432 



Page 187— Smith:— 



" Q. I'dtt spaik- (IS (I fixherman ; you want to get the mott you can. How much do you think you 

 would get f — A. As much as the duty. 



" Q. I ilmi't know Imt vdu n'-u right. rerliii]>s you would like to have a littlo more oh. Suppoa- 

 inp a duty ot' .". dollura was jxit on, I auppo.so it would still Imvo the ell'ect of rising the price of lish ? — 

 A. I think it would kill us. No, let ine soe. I don't ktu>w iiuyllung about Chut. I thiuk by keeping 

 the English liah out, our fish would bring a better price." 



Page 20 1— Procter:— 



" Q. Speaking as a fishermun, would you prefer to have the duty on ? — A. Personally, I would 

 rather have the duly on. 



" Q. Why ? — A. lioeauai; the duty is better for >is, for it would have a tendeney in yeain of good 

 catches to previMit your jiouple from increasing their business. It lias tiiat teiuloncy. 



" Q. Has it any teiidcncy to bettor you, as well as to injure your neighbours >. — A. That ia what, 

 wo were looking for — lor better prices. 



" Q. Has it a tendency to increase prices to your fiaherinen ? — A. It would. 



" Q. So, if it increa.sea the jirice of the lisli, it strikes me the consumer must pay the increased 

 price ? — A. Am I not clear that the duty has anything to do with it ; it is the catch." 



Page 207— Procter :— 



" Q. And did not the duty on Canadian caught fish replace the bounty ? — A. Yes ; and the 

 reduction of the duty on salt was granted as au ofl'set for the removal of the duty. 



Page 208— Procter :— 



" Q. And that came latter ? — A. Yes, two or three years after the Ratification of the Treaty.* 



" Q. Wien it was proposed to take the duty oft' you remonstrated, thinking that this would reduce 



the price of fish, and this was the general feeling among fishennen and of the inhabitants of the coast 



of New England ? — A. Yes." 



Page y 1 2— Warren:— 



" Q. Now, with regard to the right of carrying our fish free into the United States, I suppose you 

 think that is of no advantage to your fishermen, that provision of the Treaty ? — A. I have no idea 

 it is any advantage to our side of the house. 



" Q. It is a disadvantage, isn't it ? — A. Yes, it is against us. 



" Q. l!o kind enough to explain how ? — A. AH these things seem to me to regulated by supply 

 ai'd demand. If there is 100,0(10 barrels of mackerel hove into our market on top of what we produce, 

 the tendency is to depreciate prices. 



" Q. If this provision of the Treaty increases the supply of mackerel in the United States market 

 it wUl bring down the price of fish ? — A. State that again. 



" Question repeated >. — A. I think it would have that tendency. 



" Q. That is the reason you think it is no advantage to your fishermen to have the privilege of 

 fishing inside ? — A. No, putting l)<)th questions of the Treaty together, it is no advantage, because the 

 supply is increased and the prices are depreciated. 



" i). You will admit this, that it is an advantage to the consumers by bringing down the price ? 

 You admit that ?— A. Yes. 



" Q. Tlien in point of fact it gives vou cheap fish ? — A. The tendency Ls to cheapen them. 



" Q. For the people of the United States ?— A. Yes." 



Page 326 — Lakeman : — 



" Q. The American fishermen want the duty back on fish, I suppose ? — A. I do not know about 

 that, I am sure ; but they naturally would wish to have it back again, I suppose, in order to exclude 

 our fish from their market. 



" Q. I suppose that the consumer got his fish cheaper, owing to the removal of the duty, and the 

 admission of your fish into the American Market ? — A. 'The consumer would then get his fish cheaper 

 — the more fisli that are put on the market the cheaper the consumers gets them. 



" Q. Is not the result of the Treaty, which admits your fish into the American market, on equal 

 terms with the American fish, to make the price of fish lower in that market ? — A. It has that tendency 

 evidently. 



" Q. Therefore the consumer gets his fish for less money ? — A. Evidently he does. When herring 

 are abundant the price is low. 



" Q. It further follows that although a certain class of fishermen may lose something by this free 

 admission of British fish into the American market the American public gain by it ? — A. By getting 

 their fish at a lower jirice ? Of course it makes the price of fish lower in that market That is clear. 



" Q. Then the consumer gets the fish cheaper ? He evidently does — the larger the quantity that 

 is put upon the market the less the price will be." 



Page 389— Sylvanus Smith :— 



" Q. Supposing the mackerel caught in colonial waters were excluded, would it, or would it not, 

 have any effect upon the price you get for your fish ? Supposing one-fourth of the quantity consumed 



