AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1879 



fornia) to all other foreign countries, from 1850 to 1876, averaged annu- 

 ally (at a gold valuation) as follows, viz : 



1850 to 1854 -S7">5, 16."), Non-reciprocal rear*. 



1860 to 1866 1,0(11,9-4, Reciprocal y-ani. 



1866 to 1873 1, l96,r).->4, Nou-reciprocal years. 



1873 to 1876 1,640, 4:26, Reciprocal year*. 



Kow, comparing these exports from the United States to all foreign 

 <jountries with the imports from Canada into the United States, it would 

 appear that they are largely interdependent. The imports referred to 

 are as follows: 



1850 to 1854 $71*2 419 



la^eto 1866 1 377'7-J7 



1866 to 1873 1,137, SRI 



1873to 1877 1,505,6$) 



With regard to this matter, I call attention to the following assertion 

 made at page 9 of the "Answer " of the United States, viz : " But while 

 the result (of the Washington Treaty) to them (Canadians) has been qne 

 of steady development and increasing wealth, the United States cod 

 fishery even has declined in amount and value." If, then, the domestic 

 production of the United States has decreased, and the exports to for- 

 eign countries have increased in about the same ratio as have the im- 

 portations from Canada, is it not evident that the increased imports 

 have been made mainly with a view to the supply of foreign markets, or 

 what is equivalent, to supply the hiatus in the markets of the United 

 States due to the exportation of a greater quantity of their own tish 

 products than the yield of their fisheries warranted in view of their 

 own requirements for home consumption ? It would seem from an ex- 

 amination of the statistics that the increased importations from Canada 

 during those years in which no duties were levied on Canadian fish were 

 largely due to an increased foreign trade, and it is contended that Her 

 Majesty's subjects gained no substantial pecuniary advantage from sup- 

 plying those foreign markets by indirect rather than direct trade. On 

 the other hand, the tendency of this class of trade is to throw the for- 

 eign carrying trade hitherto conducted by subjects of Her Majestymore 

 and more into the hands of the ship-owners and brokers of the United 

 States. 



A close examination of Canadian exports confirms this view. Of 

 the entire exports, those to the United States and to other foreign coun- 

 tries compare as follows : 



If any further reasoning is required in support of this very evident 

 contention, the following extract from page 5L".) of the United 

 Census Keport for 1860 may be useful : " By the warehousing ; 

 1846, foreign fish were allowed to be imported and entered in b 

 thence exported without payment of duty ; but under the reci 

 act colonial fish are admitted free of duty. These acts have c 

 principal fish-distributing cities, such as Boston, New York, ana i 

 delphia, to become exporters of large quantities of foreig 



