ARGUMENT OF SIR WILLIAM ROBSON. 1785 



benefit that its own Government chooses to give, by way of bounty, 

 and this is, as I say, put practically on the same basis. 



At one time the United States gave a bounty to their own fisher- 

 men, in 1845, of 20s. a ton, as appears on p. 1068 of the United States 

 Case Appendix. 



Senator Turner has pointed out that under the modus vivendi of 

 1907 we were willing to waive the question of light dues ; but I think 

 ultimately, notwithstanding that, the United States did in fact pay 

 them. But that was all a matter of bargain, as to a matter concluded 

 in a great hurry. There was, in 1907. great anxiety to get the modus 

 vivendi arranged before the fishing season began in October; and 

 some well-earned holidays were disturbed in September, in order 

 that the two Governments might get to an agreement; and it was 

 really all a matter of negotiation and bargain, rather than of each 

 side weighing its own rights or legal obligations and responsibilities. 



I now come to customs, and I have already, I think, dealt generally 

 with the priciples that I consider applicable to this matter of entry 

 and report. 



THE PRESIDENT: As to duties, Mr. Attorney-General, you make no 

 difference between the third question and the fourth question as 

 to the exaction of duties? 



SIR W. ROBSON : No, Sir ; I do not think the fact of the existence 

 of the treaty makes any difference on the principle of the thing. 

 In one case you have the right to come to the treaty coast. Now. is 

 it a right which is, therefore, free of duty altogether? Well, the 

 way in which I will test that is by asking what is done with regard 

 to the duty in other cases where there is equally a right? There is 

 equally a right, for instance, under international law, of innocent 

 passage; and yet all international lawyers are agreed that you may, 

 in such a case, charge a light duty, although there is the right just 

 as strong by law as you can make it by treaty. 



THE PRESIDENT: You attribute no importance to the circumstance 

 that, under Question 4, there are cases, more or less, of distress, in 

 which the vessel enters for the purpose of shelter, repair, wood or 

 water? Some of these cases shelter and repairs are cases involving 

 distress; and also, to some extent, perhaps, the case of the entrance 

 of the vessel for the purpose of procuring wood and water. 



SIR W. EOBSON : Well, I should say that a vessel entering because 

 of distress is under a peculiarly strong obligation to pay light dues. 

 One must not treat a right here which depends upon humanity as 

 though it were therefore to be treated gratuitously. All light dues 

 are mere questions of humanity. I believe our ancestors had a genial 

 habit not only of refraining from putting up lights, but of putting 

 up false lights, in order that they might enjoy their manorial rights, 

 which included the right to take whatever wreck they found on the 

 92909 S. Doc. 870, 61-3, vol 11 14 



