y^ The Fishery Question. 



ury has informed the House that the govern- 

 ment may lose in duties now paid by Cana- 

 dian goods, $4,476,900 per annum. "^ Estimat- 

 ed on the basis of the annual New England 

 catch, this is equivalent to a bounty of almost 

 100 per cent., and is nearly as much as was 

 paid for all the privileges claimed during the 

 twelve years of the treaty abrogated in 1885. 

 Certainly, if the provisions of this act be 

 applied to anything but the fish trade, it may 

 be anticipated that much misrepresentation, 

 loose statement, and manufactured excitement 

 will wither in the flame of interested opposi- 

 tion. If used only to prohibit Canadian fish, 

 the price will probably advance while the de- 

 mand declines, as was the case last year."^ 

 Yet the Fishery, though a small thing, is our 

 own. It has a right to expect proper encour- 

 agement and support. Why should the dis- 

 cussion be limited to one class of expedients ? 

 It is not at all sure that the difficulty can be 

 as well met by retaliation on Canada as by 

 revision of our own tariff. How-orreat a bur- 

 den this imposes on all fishing ought to be 

 calculated. Whether it fosters the industry 

 may be doubted, when that small portion of 

 it, represented by the ''sardine" packing 



