289 



the rifjlit to oxcliulc tlic fish utterly, ur to make their utter exclusion or their admission 

 ilciK'ndcut uimii our seiiHi- of'inir (i\v!! iiiteresis I'roiii day to day. Wliy, until reiciilly, 

 tlu! Corn Laws of Kngland were based uiioii iIiIh princiiile, tiiat they slioiild exeludu all 

 for('if,ni corn (as it is called in old mother English), all Ibrei^n "wheat," ho loiij-; as 

 Knj;land eoidd supply llus market, and whenever Kns^land tailed to t'ldly supply the 

 market, then the lbrei};n corn was gratlually let in accordin}? as the market price rose. 

 We might do that; wc might do what wc pleased; but we have tied our liauds and 

 aj^reed I > do uotliinK. 



The evidenc(! presented by my learned friend .fiidj^e Foster, and by my learned 

 friend Mr. Tre.scot, to show that 2 dollars a barrel was prohibitory, on the testimony 

 of these y;eiulemen from Prince Edward Island, and from llie leadinj; dealers in Province- 

 town and in liloncesier, was certaii\ly abundantly suilici<'nt. 1 lliink tliose gentlemen 

 from Prince Eihvard Island said tiiat if those duties were reimposed tlicy should retire 

 from the business. Mr. Janu's II. Myrick (p. I.'12) in answer to ilie quistion " 1 under- 

 stand you to say that if the duty on mackerel was reimposed in the United Slates your 

 firm would, except I'or a small portion of the season, give up the mackerel busines.s and 

 turn to sonietiiing else?" said, "That is my opinion, decidedly." 



Mr. Isaac ('. Hall (p. '185) says:— 



" Q. Now, you take No. 3 mackerpl, what would bo tho elfeot of a duty of 2 dollars a Imirol in 

 the United .States' markets ? — A. Wo eould nut catch thuni luid ship them thuro unless there \\ as a 

 great scarcity there, as liapjienH tiiis seasnii. 



" Q. I'ractically wluii. would iKiconie of your business of catching mackerel if the duty of 2 dollms 

 a barrel were reimpo.sed ? — A. Well, when a uiau runs his head against a iiusl ho must gel around tho 

 best wiiy he can. 



" t^). You aro satislied you could not add the duty to tho price of tho ruackcrel iu the L' ailed 

 States' market '. — A. Ko, it can't bo done," 



so 



Then Mr. Pew, of Gloucester, testifies to the same cfiect; but I suppose tlu-rc' can 

 be no doubt, under tliis weight of testimony, that the money charge against (Jreat Britain 

 is for tlie privilege of exemption from prohibitory duties, Whatever may be prohibitory, 

 whether it be 2 dollars or more. 



Now, how was it, with this plain fact in view, lliat the learned counsel for tlie 

 Crown wore able to produce so many witnesses, and to con.snme so nuieh time, in 

 showing that they did not, after all, lose muclt by 2 dollars a barrel duty ? Wiiy, my 

 learned friends who have preceded me liave exposed that very liapjiily. 1 fear if I were 

 to say anytliing I sliould oidy detract from the Ibrce of their argnment; but I tliink it 

 is fair to say that it will rest on our minds, after we have ailjoio'iied and separated, as a 

 most extraordinary proceeding, that so many men W(;re found in various i)arts of the 

 island, and from soiui; ])arts of tlie mainland, who came up here and said that the fact 

 that they i)aid a duty of 2 dollars on a barrel of mackerel before tliey sold it in the 

 Stales, which is their only market, did not make any diU'erence to tluMU, Tliey said it 

 did not make anij diirerence. Tliey did not say it made little dilference, but tiiey said 

 it did not nuike ainj. Now, if they had said: "We can catch the fish so miicli clieaper 

 beeaus(? this is our liome ; wc can c.itel lliein so mucli cheaper because we catch them in 

 cheap vessel.^, and with cheap materials, close by where we live, tiiat we can allbrd to 

 unil(!rsell, to some extent, the American lishermen; and tlierefore the 2 dollars a barrel is 

 not all to be connted to our debit," that would be intelligible. But these lishermen sud- 

 denly, by the magic wand of my learned friend the Premier of the island, and my kai'iied 

 friend who represents (1 do not know in how high a position) tin; Province of New Bruns- 

 wick, were all turned into political economists. "Well, my friend," says the learned 

 counsel for Prince Edward Island, with that enticing smile which would have drawn an 

 affirmative answer from the flintiest heart — "My dear friend ! about this 2 dollars a barrel 

 duty — docs not that aflect your profit in selling in Boston?" "No," says tho ready 

 witness. "And why not?" " Why, because the consumer pai/s the duty." Then the next 

 witness, under perhaps the sterner, but still ecpially elTective discijilinc of the counsel 

 from New Brunswick, has the rpiestion put to him, and he says "No;" and when he is 

 asked how this phenomenon is to be accounted for, he says too that " the consumer jnii/s 

 the dutif ; " until, at last, it became alnu.st tedious to hear man after man, having Icarnl. 

 by heart this crtn/rt//na " the consumer pa)s tlie duty," perh'ctly satisfied in their own 

 m'inds that they had sjioken the exact truth, say that it did not make any dilference. 

 What school of politicians, what course of public lectures, what course of political 

 speaking, what course of newspaper writing, may have led to that general belii'f, or at 

 least expectation, of those fishermen who came here as political economists, of course it 

 is not for me to say. But I have observed one thing, that even with my limited know- 



