237 



"A (lealov wlin cnii ovnde such a tnx ■will soon posspas a mounply, if tlic tax is paid liy his com- 

 potitors. I( will lie to liiiii a kiml (if lioimty for cairyiiij,' mi his l]usiiiL'ss, and this must drive his 

 competitors citliorto evade the tax also, or to roliniiuish the i!m]iloyuiont." [p. 288.] 



I am almost disposed to hand to the reporters the extracts, rather than trouble 

 yon to read them ; and yet I feel it my duty to press this subject, because, if I am 

 right in it, it is decisive. 



Sir Alexnnder Golt.—l think you had better read them. 



Mr. Fostrr. — Mill says, and he is the apostle of free trade, in volume II of his 

 "Political Kconomy," page 11.3: — 



" Tf the north linuk of the Thiiiurs jiossessed nn ndvaiitaL;e over the south hank in the production 

 of shoes, no shoes would lie produceil on the south side, the shoemakers would remove themselves and 

 their caiiital* to the north bank, or would have estalilished them.selves then! originally, for, being 

 competitors in the same niiirket with those on tin; noith side, they coidd not compent^ate them.selves 

 for their disailviinta;,'e at the exjiense of the consmner ; the amount of it would fal' entirely on their 

 jirotits, and they would not long content themselves with a smaller profit, when liy simply crossing a 

 river they could increase it." 



Apply that statement to the evidence in this case, and remember how, when 

 the Reciprocity Treaty ended, the fishermen of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward 

 Island took reltige on board United States' vessels, for the purpose, as one of the 

 official documents that I read from yesterday says, of evading the duty. It might 

 be a curious question, if it were important enough to dwell upon it, whether, in 

 assessing against the United States the value of the privilege of fishing inshore, 

 you were or were not to take into account the fact, that half of the people wiio fish 

 on shares in United States' vessels are subjects of Her Majesty, and having disposed 

 of their half of the fish, having |)aid half of the fish for the privilege of using tiic 

 vessel and its ecpiipment, they sell the other half of tiie fish, and bring the proceeds 

 home; and whether it is a just claim against the United States, if British suijjects 

 go in United States' vessels, to require the United States to pay money because they 

 do so. 



Mill says in another passage, in volume If, page 397 : — 



" VVe nuiy supjio.se two islands, which, being alike in extent, in natural fertility and in<lustrial 

 advancement, have u]i to a certain time been e{[Ual in jiojiulation and capital, and have had ecjual 

 rentals, and tlie same juice nf corn. Let us imagine a tithe imposed in one of these islands, but not in 

 the other. There will be imuiediatily a difference in the price of corn, and therefore probalily in 

 ]irolits." 



1 am almost through with this tediousness, but there is a good Scotch book on 

 political economy by John McDonald, of Kdinburgh, published in 1H71 — and we 

 nave always had sound political economy from Scotland — I'rom which I must read 

 a few lines: — 



" In the tliiril ]ilace." Mcl)(inald .«ays, on page :?.'!, " it may ba possible to impose Customs duties 

 which will |iciniaiic.uly lie jiaid, eillici' wholly or ])arlly, not by the coii.snmcrs but by the im]iorters or 

 prodiii'ers. Assume that we draw lair stock of sugar from a country engaged in the growth of sugar, 

 and capalile of .selling it with jirolit to us S(aue shillings cheajier than any other country can, the 

 former will of cdurse sell the s\igars to us at a jirice slightly below what would attract other coni- 

 ]ietitors. Imiiose a iluty of .seme shillings a cwt., willanit altogetherdestroyingthe peculiar a<lvantages 

 of llie trade, while we will ]iay no ilearer for our sugar, the inqiorters will pay the tax at tlu! exjicnse 

 of their ])riitils. If we add to tliesi! consi(ierations the ditliculty of ascertaining the actual incidence 

 of many such taxes, distrust ol' sharp contrasts between diiecl and indirect taxes will be ins]iired." 



"Customs (bilies sonietimes fall on the im]iorter, not on the consumer. Aiul if this were a 

 common occurrence, it might seriously impair the doctrine that protective duties are the taxing of the 

 home consumer for the sake of the home ]irodui'er I'ut this incidence is confine<l to the following rare 

 circumstances: If the sole market ojien to the importer of the s;taple goods of laie country is the 

 country ini]iosin'_' the duties: secondly, if th(> other market o]ien to him was .so distant, or otherwise 

 disadvantageous, that it would be |ircferable to ]iay the tax ; or, thirdly, if the only available )iliii .■ for 

 ]inic\n'ing commodities of vital moment to the im|iorting e(Uintry, was the country imjiosing the duty. 

 Wlieri'ver the ]irolits an; such as to admit of adiminution without falling below the usual rate, it nuiy 

 be possible for a. country to tax the foreigner." (p. 31)^.) 



I was interested some years ago in an article that I found translated from *he 

 "Revue do Deu.v Mondes '' of the l,")th October, 1809, on " Protection and Free 

 Trade," by a gentleman of the name of Louis Alby. I do not know who he is, but 

 on pages 40 and 41 of the pamphlet he not only states the doctrine, but he 

 illustrates it: — 



[2801 2 K 



