ARGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM ROBSON. 1787 



1,700Z. among them. And nobody would say that was an unjust 

 thing. 



So when a vessel is saved by a lighthouse, and comes in in distress, 

 there is no hardship, there is no sordiness, there is no divergence from 

 a proper spirit of humanity in saying to the owners of that vessel: 

 " We have saved you, and you must give something in order that 

 other people may be saved, because that is really the least you can 

 do. When we have preserved you from wreck, the least you can do 

 is to take care that the lighthouse is maintained for the benefit of 

 those who may come afterwards." 



So that the principle of law appears to me to be about as strong and 

 meritorious a principle as you can have; because it is a principle of 

 payment for services rendered. And in the same way with regard to 

 customs dues. That is a different principle, but it is one, I think, 

 equally strong. 



Well, now, I have dealt with the broad underlying principle of this 

 claim, and I would just like to refer to one or two instances of the 

 necessity one or two arguments showing the necessity of some pro- 

 vision against smuggling. 



Perhaps I had better first here refer (and I will do it very gener- 

 ally) to the old statutes, of which there is a long series. I am cer- 

 tainly not going through them all. There is a long series of statutes 

 relating to the prevention of smuggling in our legislation. The same 

 sort of statute will be found in the legislation, I think, of every coun- 

 try in the world. They are all on the list I shall hand in. They 

 begin with us as early as 1661. There are statutes anterior to that 

 date, but that is the only one w T orth mentioning, because I think some 

 of the sections are practically still operative, or at all events they 

 have been repeated in subsequent statutes. That required all masters 

 of all vessels arriving in England to enter at the customs. Of course, 

 it did not apply that obligation to vessels already within our terri- 

 torial waters and under continual observation. There was no danger 

 there of smuggling. You could only smuggle from one part of the 

 kingdom to another, which was not defeating any revenue law, but 

 all foreign vessels had to suffer that inconvenience. 



There is no discrimination. I could not help thinking that Senator 

 Turner thought of American vessels having to do all this, and the 

 local vessels not having to do it, as discrimination. It is no discrimi- 

 nation at all. The obligation is not put on the local vessel, because 

 it would be absurd in the case of the local vessel the local vessel 

 which has a habitat at a particular port, and is at liberty, if it likes, 

 to go to-morrow. It does no harm to Newfoundland by going and 

 staying in the United States, or equally it may go from one port in 

 Newfoundland to another port, and there is no harm to the customs 

 law. It may carry brandy from one port to another, and it is not 



