'( 



! 



430 



to that communication you will find tliat what he did put forward was this : that if the 

 Americans would come in without cither paying a license fee or giving any other compen- 

 sation at ail for our fisheries, and if they fished in our territorial waters where the fish 

 were to be taken, side by side with our own fishermen, and then carried their catch into 

 the American market free of duty, while our fishermen, fishinp; on the same terms, and 

 with no better appliances, were met there with a duty of 2 dollars a barrel on mackerel 

 and 1 dollar on liening, it would necessarily be ruinous. And that jiroposition, no 

 doubt, has a vast deal of truth in it. It is impossible, I assume, for two persons to fish 

 upon e(|ua' terms in the same waters, and then, wiicn tliey go into the Anu-vican market, 

 for one to Dc met by a duty wlnlc the otlicr lias no such duty to pay, without it operating 

 to the disadvantage of the former. But tliat it is a totally (liffcrent case from the one we 

 have to deal with. 



I shall show you, as I iiave said, that during the period of the Reciprocity 

 Treaty the prices wen? low, and that the iiKiinciit tliat Treaty was repealed or abrogated 

 by notice from the American (iovfvnrucnt, the prices rose. Tiiat the nioiiieut that state of 

 affairs was terminated by tlie M'asliinutoii Treiity the prices fell again; and wo say that is 

 conclusive proof tiiat tlie Americans have to pay the duty. Tiicrc has been a consensus of 

 testimony. American and liritish, upon tiiar (loint. 



Let us see what tlie American witnesses say, for I aflfirm that on both sides the 

 witnesses aiiree in tiie statement that tiic ronsinners pay the duty. It is true that 

 American witnesses, who arc tliemselvcs iishernien, or those who speak the opinion of 

 fishermen, say that, they would ])rc!er the old state of thmgs. "Why ? Because, under 

 that state ot things, they could steal into our waters and carry off our fish for nothing, 

 and then their I'rilisii competitor was met in the market with a duty of 2 dollars a barrel, 

 while they were free. But 1 apprehend the consumer did not want that state of affairs. 

 These witnesses admitted that it made the fish dearer, whenever tiic question was put to 

 them. I have cut out the evidence referring to this point, and I will read it: — 



AMERICAN W1TNESSE.S ON DUTIES. 

 Page 75 — F. Freeman : — 



" C^'. It' you wore allowed to make your choice wliicli would you taki', — exclusion from the British 

 inshore lisluries ;iiid tlio imposition of a duty on colonial caiiL;lit lish, or the privilege of fishing inshore 

 m IJritish waters and no duty ? — A. 1 would rather have the duty. 



■' CJ. You say you would rather have the duly paid ; you thiidv you would make more money ; you 

 are sfn-akiiig as a lishevinau '. — A- Yes. 



" t,'. You would have a better market for your tish I Under the ^iresent sy.'^teru the consumer gets 

 his tish cheaper, due.s he not ? Yoii, would niakt the consumer pay iliat 2 dollars duty? You would sell 

 your jUh '1 dollars hiyhcr I — A. Y'es. 



Mr. Trescot, — That is political economy. 



Air. Thomson. — Why dul you ask him's' 



Mr. Trescot. — I asked him simply which system ho would prefer. 



Mr. Thomson. — 1 am asking him why ? 



" Q. And you say the reason is that you would i,'et so much money in your pocket at the expense 

 of the people that eat lish. Is not that the whole story .' — A. Certainly. 



Page 93— N. Freeman : — 



" (^>. AVere you among those who opposed or favoured the continuance of the Eeciprocity Treaty ? 

 — A. I was among those that opposed it. 



" (.). There vcre sonic that ojijioscd it or ralhcr n'i|uiicd the duty to be maintained upon codfish ? 

 — A. I was one wlio iirdcncd to liavc the duly n'taiued upon codlish. 



" t,>. I'lion codtish ; — A. Yes. 



" (,>. Your jieo]ilc wished in fact tf> keep the diuy on codfish '. — A. Yes. 



'■(). AVhy ? I'.c kiTid ciinugii to state why ?— A. liccause we felt it would lie better for us as a 

 cod-fishing town to e.\clmie as lar as iMjssible the fish from the Provinces. Jl would give us a better 

 chance, usive supposed, to dispose nf ovr Jish at hli/lier rati.s, 



" (). And tlie ('fleet of the Treaty you ecui.sideied would be; to reduce the price ' — A. We supposed 

 that the effect of the Treaty would be to bring in codflsli from these I'roviuces into our port, and of 

 course necessarily it was presumed that it would reduce the ]irice of fish. 



" Q. I suppose the mackerel fishermen have the same object, to keep up the price of fish ? — A. I 

 presume tliey have. 



" Q. Then, of course, you think your views are correct. You think now, I presume that your 

 opinion w;vs connect ? — A. Yes. 



" Q. And you still continue to think that is correct, and that the efl'iict (jf the provisions of the 

 Treaty is to bring down the price of fish ? — A. Ye", I think that is the tendency. I am not awan* 

 ■whether it has brought the prices down. 



