90 



dollars last year nn the fishiuR imlustr)' of Nova Snotin. The member for Halifax (Mr. Jones) had 

 doiiiuJ this, and Htiit-od thnl thu iliity on iiiiii^kerijl and honiiin sliippud to thi! States in 1871 was only 

 about 00,000 dollars. That was another of that gontloinan's facts that was niadii to do duty for a mis- 

 statonii'ut. It \\i\» ([uitt! Inu! llml tlic diiLy on oiiv lish rxporled to that iimrkiit hwt year would only 

 have amouiitud to about OO.OOO dnllai-.s, liut that only in'ovuil that tlm duty was so nearly prohibitoir 

 as to ]in!veiit the export of larKeripuintitiifl. ITo nwl from a return to kIhhv that tlin value of the fisli 

 cau),'hl in Nova S(M)tiii liust year ainountt;d to over .",II00,()0(( ddUnrs. Of this quantity there were 

 228,1 '12 barrels niackerid and liOl.OOd burii'l.-i lierriiii,'; the duty on wliieh, if shipped to the States, 

 would bo over G,''>(t,000 dollars ; so that the Htuteuiout made l)y the President of tlie I'rivy Council was 

 more than justified by the facts. II' tlien^ was so small a proportion of tliis total sold iu the States, it 

 was because the duty was almost i)rohil)itory. lieinovo the duty, and the Oustoni-huuse returns of fish 

 shipped to that market will show u much larger result." 



It will be observed that the foregoing extracts relate in part to other points 

 than the value of the right which the Canadians have acquired, of free access to 

 the markets of the United States. But it seemed most convenient to present 

 them together. 



Evidence will be laid before the Commission conclusively showing that the 

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

 already elapsed under the operation of the Treaty has amounted to about 400,000 

 dollars annually. But this subject, by the British Case, is disposed of summarily in 

 two or tliree passing sentences, under the head of the convenience of reciprocal 

 free markets, in w.nich it seems to be tacitly assumed, lather than expressly 

 asserted, that the removal of the duty has inured to the benelit of the American 

 fish consumers, and not the Canadian fishermen. Such a claim can be fully refuted 

 in various ways. In point of fact, as will appear by proof, prices were not 

 cheapened in the markets of the United States when the fishery clauses of the 

 Treaty took effect. And there has been no subsequent gain thus produced to the 

 consumer. The reasons are obvious ; the American catch has always fixed the 

 price in the United States' markets. It is four times as larg as the importations 

 from the British provinces, and the business is almost exclusively in American 

 hands. Consequently, after the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, the duties 

 levied on fish and fish oils at the custom houses of the United States were a direct 

 tax on Canadian fishermen, who could not add any part of the duties paid by them 

 to the price of their shipments. 



When a tax or duty is imposed upon only a small portion of the producers of 

 any commodity from which the great body of its producers are exempt, such tax 

 or duty necessarily remain^ a burden upon the producers of the smaller quantity, 

 diminishing their profits, and cannot be added to the price and so distributed among 

 the purchasers and consumers. 



Statesmen of every age and nation have striven to secure to their people by 

 Treaties free access to large foreign markets. The British Government, Canadian 

 statesmen, and the inhabitants of the maritime provinces, all regarded this right, 

 under the Treaty of Washington, as " an inestimable boon." 



The last four years have been a period < f commercial depression all over the 

 world. Nevertheless, the benefits already reaped by the British provinces from the 

 Treaty of Washington have been immense ; and they are destined to increase during 

 the next eight years in a rapid ratio of progression. 



In recapitulation, the United States maintain : — 



First. That the province of this Commission, is limited solely to estimating the value, to the inha- 

 bitants of the United States, of new rights accorded by the Treaty of Washington to the fisheries within 

 the territorial waters of the British North American Provinces on the Atlantic coast ; which comprise 

 only that portion of the ;;ea lying within a marine league of the coast, and also the interior of such 

 bays and inlets as are less than six miles wide between their headlands ; while all larger bodies of 

 water are ports of the free and open ocean, and the territorial line within them is to he measured along 

 the contour of the shore, according to its sinuosities, and within these limits no rights existing under 

 the Convention of 1818 can be made the subject of compensation. 



Second. That within these limits there are no fisheries, except for mackerel, which United States' 

 fishermen do or advantageously can pur.sue ; and that, of the mackerel catch, only a small fractional 

 part is taken in British temtorial waters. 



Tliird. That the various incidental and reciprocal advantages of the Treaty, such as the privileges 

 of traffic, purchasing bait and other supplies, are not the suh.ject of compensation ; because the Treaty 

 of Washington confers no such rights on the inhabitants of the United States, who now enjoy them 

 merely by suflerance, and who can at any time be deprived of them by the enforcement of existing laws 

 or the re-enactment of former oppressive statutes. Moreover, the Treaty does not provide for any 

 possible compensation for such privileges ; anil they are far more important and valuable to the subjects 

 of Her Majesty than to the inhabitants of the United States. 



[280] P • 



