.•155 



(liiality l)ian(l(vl in (lie IJosloii and Oloiiccster niarkotH far nliovc the American hIioi'o 



Miat'Ui'ii'l. 



t liavj now (lone willi (liin portion of my Hulijecl, and I have said all I imvo to sny 

 I'cnci' t) till' (viiU'ncc 1ii(in;;lit in support and in nmtiadiction oi' tlir Hritisli 



I I HiW desire to deal hiictly witli what lias hccn picadi.'d as an oll'sct to our 



with 1 

 Case; aiK 

 (•liiitn. 



When we come (o deal with tlu; juivilcyes iLirantrd hy the Ameilcaiis to tin; sulijectu 

 ol Her Majesty in British North Amuriea, W( find them to he ol' two kinds: 



1st. I!iu;ht to lisli on the south-eastern coast of the United States to the U!)tli purnllo 

 ol' noilh latitude, 



2nd. The admission, free of duly, of fi-h and lisli-oii, the produce of British Nortli 

 •Anifriciin lislicries into the United States' market. 



A Mo the privilejii; of lishiiu; in American watcr.s, this CoUiniission will liave very 

 little ilillicuity in dLsposini; of it. It the first instance, it has heen proved that the most 

 of the lish to ho I'ouiul in these waters are cau;;l:( ''.O and !tl) miles oli'shore, almost 

 I'Xehisiveiy on (icori^es Hank, and thr JJritisli fisinrmen would not derive their right of 

 lishiu^' there from Treaties, hut from intiauational law. in the second ])lacc, no llritish 

 suhjeet has ever resorted to Anu-rican waters, nnd the province of tlie Counuii-sioners 

 hcini;' limited to twelve years, to he computed from the 1st July, 1S7.'$, there is no possi- 

 liility to suppose that they will over resort to these waters, iil least duriu,;.; tiie Tnaty. 

 'I'here remains, llu^u, hut one item to he cotrsidered, as constituting; a possihle oHisett, that 

 is, the admission, free of duty, of Canadian lish and lish oil. 'I'his I'aises several questions 

 of ])oiitical economy, which will he Iietter dealt with hy my collcaij;uu who is to follow me, 

 and I will limit myself to say that if the ()nestion now inider consideration were pen<liu;i; 

 hetweeu the lishermeu of the two countries individiiaily, this would suggest vicw.s wliioli 

 cannot he entertained as hetwcen the two (tovernmeiits. 



'I'hc controverted doetiiucs hcitween freetraders and protectionists as to who pays the 

 duty under ii jirotcctive tarilli \vhether it is the producer or consumer, seems to bo solved 

 hy tin-; universal feature, that, in no country in the world has the consumer ever started 

 and sujipurtcil an ai;iratiou li)r a protective tariff; on the contrary, we lind everywhere 

 (lireetiui; and nursinjr tlie movements of puhlic o])inion on this matter, none but the 

 producers and manufacturers. This cannot he ex])laiucd otherwise than that the 

 manufacturer receives in addition to a remunerative value for his goods the amount of 

 duty as a bonus, whieli constitutes an artilleial value levied on the consumer. It is in 

 most instances tlu> consumer that pays the whole amount of the duty. In a few cases 

 tiicre may he a |)ro])Oition home by tiie producer, and tiiere is no process of reasoninj^f or 

 calculation to determine that proportion. When duties are imposed on articles of food 

 which cannot be classed amonj; luxuries, there seems to be no possibility of a doubt that 

 the whole duty is paid hy tlie consumer. Salt cod or mackerel will never be called 

 luxuries of food. jV duty imposed upon such articles has had the effect of raislnu; their 

 cost tar ai)ove the amount of dutv, and had tlierehy the effect of increasing; the profit of 

 the producer, at the expense of the cor.sunur. For instance, a barrel of mackerel which 

 would have brouirht 10 dollai's when admitted free, will bring 14 dollars under a tariflF 

 of ii dollars p(!r hnrrel ; nnd statistics will be laid before the Commissioners to prove that 

 fact, which I will not undirtake to explain. This being so, however, would it be ecjuitable 

 to subject the Canadian (Jovernment to the ]iaymcnt of an indemnity to the United States 

 for providing American citizens with a cheap and wholesome m-ticle of food, when it is 

 evident that the Canadian tisherinen have, as a rule, heen benefited by the existence of 

 an .American duty on the product of their fisheries. The Government of the Dominion 

 any more than its iidiabitants have not suffered in an appreciable manner from the 

 imposition of duties on lish. and the rcuu'ssion of that duty has been profitable only to 

 the consumers of the United States or to the merchant who re-exports Canadian fish to 

 foreign countries. We may th.erefore ( onclude that in a fiscal or pecuniary point of vi(!W, 

 the remission of duty almost exclusively profits the citizens of the United States. The 

 admission of the United Stales' fislteriueu to British waters at this period is pregnant with 

 advantages ntd^nown under the Keciprocity Treaty. Of late numerous new lines of 

 railway have been built in all the British provinces bordering, or in the immediate 

 ncighiiourhood of .the United States, especially in the provinces of Quebec, New 

 Brunswick, Prince Kdward's Island, and Nova Scotia. A new industry, consisting in the 

 carrying of fresh fish all over the continent as far as California, has sprung up of late. 

 With tite confessed exhaustion of most of the American sca-fisherieSj this industry must 

 lind the largest part of its supji'ies in British waters. 



To these vaj'ied advatitages inust he added the political boon conferred upon the 

 United States, of allowing thcn\ to raise and educate, in the only possible school, that 



