AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1649 



1. If it be assumed, as a general principle, that the consumer pavs the 

 duty, it is equally true that he does not pay the whole of it. For to 

 assume any such position would be to strike out all possibility of profit. 

 Take an illustration : A merchant imports 1,000 yards of broadcloth, 

 which, adding all costs and duties, he can sell at a profit at $6 a yard. 

 Now add a duty of $2 a yard. He cannot sell his customer at $8 a yard ; 

 he must divide the rise in price, and, while he adds the duty, he must 

 dimiuis the profit. Except in case of articles of luxury, such as rare 

 books, jewels, costly wines, scientific instruments, works of art, the in- 

 crease of duty cannot, and never has been, imposed entirely upon the 

 consumer. 



2. If this be true, then you must ascertain what is the proportion of 

 increase in price of mackerel consequent upon the duty which is paid 

 by the consumer, before you can say what he, the consumer, gains by 

 the removal. There has been no attempt to do this on the part of coun- 

 sel. Our most experienced witnesses testify that the additional duty of 

 $2 would raise the price of mackerel about fifty cents a barrel, which 

 would leave $1.50 to be paid by the producer. I do not undertake to 

 say whether this is right or wrong, for I am discussing the principle, 

 not the amount. The question is an insoluble one. You have been told 

 by competent witnesses, and after a fortnight's preparation for rebuttal 

 they have not been contradicted, that the mackerel market is a specu- 

 lative one; that in one year the speculative price has varied from $22 

 to $4, while for ten years the price to the daily consumer has scarcely 

 varied at all; that the price depends much upon the catch ; and yet that 

 in the year of the largest catch the price has not gone down ; and that 

 being food for poor people, there is a price which when reached, with 

 duty or without duty, the consumption is immediately reduced; and, 

 added to all this, that the competition of fresh fish is fast driving it out 

 of use. With all these conditions to be ascertained first, who can ever 

 say what proportion of duty is paid by the producer and what by the 

 consumer, or if any is paid by the latter ? 



I do not believe it is possible to do it, but if it were possible to do it 

 you cannot make it an offset. If you undertake to make an offset of it 

 let us know what it is. We state our account. We take this statement 

 and we say, " In the year 1874 the duty remitted was $355,972." Now, 

 what are you going to set off against that? an opinion, a theory, a be- 

 lief, a speculation to weigh it down with? If you are going to set off 

 dollars against that, tell us how many dollars in 1874 you are going to 

 set off against that. How are you going to find out? How can you 

 ever tell us ? But if the gentlemen's theory is right, they have not con- 

 verted it into a practical theory that you can apply. If they will under- 

 take to tell us, "In 1874 and 1875 we will show you a reduction of price 

 in mackerel to a certain number of consumers to the amount of $200,000 

 or $250,000," strike the balance. But you cannot strike the balance 

 with an opinion. Before they can make this claim they must submit 

 that statement to us. But I do not intend to dwell upon that, for this 

 reason. The principle that I hold ought to be applied to the solution of 

 this question is this : that it is one with which, under the treaty, you have 

 nothing on earth to do. If our friends on the other side coul'd show, dol- 

 lar for dollar, that every dollar of the $355,000 remitted by the renewal 

 of the duty was $355,000 to the benefit of the American consumers, you 

 could not reckon it. 



Now, let us look at the treaty : 



ARTICLE XXII. Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty 

 that the privileges accorded to the citizens of the United States, under Article AT/// of 

 104 F 



