23.1 



shows the importnlion offish, the results of TaMe No. 10, which shows the fish-oil. 

 The statistics are Mr. IliU's. In Table No. ."i you will riml the (|uantitios of 

 mackerel and herring. The dutiahle value of mackerel was 2 dollars a barrel, 

 of herring; 1 dollar a barrel, and of smoked herring .'> c. a box. 



VVc are mot here with the statement that the consumer pays the duties; and 

 our friends on the other side seem to think that there is a law of political economy 

 as inexorable as the law of f^ravilai ion, according; to which, whtrn a man has pro- 

 duced a particular article which he otters for sale, and a tax is imposed on that 

 article, he is sure to >;et enough more tuit of the man t«i whom he sells the article to 

 reimburse the tax. That is the theory ; and wc have heard it fr<»ni their witnesses 

 — till- rnnsiiiner piii/s ihr diitlcK -as if they had been trained in it as an adage of 

 political ec«>nomy. Hut, gentlemen, I shoidd not be afraid to discuss that (picttiion 

 as ap|>licable to mackerel and herring, and I he curc«l lish that come from the 

 Dominion of Canada into the United States, before any scliool of political economists 

 that ever existed in tiie world. I do not care with what principles you start, prin- 

 ci|)le8 of free trade, or principles of proteelion, it seems to me that it can be proved 

 to demonstration that this is a case wiierc the duties fall upon those who catch the 

 fish in the Dominion, an*l not upon the peo|)!e of the United States, who Ijuy and eat 

 them. The very 'I'reaty uiuler which you are acting re<piires you to have regard 

 to the value of the free market, ordains that in making up your award you shall 

 take it into account. And are you, upon any theories of political economy, to 

 disregard what tin- Treaty says you shall iiave regard to? Why, nobody ever 

 heiird the proposition adv. meed, until we came here to try this cuse,ihat free access 

 to the nmrkeis of the United States was anything but a most enurnu)us advantage 

 to the peojile of these l*ro\ inccs. 



liCt us look at the hisloiy of the negotiations between the two (iovcrnments on 

 the subject. As early as In jf) (some years before the negotiations with ri'lcrence to 

 the Rt.'ciprocity Treaty), when the Karl of Aberdeen announced to Mr. Kvcrett, as a 

 matter of great liberality, that onr hshermen were n(» longer to be driven out of the 

 liay of Kiindy, he went on to say, that in communicating the liberal intentions of 

 Her Majesty's (Jovernnu nt, he desired to call .Mr, Kverelt'.s attention to the fact, 

 that the produce of the labour of the Dritish Colonial nshermen was at the present 

 moment excluded by prohibitory duties, on th.e part «)f the United 'States, from the 

 markets ol that country; and he submitted, that the moment w'iumi the Hritish 

 Cioverninent made a liberal concession (o the United States, might well be deemcl 

 favourable foi- a kindred eoneession on the part of the United States to tiie liritish 

 trade, by a redoctinn of the duties which opeiatcd so prejudieially to the interests 

 of Itrilisii Colonial li»liei°ini'n. Tliat was the view of the Home (iovernnunl. long 

 before ;iiiy UeeiproLMty 'I'realy had been agit.ited — tiiirly-lwo years ago. The litter 

 of lionl .\berdeen bears dale .March 10, 1n4'), 



In ls,*i((, a eonumiiiicatiun took place between Mr. Kverett. then Secretary of 

 .State, through the Mriiish Ahnister at Washington, in wiiich lurd KIgin made the 

 oiler to which I referred in niy Case, which I then understoo I to be an unecpiivocal 

 oiler to exchange free lisli lor iVi'c lisiiing. without ngard to otiier liade relations. 

 I Ibiind tli.'it, so far as that particular letter went, I was in error, and corrected the 

 error. S(iiise<piently. I h)un(l that .Mr. Kverett himself, two y(;ars later, iiad the 

 same inipressi«)n, for in a letter that he wrote, as Secretary of Slate to the President, 

 in IH.VI, before the Iteeiprocity Treaty, he says: — 



" II liiis Ih'cii |ii'rc'i'j\i'i| willi t.ilwriii'iiiiii thai tlic (invcniiiiciil <<( lli'i' Hrihiliiiir Majesty i.s |iiv|iai')'il 

 111 fiitiT iiilci an aniiiii,'i'iM(iil I'ni- llic ailiiiw-^inii nf ilic lisliin;,' vi^iscls ol' tlid I'liitfil Stales in a lull 

 pai'tifipaliiiii in tln' inililjc llslniii's mi llio iiiasls^iiiil slmri's nC tiic l'rii\ iiii'cs with thi' cnci'IiIIihi. 

 |M'i'ha|>s, at |ii'i's<'iit, cit' Ni'Wtniiiiillaiiih, ami in tin' ri,L.'ht nl'ihyin;, and . .:rin^' lish <in sliiiic, on ((inililinn 

 III' llii' aillnissiun, ilutv liii', intii the inarkels of tin- I'liilc.l .Stati'S, nl' tin' |iii"inils i>\' tlh' lulnnjal 

 lishi'iics ; similar |>ri\i!i'},'cs, Dii tia' like cnnililicn, In In- r('i'i|ii(i(ally imiJkvimI liy iiritish snhji'ots oil 

 till' iiiasls anti shiin's ul' the I'liiteil Stales. Smh un aininyenieiit the .Seerelaiy has reasmi in 

 iK'lieve wniijij lie aiieiitiihle in the lishilij; interests ul' the I'niteil Stalej." y.'i- CiPii^'ic.s.s, \i Ses.siiiii, 

 Si'Mllte Kx. Due. :!t.) 



The latter |)art of that letter contains a reference to general reciprocitv, and 

 shows the anxiety of the Hritish authorities to have more extensive reciprocal 

 arrangements made. 



Mr. KvUogij. — What is the date of l.,ord KIgin's letter ? 



Mr. hosier. — The letter of L(»r<l KIgin is dated .lune 24, lH.">j. The letter which 

 I have just read from Mr. Kverett to the President was in 18.')3. So that it seems that 

 Mr. Everett then understood, as I did, that the offer was a specific one, and that 



