1694 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



my learned friend, Mr. Trescot, to show that $2 a barrel was prohibitory, 

 on the testimony of these gentlemen from Prince Edward Island, and 

 from the leading dealers in ( Provincetown and in Gloucester, was certainly 

 abundantly sufficient. I think those gentlemen from Prince Edward 

 Island said that if those duties were reimposed, they should retire from 

 the business. Mr. James H.Myrick (page 432), in answer to the question, 

 44 1 understand yon to say that if the duty on mackerel was reimposed 

 in the United States your firm would, except for a small portion of the 

 season, give up the mackerel business and turn to something else ?" said, 

 " That is my opinion, decidedly." 

 Mr. Isaac C. Hall (page 485) says : 



Q. Now, you take No. 3 mackerel, what would be the effect of a duty of $2 a barrel 

 iu tbe United States markets ? A. We could not catch them and ship them there un- 

 less there was a great scarcity there, as happens this season. 



Q. Practically, what would become of your business of catching mackerel 'if the duty 

 of $'2 a barrel were reimposed ? A. Well, when a man runs his head against a post he 

 must get around the best way he can. 



Q. You are satisfied you could not add the duty to the price of the mackerel in the 

 United States market f A. No ; it can't be done. 



Then Mr. Pew, of Gloucester, testifies to the same effect ; but I sup- 

 pose there can be no doubt, under this weight of testimony, that the 

 money charge against Great Britain is for the privilege of exemption 

 from prohibitory duties, whatever may be prohibitory, whether it be $2 

 or more. 



Now, how was it, with this plain fact in view, that the learned counsel 

 for the Crown were able to produce so many witnesses, and to consume 

 so much time, in showing that they did not, after all, lose much by $2 

 a barrel duty ! Why, my learned friends who have preceded me have 

 exposed that very happily. I fear if I were to say anything I should 

 only detract from the force of their argument ; but I think it is fair to 

 say that it will rest on our minds, after we have adjourned and separated, 

 as a most extraordinary proceeding, that so many men were found in 

 various parts of the island, and from some parts of the mainland, who 

 came up here and said that the fact that they paid a duty of $2 on a 

 barrel of mackerel before they sold it iu the States, which is their only 

 market, did not make any difference to them. They said it did not 

 make any difference. They did not say it made little difference, but they 

 said it did not make any. Now, if they had said, " We can catch the fish 

 so much cheaper because this is our home ; we can catch them so much 

 cheaper because we catch them in cheap vessels and with cheap materials, 

 close by where we live, that we can afford to undersell, to some extent, 

 the American fishermen ; and therefore the $2 a barrel is not all to be 

 counted as a burden," that would be intelligible. But these fishermen 

 suddenly, by the magic wand of my learned friend, the premier of the 

 island, and my learned friend who represents I do not know in how 

 high a position the Province of New Brunswick, were all turned into 

 Political economists. " Well, my friend," says the learned counsel for 



nnce Edward Island, with that enticing smile which would have drawn 

 an affirmative answer from the flintiest heart, " My dear friend, about 

 2 a barrel duty, does not that affect your profit in selling in Bos- 

 1 No," says the ready witness. "And why not F " Why, be- 

 cause the consumer pays (he duty." 



Then the next witness, under, perhaps, the sterner but still equally 

 itive discipline of the counsel from New Brunswick, has the question 



t to him, and he says, No"; and when he is asked how this phenom- 



n w to be accounted for, he says, too, that the consumer pays the 



ity ; until, at last, it became almost tedious to hear man after man, 



