•aem 



'" '^ '^"•"'^ " ' '' ■ ■' ^■'" ni"i tfi i anw j h irr r " *'-" '""'*--^--'*'*" i i>M^* VV i ' ■ at i 



^1 



lose 



10 



290 



lodpfc of political ccniiomy, and under even my cross-cxaminntion, not one of (lios 

 viinessc's could ('xi)laiu what lie mean! by tlie j)iirase, '• Tiio consuiner pays tli 

 duly;" nor could ho answer o.e f]ui'siiou that went to lest llie trutli of tlio a;axini, 

 " Supjiose the duty had been 5 dollars a barrel, would it liave bien true thai the 

 consumer paid the duty, md tliat it would not disturb you at all'r" Well, they 

 did not know but that, in that case, it nii<;lit bo a little dilllrent. " But the 

 principle would be the same?" No, they did not Know how that would iie. "V.'ill 

 the demand continue at that price r" Tliat they did not know, but tli. v assumed 

 it would. The truth was, as the Court must have seen, tliat t; cy were simple, iionest 

 men, who had a certain phrase which they had learned by heart, w hicli they used without 

 any evil intent, wliicli they supposed to be true, and wliicii, to their minds, cleiired the 

 matter all up. Tliey seemed to ihiiik there was a cerlain law — ihey did not know what— 

 a law of nations, a law of political ecidiomy, l)y wiiich it eauu' to {lass tlial, w; '.'iiever 

 they bronglit a barrel of mackerel to Boston to sell, the purchaser went kindly to the 

 Cnstom-house and paid the duties, and then, havin<>; paid the duties, was prepari'd to 

 deal with the owners of t!ie fisji on the same terms as if he had not dcme so, l)uy the (ish, 

 and pay them just what he would pay an American; and by some law, some inexorable 

 law, the duties were paid by this man; and ihe duties liaviui:; been paid by liiii , tlic 

 owners might go into the market to t,ell as low as anylxidy else. I think tln' (jui-^tion 

 was not put, but it mi^ht have been put to lliem : "Suppose the duty, instead of being 

 laid by the United States, had been laid by tlie Provinces. Suppose the Dominion, for 

 some reason or other, had laid a tax of 2 dollars a liarrel on the exportation of fish to 

 the United States r" where would this political economist from Gas[)c and from Shediac 

 have been tlien r Wliy, certainly lie would liavc hud to pay liis 2 dollars a barrel 

 before his fisli left the P'rovinces, and he would have landed in Boston witli his barrel <)f 

 mackerel, so far as the duties went. 2 dollars beliind tlie American llsherman. 



I suppose it to l.ie the case, that tlie liritish subject can catch his fish and get them 

 to Bostini clieaper than the Anuricari can. We have better vessels, we pay higlier 

 wages, we must liave larger, stronger vessels, to come here and go back, Ir. and tro; 

 we cannot fish in boats; they can catch cheaper ; and therefore, it is true that in fiir, 

 open competition, they have an advantage. 1 give tlieai that credit on lliis caleulati'm, 

 and I hope your Honours will remember it wluai you come to considir what they have 

 gained by the right to introduce their llsh on tree and i(iual terms with us. Tliey are 

 persons who can catch cheaper and bring cheaper tlian our own people. However, 

 without reasoning the matter out finely, we must come to this result: that if the 

 Americans can supply the market at the rate of 12 dollers a barrel, and make a 

 reasonable profit, and the Canadian can furnish his fish at the rate of 11 dollars and 

 make a reasonable profit, and has 2 <lollars duty to pay, he is 1 dollar behind, and so on. 

 This is an illustration. It must ordinarily be so. And the only time when it can be 

 otherwise, is when the American supply fails, and fish become very scarce. I am sure 

 that wlien J began the investigation of this case, I should have thought that it was in 

 the main true, tiiat, as fisli be'came scarce on the American coast, and from the American 

 iisiiermen in the bay everywhere, the British fishermen coming in there could, periiaiis, 

 afibrd to pay the duty and still sell. But such is not the result. The figures have 

 shown it. That has been proved. The dinicidty is, that mackerel is not a necessity. 

 It is not Britisli mackerel against American mackerel, but it i; British saltid mackerel 

 against every eatable thing in iiatnre that a man will take ! >. rathi'r than jiay very 

 higii prices. And it is true that fresh fish are more valiial)le aiui more desirable ti an 

 salt lish ; that fresh lisli are increasing in number ; that they are brought into market 

 in ijuaiuities, 10, 21), IdO per cent, larger than they ever were before, and that the 

 value of llie salted mackerel is steadily and uniformly decreasing. 



They brouglil men here also, who stated, under the same infinence, that they would 

 rather see the duties rest;)red, and have the tliree-mile fishery exclusively to themselves, 

 than to have what they now have. But 1 observed that the (piestiou was always i)Ut 

 to them in one Ibrm : "Would you rather have the 2 dullar duty restored ?" 'I'he 

 question was never asked them : " Would you rather go back to the stale of things when 

 the United Slates could put v\hat duty upon }(;ur lish they might see fit, and preserve 

 your mono[ioiy of tin; three miles ? '' No man w(nild have answered that (pastion in the 

 aMinnative. i ventnre to s;iy, may it please this learned tribunal, that no man of decent 

 inliihgence and iair honesty could have answered any such ipiesliun alliriiialively. And 

 those who said they would rather go back to the same slate of things tsillied niuK r a 

 great deal ot bias; they teslilieil under a very strong interest on u subject right under their 

 eyes, which they felt daily, and which tliev may have been made to feel by the urgency of 

 others. The; did not bufi'ur at ail. It was not tliey who suil'ered from the attempt to 



