Wf^ 



236 



door, and asserts that only an equal participation in the markets of the Unite 

 States is necessary to i>;ivc them the monopoly of the whole hiisincss. 



Another speaker tells the story of the lleet of Nova Scotia lisliing; vessels built 

 up under the Reciprocity Treaty, which were forced to abandon tiie lishiiif:; business 

 when the Reciprocity Treaty ended and a duty was put upon iish. Somewhere I 

 have seen it stated that vessels were left, unlinished on the stocks when the Reci- 

 procity Treaty terminated, because, being; in |)r()ccss of construction to engage in 

 the fishing business, their owners did not know what else to do with them. 



Are we to l)e told that these men were all mistaken— that the consumer paid 

 the duty all along — that no benefit was realized to the Provincial fishermen from it? 

 Why, even the reply to the British Case concedes that when tiie duty existed, sonic 

 portion of it was paid by the Provincial fishermen. It is to be rcMneinbered, too, 

 gentlemen, that in considering this (jneNtion of what is gained by free markets, you 

 are not merely to take into account what in fact lias been gained i)y tlie change, 

 but the people of tln'se Provinces have accpiired. for a term of twelve years, a vested 

 right to bring all descriptions of fish, tVesh or salt, and fisli-oil, into our markets. 

 Before the expiration of that time, the existing duties might have been increased in 

 amount: <;ulies might have been put upon fresh fisli ; there was nothing to prevent 

 this, and tlierc was every reason to anticipate, that if a harsh and hostile course had 

 been pursued towards American fishermen with reference to the inshore fisheries, 

 there would have been duties more extensive and higher than ever before put upon 

 every description offish or fish |U'oduct that could possibly go to the United States. 

 They gained, therefore, our markets for a fixed term of years, as a matter of vested 

 right. How much their industry has been developed by it their own witnesses 

 tell us. 



Now, gentlemen, if you could consider this as a purely practical business 

 question between man and man, laving aside all other considerations— a question 

 to be decided, pencil in hand, by figures — does anybody in the world doubt svhich 

 is the greatest gainer by this bargain, the people of tiiis Dominion, having the free 

 markets of the United States, or a few (Jloucistcn" fisliermen catching mackerel 

 within three miles of the shore, in the bend of the Island, or for a week or two olT 

 Margaree? Those are the two things. 



But I am not afraid, gentlemen, to discuss this question upon abstract grounds 

 of political economy. I said there was no school of political economy according to 

 which there was any such rule as that the consumer paid the duties. I must trouble 

 you with a few extracts from books on that subject, wearisome as such reading is. 

 Here is what Andrew Hamilton said, one of the disciples ol Adam Smith, as long 

 ago as 1791 : — 



" It' all niiTcliiUils tiiideil with tlic sniiR' nitc ni' iluty, llicv wouM ox]R'iii'iic(' tlu'Siniic^ciicriil ndvnii- 

 tnsjes ami (lis;ulvaiitii,i;i's ; lnit it' tin; riitc of ii tax was inici|Uiil, the iiitMniiility uiinvdidably (ipcnitcd 

 as a disiiunai.'1'iiit'lit '.n tlinsc wlioiii the lii';!n'r lax all'i'cti'd. If cnic imTclLaiit was i-liar''('d 



uiiiliii'i' was 1 liari,'iMl diilv inn- 

 losi' llic iiiarki'l, or siiiMLri.'li', or 



i;oods <ill widih 

 it duty must I'itlicr 



llic dill'crci ill the rati' of llii' lax Would I'd! (ui 



's of iiiiuiK'tilioii Would always driv : liiiii out of lliu 



two sliiUilij^s for the saiiKi s]i('fi('s and cuiautily ot 

 ■^liilliiiL;, it was cvidfiil lliat he who inud tiic lii^lir 

 sell liis i.'ooils at an infi-rior I'lulit. In oilier worils 

 llif iiu'irhant lialili' to tia' liiLrlii'sl duty, ami in ( as 

 iiiarki't." (]i. IS7.) 



Then he goes on to say, on a subsecpient page : — 



" \Vi' may sii|i|iiisi a tax 111 1)0 laid on ill a dc]iarlniciu \vlii>ri', in llic |iroLrivss of woaltli, protits 

 wi'i'c alioiit to lie liiwdivd. , It this tax was jusl (Miual to ilie riMluctioii of the mtr of |iiolit that Wii8 

 abiuil to luku jilace, then coiiimon rivalsliiii would imliK !■ the dealers to pay the lax. and yet sell their 

 u'oods as heretofore." (p. lilV.; 



He says further, on page 242 :— 



" l.(,'t us .suppose a brewer to have l.dljU liancls of stion;; ale upon hand. That a ta.>. of one 

 -liillini,' per barrel is laid u]i(in the ale, and that he may raise the priee just so mui^h to his eustonu'rs, 

 because they will readily pay the tax rather than want tlu^ ale. In tliis ease, the brewiu' would be 

 directly relieved from the tax. Hut if, on the other hand, he found, after advaneinj; the tax, he could 

 not raise the jiriee of his ale above what il was formerly, and yet was under a necessitv of disposing 

 of it, thou;,di this may drive him from the market, or unite brewers to stint the supply, so as to hrinj,' 



ufi the jirice on some futur ■easion, yet in the meantime the trader W(Mild sutler; nor would he 



immediately derive, liy any of his ordiimry transai'tious, an ellectiial relief from the loss he had thus 

 sustaineil liy payiiiL; the tax. AVhen, therefore, a trader advances a tax iijion a L;reat quantity of ,l;oo(1s, 

 ho can reciive no etreclnal relief from such a tax, but in a rise of the priic ot the article adeipiate to llus 

 tax which ho has advanced." • » » » 



" It follows that all speculations whose oliject is to show on what fixed fund or idass taxes niii.st 

 fall, are vain and unsatisfuttory, and will be t,'enurully disproVL-d (as lliey almost always hiiv(' boon) by 

 exporionce." (p. 257.) 





