431 



" Q. I mean to say you liave not changed yonr opinion ? — A. No. 



"Q. Of course there might bo other causes operating, but that is the general tendency of the 

 Treaty i—A. Yes. 



" Q. To make tlie ii.sli cheaper for the cousun.'cr ? — A. Wo have so regarded it. Well, perhaps, it 

 would have that tendency. 'We liave thuiiglit that it woidd. 



" il That is preci-sely what your ojiiiiiou was '.-—A. Ves. 



"Q. You liave not altered your opinion ? — A. No. 



"Q. lour opinion, if i/uu, will allow inc to jmt it in my words, is that it makes fiah cheaper to the 

 consumers in tlw Ifiiitcd States ? — A. Mi/ ojiinion is that it will have that tendoiey. 



Page 107 — Graham: — 



■' Q. You say that you would prefer a duty on Canadian fish entering American , market to the 

 privilege of fi.shing within three wiles of the .sh(ire in the luiy ? — A. Yes, I shoidd if 1 went fishing. 



"<i. Why ^ — A. lieeause 1 do not think tliaL the privilege amoiuils to as much lus the dutie.s 

 to us, 



" (,>. Why do you want the duty kept on ? — A. I'locause, in the lirst place, we would get more for 

 our iish in tlii! United Slates. 



" Q. And when the duly is abolished the price naturally comes down ? — A. The tish might then 

 be a little cheajier. 



" Q. Thai is your opinion ? — A. I do not think tliiit the price would cnmo down much. 



"(). Tiien why do you want the duty kepi Mil ih< you nut think that yon gave a rather 

 hasty answer ? You say you would jn'ufer the duly to the privilege of fishing in the Bay of St. 

 La^vTence, witliin the limit.s ? — A. Yes. 



" C^. Why I. 1 undiirstood you to say, it was because this would keep the price up ? — A. That was 

 .1 little erroneous, t think. Let me think the matter over. 



" il. Why would you ratlier prefer the duly to the i)rivilego mentioned ? — A. Because that would 

 keep the price up, ami we would Ihen get move for our fish. 1 tliought you had mo a little. 



" Q. 1 merely want your statement on the point ? — A. That is my candid opinion. 



" (i>. You now speak as a fisherman ? — A. Yes, if I was fishing that would be my idea. 



"(). All classes of men have selfish motives ? — A. I want to get all I can for what 1 have to sell, 

 and to liuy as cheaply as possible. 



" (j. And in order to get a high price for your fish, you want the duties on ? — A. Yes. 



Page 124— Friend:— 



" (j. You thciught you woidd get more mackerel and get a bettor price for them I — A. If wo had a 

 duty on mackerel we would get a better price, aud would get more mackerel if we fished off shore. 



Page 130— Oriie :— 



" Q. You say you would prefer a duty of '1 dollars a barrel to the liberty of fishing within the 

 iimits of tlie Ijay ? — A. I do. 



" i.). Why ? — A. Because I think the mackerel which I take to market would then bring more. 



" (J. Woidd tlio price be then higher by 2 dollars ? — A. I coidd not say. 



" Q. What is your belief ? — A. / hdiccc that irould he the case. 



" y. Consumers might appreciate the matter dill'ereutly '. — A. I speak as a fisherman. 



Page 147 — Leightoii: — 



" (). In regard to mackerel, leaving herring out, would you prefer a duty on mackerel i — A. Yes. 



" (,). Ymii speak as a tisliermau < — A. Ye.s. 



" (.). A\'hy wiudil you ]irefer a duly on mackerel ? — A. Our mackerel would fetch that mitch more a 

 (arrcl. We lose that, you know, 



" Q. By the duly eonnng olf ? — A. Yes, the fishermen lose it. The Govcrmiunt does not lose it. 



" (}. And the people vho eat the fish i/ain it ? — A. Yes. 



"tj. And if you were to speak to a man whose business w;us consuming mackerel, you would get 

 an opinion adverse to a duty ?— A. Ye.'i. 



" (l You wouhl not oliject f. suppose to run the duty up a little higher — hov»- would that suit the 

 fishermen ? — A. 1 think that is a jut right. 



Page 1 GO — Riggs :- 



ishore 



" (I You siiy you would prefer a duty being imposed on our mackerel to the righ.t to fish in 

 ni British \\;ilers '. — A, 1 shoidd. 



" tt, Whv ilo you want a ihity on ? — A. It is no benefit to us to fish inshore, that I over .saw, 



" (). Whv do you want it on ) — A. Well, we would have a better market for our fi.-jh. 



" Q. Would you get a higlitr price for them ? — A. We should — yes. 



"Q. And therefiire you are speaking as a fisherman; iis such you would like to get the ]ii, 

 price you e(udd for vour iish ?— A. Certaiidy. 



""q. You tliiuk tliat the im]H)sition of a duty woidd give you a better market? — A. Yes, if 

 Canadians had to pay tlie duty, it is likely they would nut fetch the fish in. 



" Q. Wiiat would he tlie result of that '('—A. We would have a liighor price and a (luicker ni: 



" t^. You would have a higher price ? — A. I do not know that this would be the case or any 

 ■ibout it • but it would be a tpiicker market for us. 



[280| ■ 3 L 2 



'■he.;t 



irkot. 

 ihiuii 



