1624 AWAKD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



If one merchant was charged two shillings for the same species and quantity of goods 

 on which another was charged only one shilling, it was evident that he who paid 

 Hie highest dntv must either lose the market, or smuggle, or sell his goods at 

 mi inferior prolit! In other words, the diifereuce in the rate of the tax would fall 

 <ui the merchant liable to the highest duty and in cases of competition would always 

 drive him out of the market, (p. 187.) 



Then he goes on to say, on a subsequent page : 



AVe may suppose a tax to he laid on in a department where, in the progress of wealth, 

 pr.-tit* were alwnit to be lowered. If this tax was just equal to the reduction of the 

 rate >f protit that was ahout to take place, then common rivalship would induce the 

 dealers to pay the tax and yet sell their goods as heretofore, (p. 217.) 



lie says fi.rther, on page 242: 



Let us suppose a brewer to have one thousand barrels of strong ale upon Land. That 

 a tax of one. shilling per barrel is laid upon the ale, and that he may raise the price 

 just so much to his customers, because they will readily pay the tax rather thau want 

 ihe ale. In this case, the brewer would be directly relieved from the tax. But if, on 

 the other hand, he found after advancing the tax he could not raise the price of his 

 ale ahvu what it was formerly, and yet was under a necessity of disposing of it, 

 ! hough this may drive him from the market or unite brewers to stint the supply, so as 

 ti bung up the' price, on some future occasion, yet in the mean time the trader would 

 Miffer; nor would he immediately derive, by any of his ordinary transactions, an ef- 

 fect ual relief from the loss he had thus sustained by paying the tax. When, there- 

 fore, ;i trader advances a tax upon a great quantity of goods, he can receive no effect- 

 mil i. lit-f from such a tax, but in a rise of the price of the article, adequate to the tax 

 which he has advanced. * * * 



It follows that all speculations whose object is to show on what fixed fund or class 

 taxes must fall are vain and unsatisfactory, and will be generally disproved (as they 

 almoM always have been) by experience, (p. 257.) 



A dealer who can evade such a tax will sooii possess a monopoly if the tax is paid 

 bv 1m competitors. It will be to him a kind of bounty for carrying on his business, 

 and this must drive his competitors either to evade the tax also or to relinquish the 

 employment, (p. 288.) 



I am almost disposed to band to the reporters the extracts, rather 

 than trouble you to read them ; and yet I feel it my duty to press this 

 subject, because, if I am right in it, it is decisive. 



Sir ALEX. GALT. I think you had better read them. 



Mr. FOSTER. Mill says, and he is the apostle of free trade, in volume 

 2 of his Political Economy," page 113: 



If the north bank of the Thames possessed an advantage over the south bank in the 



tmdocliou of shoes, no (shoes would be produced on the south side ; the shoemakers 



would remove themselves and their capitals to the north bank, or would have estab- 



themselves there originally, for, being competitors in the same market with 



i the north side, they could not compensate themselves for their disadvantage at 



x|H-nse ol the consumer ; the amount of it would fall entirely on their profits, and 



tt.e> would not loug content themselves with a smaller protit, when by simply crcba- 



iiiK .1 river they could increase it. 



Apply that statement to the evidence in this case, and remember 



bow, when the Reciprocity Treaty ended, the fishermen of Nova Scotia 



n nee Edward Island took refuge on board United States vessels, 



purpose, as one of the official documents that I read from yes- 



says, o( evading the duty. It might be a curious question, if it 



mpoitant enough to dwell upon it, whether, in assessing against 



btatea the value of the privilege of fishing inshore, you were 



L to take into account the faci, that half of the people who 



i hare* , United States vessels are subjects of Her Majesty, and 



K disposed of ihHr half of the fish, having paid half of the fish 



"WJPOI using the vessel and its equipment, they sell the 



I ot the t.sh, ami bring the proceeds home; and whether it is 



I chum against the United States if British subjects go in United 



vewek, to require the United States to pay money because they 



HO NO 



