439 



during 



fua been 

 allowing 

 I SoU, at 

 Htncsses 



line 



in 



which 

 -' same 

 )fit8 of 

 J been 



le. 



idence. 



From these prices, it is abundantly clear that the consuming classes in the United 

 States were compelled to pay at least 2 dollars (gold) per barrel more for all tlie mackerel 

 brought in by tlie United States' vessels during the existence of the duty. 



What stronger evidence can be required than these facts (perhaps the only facts with 

 reference to which the testimony of witnesses on both sides arc fully and absolutely in 

 accord) to satisfy an impartial mind as to the real incidence of taxation, upon the article 

 in question ; and inasmuch as the mackerel is the only fish the market for the best 

 qualities of which is limited to the Ihiited States, it is not deemed necessaiy to continue 

 the inquiry with reference to other fish j^^'"" ducts to which the markets of the world are 

 open, and whose prices therefore can in no way be influenced by the United States. 



Now, if your Honours please, there is but one other subject to which I will call the 

 attention of this Commission before I close, and that is to the offer made by the 

 American Conmiissioners at the time this Treaty of Washington was being negotiated. I 

 refer to the otter to remit the duty on coal, lumber, and salt. The circumstances are 

 stated at length in the Reply of Great Britain to the Answer of the United States, and, 

 therefore, I need not refer particularly to the figures. The sum was 17,800,000 dollars, 

 as far as I can recollect. Now, if it is true, as contended by the United States in their 

 " Answer," that the remission of duties means a boon to the persons in whose favour they 

 are remitted, and that those persons are the producers, then it is clear that this a fair 

 estimate put hi) the American High Cominisnioners themselves, upon the fishing privileges that 

 they were then endeavouring to obtain from the British Government. Whether that is a 

 correct principle or not, is no part of my duty to contend. My argument is that that 

 was the view of the United States, as a country, believing in the proposition that the 

 producer, and not the consumer, pays the duty. 



In their own Answer they put the remission of duties which they say inures to our 

 benefit at 4!)0,000 dollars a year. While we do not admit the correctness of their view 

 of that remission either in principle or atiiount, their Answer is an admission of their 

 estimate of the value of ilie concfssions afforded to them. If the concessions were worth 

 as much as that, then the award of this Commission must of necessity be in favour ' 

 Great Hritpin tor a large amount. But it may be said " You have got the value of t*^ 

 because we have remitted these duties." We have shown by evidence and arguir-"'- 

 conclusively that the producer docs not pay 1 dollar of these duties, that fish froin^l"* 

 Halifax market was sent there during the period when the duties were paid, and th't the 

 fish merchant here received back in his own counting-house for the fish sold in Boson, as 



• Average price of currency 1857 to 1SG5, 88c. ; 1866 to 1873, 80c. ; 1873 to 187G, 90c. 



