AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1621 



Coming down to the date of the Reciprocity Treaty, we find in every 

 direction, whatever public document we refer to of any of tire provinces, 

 the same story told: That during the Reciprocity Treaty, they built up 

 a great fish business, unknown to them before; that at the end of the 

 Reciprocity Treaty, a duty of two dollars a barrel on mackerel, and one 

 dollar a barrel on herring, excluded them from the markets of the 

 United States and crushed out that branch of industry. At the risk of 

 making myself tedious, 1 must read you some passages on that subject. 



Here is what Mr. Peter Mitchell, the former minister of marine and 

 fisheries, says, in 1869, in his "Return of all licenses granted to A.'ueri- 

 CAU fishermen," printed by order of Parliament, at Ottawa: 



These excessive duties bear with peculiar hardship on our fishing industry, and par- 

 ticularly that of Nova Scotia ami Prince Edward Island the fishermen and dealers iu 

 those provinces being forced into competition, in Uuited States markets, under serious 

 disadvantages, side by side with the American freecatoh taken out of our own waters. 



Yes, " taken out of their own waters." I am not afraid of the words. 

 If the consumer pays the duties, it would not make any difference out 

 of what waters the fish were taken, which brought on competition, would 

 it? 1 am discussing now the proposition that there is a law of political 

 economy, of universal application, and particularly applicable to the 

 mackerel which go from the provinces to Boston, by which whatever tax 

 is imposed in the United States is forthwith added to the price and has 

 to be paid by the man. who eats the mackerel in the States, and it makes 

 no difference where the competition arises from. Mr. Mitchell's state- 

 ment, therefore, is absolutely to the purpose. He continues: 



At the same time, other producers are subject to equally heavy charges on the agri- 

 cultural, mineral, and other natural products of the United Provinces. 



The direct extent to which such prohibitory duties affect the fishery interests of 

 these provinces may be stated in a few words. During the year H66, for example, tho 

 several provinces have paid in gold, as custom duty on provincial-caught fish exported 

 to the Uuited States, about $220,000. 



This amount was paid by the provinces in 18G6, the year after the 

 Reciprocity Treaty ended. Then, in a note, he says : 



More forcibly to illustrate the unequal operation of the present system, suffice it to 

 instance the following cases: A British vessel of 71 tons, built and equipped last sea- 

 son at St. John, N. B., costing $4,800, expressly for the mackerel fishery iu the Gulf of 

 St. .Lawrence and Bay of Chaleurs, took 600 barrels of fisn, which sold iu Halifax and 

 Boston for $6,000. After paying expenses (including $9.86 in gold for customs) a profit 

 of $1,200 accrued to the owners. An American vessel from Newburyporr., Mass., of 46 

 tons burden, took a license at Port Mulgrave, N. S., paying $46. The whole cost of 

 vessel and voyage was $3,200 or $2,400. Halifax currency. She fished 910 barrels of 

 mackerel, which sold in Boston for $13,000, about $9,110 in gold, leaving a profit of 



After speaking of the question of raising the license fee to higher fig- 

 ures, Mr. Mitchell continues (p. 6) : 



It is recommended that the rate be $2 per ton, the mackerel fishery being that iu 

 which Americans chiefly engage, and as mackerel is the principal fish marketed iu the 

 United States by Canadians, ou which the tax is $2 per barrel, this rate amounts to 

 charge of but 20 cents per barrel, still leaving them an advantage of $1.80 on each bar- 

 rel, besides the drawback allowed on salt. 



Did Mr. Peter Mitchell think that the $2 a barrel duty was got back 

 by the fishermen of the provinces? During the session of the Joint 

 ;High Commission at Washington, when the American Commissioners 

 made an offer to purchase the inshore fisheries in perpetuity, which was 

 not coupled with any offer of free admission to our markets, the British 

 Commissioners replied " that the offer was, as they thought, wholly 

 inadequate, and that no arrangement would be acceptable of which the 

 admission into the United States, free of duty, of fish, the production 



