QUESTION FOUR. 73 



In 1852, Mr. Primrose's successor at Pictou (Mr. Norton) urged 

 upon the Government of Nova Scotia the erection of further lights 

 as a means for saving life (British Case, App., p. 198) 



" for which benefit every vessel should contribute its share of light- 

 duty." 



In the same year, Mr. Lorenzo Sabine wrote his elaborate report. 

 Although violently partisan, he objected to the amount of the light 

 dues merely, not to the reasonableness of the principle. He said 

 (United States Case, App., p. 1276)- 



" The peninsula of Nova Scotia is bounded on the northeast by the 

 strait, or * gut,' of which we are speaking, and is separated by it from 

 the large island of Cape Breton. To save the long, difficult, and at 

 some times of the year the dangerous voyage round this island, our 

 vessels are in the constant practice of passing through Canso. The 

 strait is lighted; and our flag contributes liberally to support all 

 the light-houses on the coast. The " light-money " exacted is, indeed, 

 so enormous the benefit afforded considered that our ship-owners 

 complain of the exactions continually." 



In another part of his Report Mr. Sabine said that the inhabitants 

 of two counties in Massachusetts memorialised Congress in 1806, 

 representing (among other things) (United States Case, App., p. 

 1206) 



" that they were compelled to pay light-money if they passed through 

 the Strait of Canso ; that their men were imprisoned ; and that if they 

 anchored in the colonial harbors, they were compelled to pay anchor- 

 age money. Thus the complaints in 1806 were nearly identical with 

 .those in 1852." 



No diplomatic action ensued. 



CONCLUSION. 



It is submitted that it is permissible, in the case dealt with in this 

 question, to require the payment of light and other dues, entry and 

 report at custom-houses, and to impose any similar conditions. 



