1846 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



much to charge against the Gloucester fishermen." This is the error, 

 the fallacy that underlies the whole American defense to our Case that 

 the question to be decided is one between Great Britain and Gloucester 

 fishermen. It is no such thing. It is a question between the United 

 States and Great Britain, and not whether these fishermen have been 

 injured or the reverse. The question is, whether the United States 

 have got a greater benefit by the advantages which have been given 

 them under the treaty than we have by the advantages given to us. 



"What is the effect of free fish going into the United States ? Is not 

 the effect that the consumer gets it cheaper? and the consumers are in- 

 habitants of the United States. It is alleged that the business is going 

 to be broken down. When that happens it is time enough to talk 

 about it. It is said that the fresh-fish business is going to entirely de- 

 stroy the trade in salt fish, for fresh fish can be packed in ice and sent 

 over the Dominion, and as far as Chicago and Saint Louis. I do not 

 doubt but that that may be done to some extent, but it will be very ex- 

 pensive. I doubt whether fresh fish can be carried as cheaply as salt 

 fish ; it must be very expensive to carry it in the refrigerator cars; and 

 fresh fish of that description can only be purchased by large hotels and 

 people who have plenty of money; but the ordinary consumer cannot 

 afford to eat fresh fish, which is much more costly than salt fish. The 

 trade in fresh fish must be confined to the line of railroads; it cannot 

 be taken by carts into the country, while barrels of salt fish could be 

 rolled off at any station. Therefore this point is entirely out of the 

 argument. But the principle laid down is entirely incorrect. 



The question is, what benefit is the treaty to the whole United States? 

 I will show you by figures which cannot possibly be mistaken that pre- 

 vious to the Reciprocity Treaty the price of mackerel in the United States 

 was at a pretty large figure. The moment the Keciprocity Treaty threw 

 open the American market and there was a large influx of our fish, the 

 prices fell. That state of things continued from 1854 to 1866. In 1866, 

 when, by the action of the United States Government, the Keciprocity 

 Treaty became a dead letter, the same state of things that existed before 

 the treaty again existed. Fish which during those years, had been cheap 

 to the consumer, rose in price. I will show that the moment the Treaty of 

 1871, the Washington Treaty, under which this Commission is now sit- 

 ting, was passed and went into operation the same result again followed. 

 The prices of mackerel and other fish, which had been high, fell. W r hat 

 is the argument which necessarily flows from that ? It is that the con- 

 sumer thereby gets his fish a great deal cheaper; there can be no doubt 

 about that. But there is another view which must be taken. If it be 

 true, as has been contended in evidence, that Gloucester merchants 

 could not carry on their fishing operations without having access to our 

 shores, and I think it is clear and conclusive that they cannot carry on 

 the mackerel fishery in the bay, for instance, without going within the 

 three-mile limit, there is an end to the question. They cannot carry on 

 a large business in their own waters without the assistance of our fish- 

 eries ; they cannot carry on the fishery in the bay the great mass of 

 the testimony shows that unless they get access to the shore line. To 

 concede, for the sake of argument, that large schools of mackerel are 

 to be found in the body of the Bay of St. Lawrence, and sometimes taken 

 by seine and sometimes by hook and line ; those schools, in order to be 

 available to the fishermen, must be followed by them, and if they under- 

 take to follow the schools they must make up their minds to go within 

 three miles of the shores or lose the fish. The whole evidence shows that, 

 and that the fishermen came into the inshore waters even when the cut- 



