r Majesty's 

 markets by 

 ss of trade 

 jesty, mr re 



ire exports 



437 



Now, by reference to the United States' Commerce and Navigation Returns for 1873 

 (page 311) it will be seen that the re-exports of foreign fish were as follows : — • 



Tbis sum, therefore, representing duties whicii never were collected must be deducted 

 from the ag'j;rogate duties accrued, as shown by the figu'-es just previously given, viz., 

 321,93i> dollars. 



Deduct— 



Oiitios on re-exports ,. .. ,. .. , ,' ,. 



Kslinmled duties on fish products not cowered by Wo:>hington Treaty, 



estimated at. . . . . . , . . . 



Tlius leaving a sum of 



Dols. Dols. 

 126,167 



10,00u 



136,167 



185,768 



in regard to which it remains to be decided whether or not its remission has inured to the 

 benefit of the Canadian producer. 



The United States contend, at page 31 of the Answer, that the remission of duties to 

 Canadian tisliei men during the four years whicli have already elapsed under the operation 

 of the Treaty has amounted to about 400,COO dollars annually, which proposition it was 

 explicitly stated would bo conclusively proved in evidence which would be laid before the 

 Commission. This extraordinary assertion which, it has been contended, has been contra- 

 vened by the whole tenor of the evidence, whether adduced on behalf of the United 

 States or of Great Britain, was followed up by the laying down of the following prin- 

 ciple, viz. : — 



" Wlieiv a tiix or duty is imposod upon a small portion of the prndurcvs of any pomniodity, from 

 wliicli tln^ u'ruat limly nl' its [trodiiciii's arc cxumiit, sucli tax or duty m.vcssavily runiains a buriluu ujion 

 tho produciTs of tlu' siualli'v ([iiantity, diminishing' their profits, which cannot be added to the price, 

 and so distrii)uted among the imrciiasers and consumers." 



[t is contended, in reply, that this principle is true only in those cases in which the 

 ability on the part of the majority of producers to supply the commodity thus taxed, is 

 fully ecjual to the demand. 



Tlie ([uestion whether the consumer or producer pays any imposts levied upon tho 

 imiiortation of certain commodities, does not depend upon whether the body of foreign 

 producers is large or small relatively to the body of domestic producers, with whose 

 products theirs are to come into conipetion, hut simply upon the (piestion whether or not 

 the existing home production is equal to the demand. If it bo not equal, and a quantity 

 equal to one-third or one-fourth of that produced at home he really recpiired, prices must 

 go up until the foreign producer can be tempted to supply the remainder, and the 

 consumer will pay the increased price not only upon the fraction imported, but upon the 

 greater quantity produced within the importing country as well. And the tendency of all 

 the evidence in this case, British and American, has been a most explicit and direct 

 confirmation of this principle. 



The British evidence to which I shall immediately call your attention, proves beyond 

 a doubt that when duties were imposed upon mackerel of 2 dollars per barrel, British 

 exporters to the United States realized a sufficient increase of price to enable them to pay 

 those duties and still receive a net amount equal to the average price received before those 

 duties were imposed, as well as after they were removed. 



Upon a careful examination of the United States' testimony, it will, I submit, appear 

 that during those years when duties were imposed upon British-caught fish, the price of 

 mackerel when landed from United States' vessels from their fishin; voyages in tne bay, 

 was to the full extent of the duty in excess of the price they commanded after the duty 

 was repealed, or before it was imposed. 



It is impossible to conceive a clearer proof that the consumer and not the producer 

 had to bear the burden of the duty and not only that, but an equivalent burden upon 

 [280] 3 M 



/ 



