M' 



nwr 



254 



K ! 



!1 ! 



I ii! 





whicli you ask over one million annually, or 16,000,000 dollars for tlic twi-lvo years. 

 But even with tills result, this is an exao;^;erati:(l, a very exajyj^eratecl rslinialo of tin; 

 value of the mackerel lisliery, because it assumes the liii^hest catch ever known as tlu; 

 av(>rasje. Nmv. tliere art! two Cads upon wliich all the testimony agrees. 1. The 

 variable cliaracter of the mackerel fishery. 2. The steady diminution of the supply 

 from the (luif as compared with tlie supply from tlie United States' shores. If these be 

 taken into talculalion. what mar<jin is left for an award, especially when it is rememl)ered 

 that tills ,>w;ird i. for twelve yi'ars, and, in tlie opinion of thrse most experienced, the 

 variation in the mackerel catch passes from its minimum to its maxinuim every seven 

 years — LMsini;-, tlierefore, in tiiis period but one maximum year in return for the 

 payment. I'pon tlie.-^c; two facts we can rest. I do not care to !;o through the testimony 

 tliat you liave had before you. 1 did make one' or two tabular statements, hut I do not 

 think il unnh wiiile to trouble you with ther.i. 'i'lie f^eiieral results you can };et at as 

 well as I did. Vou know the ijeneral ruii of t!ie testimony, Vou know whelher I am 

 sayinir \\liat U fairly and reasonably accurate. Our coiilention is that we have proved 

 these i)oiiits conclusively, and takiiij; tiiem as the basis, there is no mai'iiin whatever 

 left for an award on account of profits aceruiii!;- to the United States from the privilege 

 of inshore fishinsj:. 



lint there is anotlier fact not stated in any of the evidence, but which is clearly 

 proven liy the wlioli' of it, and it is this : Tlii> mackerel market i.s a speculativt^ market ; 

 its profit represents simply a commercial venture, and not the jirotil to the fishermen. 

 In other words, a harrel of mackerel salt(Hl, ))acked and sold, produces a result in which 

 the profit of tlie fisiiermaii makes but a small part. Take the statement of ^Ir. Hall, 

 that he purchases renulariy from the fishermen of Princi; Kdward Island their mackerel 

 at 3 dol. 75 c. per bid. Now, whatever -Mr. Hall sells that barrel of mackerel for, 

 above and beyond '<) dol. 7r> c., rei)rps(!nts cajiital, labour, skill, with wliich the fishery, 

 as a fishery, lias no concern. Bi'tween the fisli in the water and the fish in the market, 

 there is as iiuicli difference as there is between a jiound of cotton in the field and a 

 pouml of c-otton manufactured ; and you would have as nnieii right to estimate the 

 value of a cotton plantation by the value of the clotii and yarn into wliich its production 

 has been manufactured, as \oii have to value the (islieries by the vahie of the manufactured 

 fish which are sold. 



Sii])])ose that Mr. Hall, or u combination of Mr. Hall's, should purchase the whoh; 

 mackerel catfh at 3 dol. To c, and then hold for sucli a rise in (irice as they might force. 

 This speeiilalion might make Mr. Hall a millionaire, or a bankrupt, but would any 

 man in iiis sen.ses consider the result, be il profit or loss, as representing the value of the 

 mackerel fisliery ? 



So little, indeed, does the value of the fish enter into the market value of the 

 mackerel, that you have this statement from Mr. Pew, the largest and longest established 

 fish merchant on this contineat : " No. 1 bay mackerel in the fall were bought by 

 us ;U 22 dol. .lO c, and jiiled away ov(>r winter, and I think the next May or June 

 they sold down as low as -I <lollars, ;"» dollars, and 6 dollars a barrel — the same fish, and 

 I think that shore mackerel, which had sold as high as 24 dollars, were then sold for 

 about the same price." Would the mackerel market of that year have afforded you 

 am fair criterion iiy which to appraise the mackerel fishery of that years' NVIiat interest 

 had the mackerel iisheriiien in ihis speculative variation ot the market jirice ? And you. 

 have the t\irllier and uncontradicted leslimony of more than one competent witness, that 

 when the mackerel catch of 1S70 was, with one exception, the largest ever known, prices 

 were niainlained at a higlier point than in years of very small calcli. 



U]>oti this state ot facts, proven by such competent witnes.ses as Procter, Sylvanus 

 Smith, .Myrick, Hall, and Pew, 1 submit that in estimating tlie value of the fishery you 

 can onl\ take the value of the raw material — that is, tiie fish as taken by the fisherman, 

 ."ind i)\ him sold to the merchant; and even then, the j)rice he receives reiiresents, 

 besides tlie value of the raw material, his time, his labi^ur, his living, and his skill. For 

 througlumi tills arLiument, you must not torget that the Hritisii Government gives us 

 nothing. For the tVeedom from duty, and tlu' right to fisji in l.'nited States' waters, it 

 gives us tlie privilcL'^e only of using our own capital, enterprise, aiul industry, within 

 ee.-faiii Ihiiits. It cannot secure us, and does not olfer to secure us, :'. single fi.sh. It 

 eaiii.ot control the waters or the inhabitants thereof. It cannot guarantee that, in the 

 twelvi! ye.u's of thi' Ti'eaty, the catch in tiie Uulf will be even tolerable, and, indeed, 

 for tlie five years that liave ah-eady run, it has been pure loss. And yel, the liritisli 

 Case demands that we sjiould pay, not only for the little we do catch, but tor all that, 

 under other eircumslanees, we might catch ; and not oidy that, but that we slioidd pay 

 for all the fisii that the British fishermen do not catch. 



