vessels; it has nothing to do with boat-fishing?-A. No.

Q. Will you state from what source you have made up these statistics ?-A. The informa tion concerning the vessels which fished in the gulf, and those which fished off our shore, I obtained and tabulated for the information of Gloucester, when I was town clerk, in 1869, and the report for 1875 was procured for centennial purposes-not by myself, but by some one who did his work well.

Q. Can you say, as a matter of belief, that these statistics were made up for Centennial purposes, and not with reference to this tribunal?-A. Yes; I believe that is the case.

Q. From what sources were those for 1875, for instance, taken ?-A. The catch was taken from the reports of the number of firms I mentioned.

Q. To how many firms do you refer ?-A. These include the most successful firms, George Steele, &c.

Q. Those are firms that had been the most successful, whether on our shore or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which are to be considered the most successful firms in Gloucester ?-A. George Steele, Leighton & Co., Dennis & Ayer, and Smith & Gott.

Q. These are generally considered to be the most successful firms ?-A. Yes.

Q. Were they all included in this return ?-A. Yes.

Q. The tonnage of the vessels was somewhat larger in 1875 than it was in 1869-A. I think not. I think it was about the same.

What does that amount to? That he made up the statement for 1869 for the Centennial, and the other for some other purpose; but he brings them both for the purpose, as I charge upon him, of deceiving this Commission.

Mr. TRESCOT. He tells you what they are.

Mr. THOMSON. I say again that when a witness puts in evidence state. ments such as these because there was no object in showing what the catches were 1869 and 1875, unless it was intended as a fair specimen of the average years-and has the information in his own breast by which directly opposite results would be shown-a witness who comes here and makes such a statement does so deliberately to deceive the Commission.

Your honors will recollect that nothing but the trip-books were produced; though we gave notice to produce the other books they did not do so. Look at page 385 and see what Major Low says on this subject, and then say whether he is a gentleman whose testimony can be depended on. At page 385, towards the bottom, there is the following:

Q. In the first place, is George Steele a charterer of vessels?-A. No.

Q. Then this statement, which assumes to relate to George Steele's business, as his name is mentioned as the charterer of the vessel, does not represent an existing state of facts, but is merely a theory which you put forth ?-A. I supposed I had mentioned on the account that it was an estimate.

At pages 368 and 369 of Major Low's evidence, a statement is handed in entitled "Number of vessels engaged during 17 years, from 1858 to 1876 inclusive, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence mackerel fishery, excepting

the years 1870 and 1871, when none were sent, by George Steele, of Gloucester, 107; average time employed yearly 4 months 13 days; average number of hands employed yearly for 17 years 15." In regard to that, I desire to call attention to the evidence on page 385, your honors bearing in mind the fact that Mr. Dana put to Major Low the question that he had examined the books for the purpose of giving a statement which could not lie-no guess-work, but absolute verity, so far as the books were concerned. Mr. Davies on cross-examination elicited the following:

Q. The owner would suffer no loss though the charterer would. It seems singular, does it not? You say this is where a man charters a vessel?-A. Yes.

Q. In the first place, is George Steele a charterer of vessels ?-A. No.

Q. Then this statement, which assumes to relate to George Steele's business, as his name is mentioned as the charterer of the vessel, does not represent an existing state of facts, but is merely a theory which you put forth?-A. I supposed I had mentioned on the account that it was an estimate.

Q. That is the real fact, is it not?-A. Yes. The real fact is that I made a mere estimate in this regard.

Now, that is a most extraordinary statement.

Mr. FOSTER. In what regard?

Mr. THOMSON. In regard to this, that Mr. Dana put forward Major Low as a man who had examined the books of Gloucester merchants for the purpose of getting an absolutely correct statement, and no guesswork, yet we find him coming forward with a deliberate piece of guesswork.

Mr. FOSTER. He made a statement from the books, and then made a supposititious hypothetical case of one voyage to show what the result would have been.

Mr. THOMSON. At page 386, your honors still bearing in mind that this was to be no imaginary matter, but absolutely made up from the books, a number of questions are put by Mr. Davies:

Q. How did you get these 13 or 14 trips?-A. I saw the trip-books. I asked Mr. Steel for permission to show them to the Commission.

Q. You then had the opportunity of examining his books?-A. Yes, as to his trip-books, but not as to his ledger.

Q. Did you ask for his ledger ?-A. I did not.

Q. I suppose if you had done so you would have obtained access to it?--A. Probably I should.

Q. Therefore you do not know what his books show as to actual profit and loss sustained by him during this period?-A. I do not.

Q. And the actual state of facts may be at variance with the theory you advance?—A. I hardly think so.

Q. Supposing that George Steele stands in the position you assume in this statement, he would be bankrupt beyond all redemption?-A. Yes.

Q. You have proved him from theory to be bankrupt beyond all redemption when, in fact, he is a capitalist worth $45,000, which exhibits the difference between the practical statement and the theory ?-A. Yes, but he had capital when he went into the business.

