135 



The foregoing: statements arc amply sustained by Reports which have been 

 published by the United States* Government and by other American statesmen and 

 writers on tliis subject, and which can be laid before the Commission. 



VIII. 



The United States contend, at pag;e 31* of the Answer, that the remission of 

 fhities to Canadian (Isiicrmen durinp^ the four years whicli have ab'cady chipsed 

 under the operation of the Treaty has amounted to about 400.000 dollars anntjully ; 

 and in connection with this statement the foilowinj^ princijjle is laid down : — 



" When 11 tiix III' iliity i^ iiii]>ns('(l u|inii only n siiiiiU )(Ditiiiii i>f tlin )iroilucnrs of any cdminoilily, 

 I'mni wliicli the iirciil Imiiy nf its |imm1\ic'('Is mi' cxcMijit, sncli tiix or duty neccssiirily ri'niniiis a liiiiilcn 

 u)ion tin- ]iro(liii'('rs cil' tin' -iiiiiilliT c[ii;intilv, iliniinisliiiii; tlieir piulits, iiml nanunt li« inlili'il to llu' jiiii'i', 

 iind so ilistrilmtc'il anions' lln' ])invliascis and tonsiniiurs." 



Without controvcrtinfi; the correctness of this principle in its application to 

 certain conditions of international commerce, it cannot be admitted to i)0 universally 

 correct, but the ;>ccurac\ of the stutcmtiit tii.it tiio remission of duties has 

 amounted to 400,000 dollars annually, or anythinjj; like that amount, is challenged. 

 In the United States the demand tor mackerel is large, but not unlimited. That 

 demand cannot ordinarily l)e supplied by iish taken in United States' waters, and it 

 will be proved that the averap;e prices obtained by tiie Canadian exporter into the 

 United States, durin;;- those years in wiiich foreign fishermen were excluded from 

 Hritish Am"rican waters, in face of the duty oi '2 dollars per barrel, have iieen tjuite 

 equal to the prices reali/.ed since tiicse waters have been thrown open to .American 

 fishermen, and the duties removed. 



Upon a carefid examination of ail ihe facts to be sid>mitted, the Commissioners 

 will, it is contidently believed, l)e satisfied that the remission of duties upon mackerel, 

 coupled with tiie throwing open of Cai\a(lian fishing grounds to the American lisher- 

 men, has not resulteil in pecuniary prolit to the IJritish fisherman, but, on tlie contrary, 

 to the American dealer or consumer. .\t the same time it is frankly admitted that 

 during those periods when .\meriean fisliermen enjoyed, as stated at pai:,e iif of the 

 Answer, the privilege of fishing in Canadian waters, and Canadian-caugiit fisii were 

 subject to duty, that duty may have been paid to a certain extent by the exporter, 

 increasing or lessening in proportion as the catch of United States' vessels in Cana- 

 iliaa waters was small or great. 



In conclusion, it is submitted that the principle insisted on by the United States 

 on page 31* of the Answer, in regard to tlif burden of dutij falling upon the producer, 

 alrejidy cpioted, is conclusive in showing the value at which the United States 

 estimate the conjpensation to be paid for the concessions granted to them by the 

 Treaty of Washington. 



In this relation. Her Majesty's Government calls jjarticular attention to the 

 offer made by the United States' Commissioners during the negotiation preceding 

 that Treaty, as appears from the Protocols of the Conference. That otfer is expressed 

 in the following words: — 



" Tliat iniistnni'li as ('o!i;;n'ss had recently more than oneo expressed itself in tavonr of the 

 tlbolition of the duties mi i oal aiel .salt, they would propose that eoal, salt, and tisli he reciproeally 

 adiiiitted free, and lliiit, inasmneii as t'oiitrress iiad removed the duly from a liorlioii of the liimher 

 lieii'tofove silhjeet lo duty, and as the ten leney of h'j^'islation in the I'liited .Slates was toward the 

 reduelioii of taxation and of duties in iMo)Mirlioii to the rediielion of the pnlilie deht and expenses, 

 tliev would furlliur ]no]iu.se tiiat liimlier lie admiUed frev of dutv fioni and after liie 1st .lulv, 

 1H7-L" 



The British Commissioners declined the offer, on the ground of its inadequacy, 

 unless supplemented by a money payment; and it was sid)sequently withdrawn. 



Tliis od'er of the American Commissioners embraced the free admission into the 

 United States of f.sh and fish oil, coal, and salt, to which lumber was to be added 

 after the 1st July, 1874. 



The Treaty, as sid)seqnently agreed upon, confined the reciprocal remission of 

 duty to fisii and tish oil. 



The difference, then, between the of^'er of the American Commissioners aiul the 

 actual Tre.ity concessions, lies in the free admission of fish and fish oil, w hilc coal, 

 salt, and lumber are still subject to duty. Her .Majesty's Government arc prepared 

 to prove that upwards of 17,00l),()0() dollars would have been the aggrrgeate remis- 



* Page 99 of titia volame. t •'«;« 'JO. » 



[liSOJ U 2 



® 



