AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION 1775 



in tbe Boston and Gloucester markets far above the American shore 

 mackerel. 



I have now done, with this portion of my subject, and I have said all 

 I have to say with reference to the evidence brought in sti|>|>ort and in 

 contradiction of the British Case ; and 1 now desire to deal briefly with 

 what has been pleaded as an offset to our claim. 



When we come to deal with the privileges granted by the American** 

 to the subjects of Her Majesty in British North America, we find them 

 to be of two kinds : 



1st. Eight to fish on the southeastern coast of the United States to 

 the 3l)th parallel of north latitude. 



2d. The admission, free of duty, of fish and fish oil, the produce of 

 British North American fisheries into the United States market. 



As to the privilege of fishing in American waters, this Commission 

 will have very little difficulty in disposing of it. In the first instance it 

 has been proved that the most of the fish to be found in these water* 

 are caught 30 and 90 miles off shore, almost exclusively on George's 

 Bank, and the British fishermen would not derive their right of fishing 

 there from treaties ; but from international law. In the second place no 

 British subject has ever resorted to American waters, and the province 

 of the Commissioners being limited to twelve years, to be computed from 

 the 1st July, 1873, there is no possibility to suppose that they will ever 

 resort to these waters, at least during the treaty. There remains then 

 but one item to be considered, as constituting a possible ofl'sett, that is 

 the admission, free of duty, of Canadian fish and fish-oil. This raises 

 several questions of political economy, which will be better dealt with 

 by my colleague who is to follow me, and I will limit myself to say that 

 if the question, now under consideration, were pending between the fish- 

 ermen of the two countries, individually, this would suggest views which 

 cannot be entertained as between the two governments. 



The controverted doctrines between free traders and protectionists 

 as to who pays the duty under a protective tariff, whether it is the 

 producer or consumer, seems to be solved by this universal feature, 

 that, in no country in the world, has the consumer ever started and sup- 

 ported an agitation for a protective tariff; on the contrary we find every 

 where directing and nursing the movements of public opinion on this 

 matter, none but the producers and manufacturers. This cannot be 

 explained otherwise than that the manufacturer receives in addition 

 to a remunerative value for his goods the amount of duty as a bonus 

 which constitutes an artificial value levied on the consumer. It is in 

 most instances the consumer that pays the whole amount of the duty. 

 In a few cases there may be a proportion borne by the producer and 

 there is no process of reasoning or calculation to determine that pro- 

 portion. When duties are imposed on articles of food which cannot be 

 classed among luxuries there seems to be no possibility of a doubt that 

 the whole duty is paid by the consumer. Salt cod or mackerel will never 

 be called luxuries of food. A duty imposed upon such articles has had 

 the effect of raising their cost far' above the amount of duty, and had 

 thereby the effect of increasing the profit of the producer at the ex- 

 pense of the consumer. For instance, a barrel of mackerel which wonl< 

 have brought $10 when admitted free, will bring $14 under a tariff of* 

 per barrel ; and statistics will be laid before the Commissioners to prove 

 that fact, which I will not undertake to explain. This being so. however, 

 would it be equitable to subject the Canadian Government to the pay- 

 ment of an indemnity to the United States for providing American cit 

 with a cheap and wholesome article of food when it is evident that I 