Q. Do you state that he brought it in with him?—A. One-half of it was made in the sailmaking business.

Q. Where was the other half made?-A. In the fishing-business, during 19 years, but that is only $1,000 a year, and he ought to make that.

Q. The actual loss on each vessel, for 107 vessels, you place at $167?-A. Yes.

Q. Will you make that up and tell me for how much he ought to be a defaulter?-A. His loss would be $17,869.

Q. And that is not consistent with the facts; he is not a defaulter to that amount?-A. He has made it up in other parts of his business, but as far as his vessels are concerned, he has probably lost that sum.

Q. You did not get access to his profit and loss ledger?-A. No.

Q. That would show exactly how it is, and this is an imaginary conclusion?-A. Yes; I could not make it up without the actual bills of expenses for his vessels. I thought it was already understood that this was imaginary.

Now, this is the testimony that is given in answer to Mr. Dana's request that the statement should be perfectly true.

The Conference met.

WEDNESDAY, November 21, 1877.

Mr. Thomson continued his closing argument in support of the case of Her Britannic Majesty.

YOUR EXCELLENCY AND YOUR HONORS: When we adjourned yes terday I was referring, I think, to a statement produced by the American witness, Low, the figures of which were prepared to show the respective values of the fisheries on the American shore and in the Bay St. Lawrence for a period of years, from 1858 down to 1876 inclusive. It appeared, however, on cross-examination that the earnings of the vessels engaged in cod-fishing averaged each $393 per month after paying off the crews and liquidating the "stock charges;" the vessels mackerel fishing on the American shore made $326 per month; while those mackerel-fishing in Bay St. Lawrence averaged each $442 per month. These figures, as determining the relative values of these fishing-grounds, to which I will hereafter call your attention, are, I conceive, conclusive. While Low was on the stand he put in statements from the books of George Steele and Sinclair and Low. The statement of Steele, which is to be found on page 402 of American evidence, shows when the figures are examined that the bay-catch from 1858 to 1876 was 33,645 barrels, of the value of $403,832. It shows that the catch extending over the same period of time on the American shore was but 5,395 barrels, of the value of $43,101. The average price of the bay-catch per barrel was $12, and of the shore-catch $7.99. Now that, your honors will see, is important, for it comes from Major Low, who came here for the purpose of proving directly the opposite. He came here to sustain the extraor dinary view that was presented in the American Answer and by Amer ican witnesses, namely, that the fish caught on the American shore were more valuable than the fish caught in Bay St. Lawrence. Unfortunately the figures by which it was attempted to prove that, proved di rectly the reverse. Your honors have only to take up the American evidence at page 402, and take the statement A, to find the result. The statement of Sinclair and Low, which is found at pages 380 and 381, shows that in the years 1860, 1861, and 1862 the bay-catch was 3,645 barrels, bringing $23,059, or an average of $6.32 per barrel, whilst the catch on the American shore was 1,024 barrels, bringing $5,532, or an av erage of $5.42 per barrel. Sylvanus Smith, an American witness, when on the stand, produced a statement, or his evidence will establish, that from 1868 to 1876 his bay-catch was 10,995 barrels, realizing $111,703, averaging $10.16 per barrel; whilst the United States shore-catch was 19,387 barrels, bringing $176,998, or $9 per barrel, $1.16 less per barrel than the bay-catch. Procter's statement shows that his bay-catch from 1857 to 1876, for 19 years, was 30,499 barrels, realizing $345,964, or an average of $11.57 per barrel. Procter gives no American shore-catch. I suppose he had good reason for not doing so. I presume that the figures would not have compared favorably.

It is remarkable that the statement of Sylvanus Smith (which is to be found at page 330 United States evidence) is taken for the period from 1868 to 1876, when the American fisheries were said to be at their best, I think. But be that as it may, he shows-although he came here for a different purpose-that his bay-catch was 10,995 barrels, realizing $111,703, or an average of $10.16 per barrel; whilst his catch on the American shore was 19,387 barrels, realizing $176,998, or an average of $9 per barrel. Now these statements are put in by Mr. Low, with the exception of those of Sylvanus Smith and Procter, who, though brought here for another purpose, was obliged in cross-examination by Mr.

Davies to admit the facts which I have shown. It is significant also that Low was put forward by Mr. Dana as a gentleman who would put in statements direct from books in order to insure accuracy, and Mr. Dana himself takes this view in his speech, for he says, after commenting somewhat severely on the British evidence, "Now, let us turn to evidence that can be relied on"-the evidence of books. Yet Low, though he had full access to the books, did not care to take the whole of the contents, such as they were, but he chose only to take certain figures and hold back those on the other side of the account in favor of the gulf fisheries; and he is obliged to admit that he made the statement up merely as an estimate. This is significant, because at first it was put forward that all these were accurate statements. Why the man who came here professedly to give the contents of the books of the Gloucester merchants engaged in the fishing business should give an estimate instead of the actual facts passes my comprehension.

