AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 1881 



This sum, therefore, representing duties which never were collected, 

 must be deducted from the aggregate duties accrued, as shown by the 



figures just previously given, yiz : $321, 935 



Deduct 



Duties on re-exports $1L'0, 167 



Estimated duties on fish products not covered by 



Washington Treaty, estimated at 10, 000 



13G, 167 



Thus leaving a sum of , 185, 768 



in regard to which it remains to be decided whether or not its remission 

 has inured to the benefit of the Canadian producer. 



The United States contend, at page 31 of the Answer, that the remi.s- 

 sion of duties to Canadian fishermen during the four years which have 

 already elapsed under thejDperatiou of the treaty has amounted to about 

 $400,000 annually, which proposition it was explicitely stated would be 

 conclusively proved in evidence which would be laid before the Cqni- 

 mission. This extraordinary assertion which, it has been contended, 

 has been contravened by the whole tenor of the evidence, whether ad- 

 duced on behalf of the United States or of Great Britain, was followed 

 up by the laying down of the following principle, viz: 



Where a tax or duty is imposed upon a small portion of the producers of any com- 

 modity, from which the great body of its producers are exempt, such tax or duty nwv- 

 sarily remains a burden upon the producers of the smaller quantity, diminishing their 

 profits, which cannot be added to the price, and so distributed among the purchasers 

 and consumers. 



It is contended in reply that this principle is true only in those CMOS 

 in which the ability on the part of the majority of producers to supply 

 the commodity thus taxed is fully equal to the demand. 



The question whether the consumer or producer pays any imposts 

 levied upon the importation of certain commodities does not depend 

 upon whether the body of foreign producers is large or small relatively 

 to the body of domestic producers, with whose products theirs are to 

 come into competition, but simply upon the question whether or not the 

 existing home production is equal to the demand. If it be not equal, 

 and a quantity equal to one-third or one-fourth of that produced at home 

 be really required, prices must go up until the foreign producer can l>e 

 tempted to supply the remainder, and the consumer will pay the in- 

 creased price not only upon the fraction imported, but ui>on the greater 

 quantity produced within the importing country as well. And the 

 tendency of all the evidence in this case, British and American, h;u> beeu 

 a most explicit and direct confirmation of this principle. 



The British evidence, to which I shall immediately call your attention, 

 proves beyond a doubt that when duties were imposed upon mackerel 

 of $2 per barrel, British exporters to the United States realized a \ 

 cient increase of price to enable them to pay those duties and 

 receive a net amount equal to the average price received before thofl 

 duties were imposed, as well as after they were removed. 



Upon a careful examination of the United States testimony, it 

 submit, appear that during those years when duties were imposed 1 

 British-caught fish, the price of mackerel when lauded by I 

 vessels from their fishing voyages in the bay, was to the full 

 the duty in excess of the price they commanded after I 

 repealed, or before it was imposed. 



