ARGUMENT OF SIB WILLIAM EOBSON. 1799 



in reference to which the two parties were contracting? They were 

 both contracting upon the basis, and the basis then known, of inter- 

 national law, and nobody can deny that if there had been a popula- 

 tion custom-house regulations would have been necessary and ap- 

 plicable. Equally, nobody can deny that the parties must have re- 

 garded as possible that a population might come, because they speak 

 of the unsettled bays, and they make provision for the case of bays 

 afterwards becoming settled. So that a population was contem- 

 plated, and wherever it is contemplated that human beings may come 

 and dwell there, it is also contemplated, the tax-gatherer will come 

 and dwell amongst them, and regulations would become necessary as 

 human beings came into existence. 



The next point he made had reference to the smuggling provision 

 suggested in the British project of the 6th October, 1818. The Im- 

 perial authorities desired to add a term to that treaty to make more 

 express and more stringent the safeguards against smuggling, and 

 the American negotiators objected. Mr. Turner says now that they 

 objected and that, therefore, you must not read into the treaty provi- 

 sions which, in effect, are the same as those which the United States 

 declined to accept. What was the provision that the United States 

 declined to accept? It was this, p. 89 of the British Case 

 Appendix : 



"And in order the more effectually to guard against smuggling, it 

 shall not be lawful for the vessels of the United States, engaged in 

 the said fishery, to have on board any goods, wares, or merchandise 

 whatever, except such as may be necessary for the prosecution of 

 the fishery, or the support of the fishermen whilst engaged therein, 

 or in the prosecution of their voyages to and from the said fishing 

 grounds. And any vessel of the United States which shall contra- 

 vene this regulation may be seized, condemned, and confiscated, 

 together with her cargo." 



I do not wonder that the United States Commissioners objected to 

 that. It is all very well to provide against smuggling, but that is 

 just one of the provisions against smuggling which are very easily 

 made the occasion of oppression against you. For instance, it was 

 very hard to leave to the local legislature the construction of a provi- 

 sion which said that they were not to have on board any goods, wares 

 or merchandise except such as the local magistrate might think neces- 

 sary for the fishery, and if they had then the whole vessel was con- 

 demned. Well, I do not wonder that the United States Commission- 

 ers said: We are going to object to that; we do not think it is 

 necessary ; leave that to the law. That, in effect, is what they say 

 leave it to the general law ; the general law is applicable, why make 

 a provision of such stringency? and that is what was done. What 

 was it that Senator Turner desired to have inferred from the fact 

 that that provision was rejected? Did he desire to have it inferred 