Mr. FOSTER. You are entirely incorrect; the statement he came here with was an estimate. He made an estimate for one voyage, after putting in the result of the analysis of the trip-books, and after the whole trip-books were before you.

Mг. THомSON. I say that the trip-book only shows certain expenses connected with a particular voyage; not the whole expenses of the ves sel. There was no record therein as to what was paid for provisions, for coal, and a number of articles. And while I am on that subject I may mention that hard coal was charged in one of the accounts-I forget which, but your honors will recollect-at the rate, I think, of $10 a ton. It struck me as an exceedingly high price, when it can be bought in St. John for $5.50 and perhaps less. It struck me as very odd. Mr. FOSTER. It depends on the year.

Mг. THOMSON. Well, this year. Cordwood-for what purpose it is required I do not know-is entered at $8 or $10 a cord, while Mr. Patillo said in cross-examination that he had bought it at $2.75 per cord. These are all little straws on the current showing which way it is running. Mr. FOSTER. He never said that in the United States he could buy it at that price.

Mr. THOMSON. He got it at Canso. He said the American fishermen all got their wood at Canso; and I then asked him how much they paid for it. It is wholly absurd to suppose that shrewd American fishermen would buy their wood in the United States and pay a high price, when they could get it at Canso, which was directly on their route, at $2.75 a

cord.

Mr. FOSTER. He has been out of the business since the end of the war, and Steele's books are for later years.

Mr. THOMSON. I apprehend that Steele's trip-books do not show what was paid for wood, and the other books have not been produced. It is true the extraordinary offer was made to us that we should go down and examine all the books of the Gloucester merchants. I greatly doubt whether the learned Agent of the United States could have borne me out if I had gone into one of the Gloucester houses and asked to see their books.

Mr. FOSTER. You had better come and see.

Mг. THOMSON. And besides, judging from the two sets of affidavits which have been filed, both professing to come from one set of books, it appears as if these were different sets of entries in the same books relating to the same subject, or that they were taken from different books.

Mr. DANA. Do you mean that the offer was not made in good faith ?

Mr. THOMSON. I do not mean to say the offer was not made in good faith. It was also rejected in good faith. We knew exactly where we I apprehend that the agent and counsel of the United States could have no possible authority to enable us to go into the stores of Gloucester merchants and search their books. I think that like Pattillo they would have asked for our authority.

Mr. DANA. It is very well to make sport out of it, but you are calling in question the honor of persons.

Mr. THOMSON. If Mr. Dana thinks I am calling in question the honor of counsel, I must say I am doing nothing of the kind. I would be very sorry to be misunderstood. We have got along so far very pleasantly at this Commission, and I hope we will do so to the end. I state most distinctly on my honor that I have not the slightest idea of charg ing any dishonorable motive on the part of the United States counsel; but I mean to say, that, though the offer was made in good faith, it was rejected in good faith, and for the reason which I have stated.

These are the last observations I have to make in regard to Low. He certainly was a most preposterous failure, coming here as he did, paraded as a man of figures and statistics, having the title of major in the army, and having filled the office of postmaster, and I don't know how many more offices. He was brought here to destroy our case, and by his answers on cross-examination he really benefited it as much as a witness could possibly do. I think that the only parallel case to that of Lowand it may be a parallel case-occurred some thousands of years ago on the hills of Moab. I can imagine Mr. Collector Babson, who appeared to have charge of a great number of witnesses, and marshalled them in and out, saying to Low, after he had given his evidence, in the same language as was used by the King of Moab to the Prophet Balaam, "I brought you here to curse mine enemies, and 'Low' you have blessed them altogether these three times; now depart into your own country." And I presume he departed.

There has been some difference of opinion as to the catch taken within the limits. It has been put down by a large number of witnesses as being at least a two-thirds catch; some of them have said it was a ninetenths catch. Mr. Foster has based his argument on the assumption that it was a one-third catch. The evidence on our side is overwhelming on this point. I called your honors' attention yesterday to the fact that the evidence produced to answer our case was given by witnesses who had not been on the ground themselves at all; they fished, they said, elsewhere, and did not value the inshore fisheries, simply because they did not choose to use them.

Let us refer to the testimony of some of our witnesses:

Mr. Simon Chivirie stated that two thirds at least of the mackerel caught off Prince Edward Island is taken within three miles of the shore, and some seasons none could be caught outside (he spoke from an experience of thirty years), the reasons being that mackerel come inshore to feed. In the Bay of Chaleur the fishing is all inshore, the reason being that in the center it is deep water with a strong current. On the south side are banks where fish food abounds.

Mr. McLean stated that he himself had seen vessels among schools of mackerel, as far as the eye could see either way along the coast, right inshore. He had seen mackerel taken with jigs in two fathoms of water. Mackerel, he said, are only taken when shifting, excepting in shoal grounds or on banks. When he was in the habit of fishing, all the mackerel he took was within three miles of the shore.

Mr. Campion said he did not fish outside the limit, because there were