2532 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



Q. The American fishermen want the duty back on fish, I suppose? 

 A. I do not know about that, I am sure ; but they naturally would wish 

 to have it back again, I suppose, in order to exclude our fish from their 

 market. 



Q. I suppose that the consumer got Irs fish cheaper, owing to the 

 removal of the duty and the admission of your fish into the American 

 market? A. The consumer would then get his fish cheaper the more 

 fish that are put on the market the cheaper the consumer gets them. 



Q. Do you think that the effect of the duty would be to keep you out 

 altogether ? A. It would exclude us. 



Q. In that particular case did you lose money ? A. O, I certainly 

 did; that is, I lost money in this way : if my fish were as good and 

 they were so, of course as those of my neighbor at Lubec, and if he 

 sold his fish at 30 cents a box, and paid no duty, while I sold mine at 30 

 cents a box and paid 5 cents gold duty per box, I look upon it in this light, 

 that I lost 5 cents in gold per box, which I would not have lost if I had 

 operated on the American side. Besides there was quite a premium on 

 gold at the time, and it cost me more to get my fish to the American 

 market than it did the American to whom 1 refer. 



Q. We will grant, for the sake of argument, that you did lose. A. 

 I understand that I did lose money, certainly. 



Q. Do you mean that you really lost money ? A. I lost it in the sense 

 I have mentioned. 



Q. And otherwise, did you make money ? A. I certainly have made 

 money in the smoked-herring business. 



Q. But did you lose money on that particular transaction ? A. O, I 

 really did make money on that transaction; that is clear; that is to say 

 I made over and above a living, and I call that making money ; but I 

 would have made more money if it had not been for the duty. 



Q. Would you have made any more with the duty off, if the price of 

 herring then fell 5 cents per box all round in the American market ? 

 A. Certainly I would not ; that is clear. 



Q. The duty had rather the effect of putting money into the pocket 

 of the Lubec fishermen than of taking it out of yours ? A. I think not ; 

 1 do not see it in that light. 



Q. On that particular transaction, at any rate, you made money ? 

 A. J got over and above a living. 



Q. SVhy, then, did you say that you would be driven out of the Amer- 

 ican market? A. I say this would be the case if a prohibitory duty 

 were put on. 



Q. Of course; but do you say that the imposition of a five cents duty 

 would do so ? A. At the present time, with present prices of fish, that 

 would do it ; we could not then operate in the American market, and 

 we could not make a living. 



Q. Do you not think that the imposition of a five cents duty would 

 raise the price five cents more in the American market? A. No. 



Q. Why not? A. I do not see any reason why that should be the 

 case, because our fish are not wanted in the American market. Our 

 fish go into that market as a surplus. 



Q. Then the result of this treaty is that the Americans get their fish 

 a great deal cheaper than was the case before ? A. There are times 

 when smoked herring are very plentiful on the American side, and then 

 herring run low in price. 



Q. Is not the result of the treaty, which admits your fish into the 

 American market on equal terms with the American fish, to make the 

 price of fish lower in that market ? A. It has that tendency evidently. 



