y 



433 



in tho Stnfo.i was excluded, would it linvo nny any cfTect on tlio price of the other throo-fourths ?— 

 A. I tliiiik sdiiie, not much. I think it would 8tiin\Jate our homo jiroduction. 



" Q. In wimt way wo\iia it stiuiulnto it ? Uy ruisinj,' tho price, is it not ? — A. Well, to a small 

 extent. 



" ^>. Well, tlicn the uffpct of the I'riti.sh innckerel coming in is that tho consumer is able to buy it 

 ohcniicr th;ni h(! othcrwian would. — A. Well up to a certain point. Tiin cH'uct would bo very small. 

 There is not a lar^-e enough (lunntity. It is our liomo catcli that afleets it." 



Page 429— Myrick :— 



" Q. What would be tlie effect upon the business of your firm of puttin;,' back the former duty of 

 2 dollars a barrel u]]on .miekerel sent from Princo Kdwanl Island to the States ? 1 would like you to 

 explain your views in this rc;r„nl, jiarticidarly ? — A. Well, I suppose, since we have t^ot our business 

 establi.shed tlure, and our liuildin^,'s and facilities for carrying on tiie lisliery, it wouhl be difTicult for UB 

 to aliandnii It alto;,'ether ; but wu wouhl then turn our attention more partieiJarly to codfishing, until, 

 at any rale, tl;e mackerel Hoason j,'ijt well advanced and tiie mackerel became fat, and if any would 

 brin^; a liif^h jiriee it wmiKl be liiose taken in the latter part of tlie season. We mif,'lit catch 

 some of tlieni, Imt we woidd not undertake to catch poor mackerel to compete with those caught on 

 the American shore. 



" (). M.xplain w hy not ? — A. Well, No. 3 mackerel, which are poor mackerel, ponerally brinff a good 

 deal less jirice tlian fat mackerel, and men do not catcli any more poor nuickerel than they do fat ones ; 

 the cost of catching them, and of barreling and sliipping them is the .same, while tho fat mackerel 

 bring a better jirice. A\'e wouhl carry on the codtisliing Imsiness irrespective of tho American market ; 

 we would catcli, cure, and .siii[) codfish to other markets — to the West India nuirkets, and we might 

 make a fair busine.sn at that ; but as to catching mackerel exclusively under such circumstances, it would 

 not do to depend ou it olL" ., 



Page 430 — Myrick : — 



" Q. Wiat is it that fixes the price of mackerel in the United States market ? — A. Oh, well, of 

 cmirac it is the •tiijipb/ and iknuind, as is the case with cverylhinij else. When there is a large catch of 

 mackerel on the American shore, prices rule low ; this is a very sensitive market. If a fleet of 500, 

 GOO, or 8(M) vessels are fishing for mackerel, and tiiose interested get reports of tho fleet doing 

 anything, tiio market falls at once ; and tliis is the case, panieularly when prices are any way 

 inflated." 



Page 488— Isaac Hall :— 



" Q. You told Mr. Foster that if a duty was re-imposed you would consider very seriously 

 whether you would continue in the business ? — A. Yes. 



" Q. You made that statement on the assumption that you paid tho duty ? — A. Yes. 



" Q. I think it has been explained very clearly that the price of Ssh depends almost altogether 

 on the catch — this is the case to a largo extent ? — A. To a lareie extent — ijcs. If there is a large catch 

 of mackerel prices nile low, and if there is a small catch they rule high. 



" Q. If the evidence given here on the part of British witnesses is correct, two-thirds of the fish taken 

 by American vessels in tlie gulf, I may say, are caught inshore ; and assuming that two-thirds of their 

 whole catch in the gulf is taken inside of the three-mile limit, could the American fleet, if they were 

 excluded from fishing within this limit, prosecute the gulf fishery for the other third — would this pay 

 them ? — A. I think it would be a difficult business to do so, if that proportion is correct. 



" Q. If the price goes up, wlmjiays the enhanced price ? is it not the consumer ? — A. Pw. 



" Q. And if the catch is large, the price goes down — so it would depend in some measure oa 

 whether the catch on the American or on our own shore was large, as to who would pay this duty ? — 

 A. Yes ; and on the quality of the mackerel." 



These are quotations that I make from the American evidence. I do not quote from 

 our own, as Mr. Dana admitted there was such a consensus of evidence on that point, . 

 that he almost insinuated that it was too uniform to be depended upon. 



I now propose to deal at length with two questions of vital importance in this inquiry, . 

 viz. : — 



1st. In favour of which country is the balance of advantages arising from reciprocal freedom of 

 trade gained by the Treaty of Wasliingtfln ? and 



2nd. Upon whom is the incidence of duties levied upon fish exported by Canada into the United: 

 States, the producer or the consumer ? 



I again (if I may do so without giving offence to my learned friends on the other side) 

 express my obligations to Mr. Miall for the valuable assistance he has afforded in preparing 

 my argument on these points. 



Article XXI of the Treaty of Washington is as follows ;— 



" It is agreed that for the term of years mentioned in Art. XXIII of this Treaty, fish and fish oil 

 of all kinds (except fish of the inland lakes and of tlie rivers falling into them and except fish pre- 

 served in oil), being the jiroducts of the fisheries of the United States or of the Dominion of Canada, 

 or of Prince Edwani Island, shall be admitted into each countrj' respectively, free of duty." 



