The Lower House. 599

permitting the Importer to Land his Goods on giving Bond for the
Payment of the Duties, is an Ease and Encouragement to Trade,
we readily allow, but surely the Legislature are the proper Judges
when such Indulgence is necessary, or convenient; and where they
have not directed it, in the Act imposing any Duties, neither the
Officer can have Authority to take Bonds, as a Security to the Public
for the Duties, or the Trader who has Duties to pay, a Right to claim
an Exemption from paying them down at the Time of Entry; and
we apprehend the Inference drawn by your Excellency from the
two Acts of 1715 and 1717, the one prohibiting the Attorney-General
from putting Bonds for Country Duties in Suit, unless under Cir-
cumstances there specified, and the other giving a Fee for an Impost
Bond, that Impost Bonds have been constantly and universally taken
from the earliest down to the present Times, in all Cases, without
Exception, is too extensive, and it is not incumbent upon us to shew
a case in which they have not been taken; 'tis sufficient to destroy the
Inference: That we shew there were other Laws of this Province
at the Time of making those Laws, which directed or impowered the

L. H. J.
Liber No. 50
April 19

Officers to take Impost Bonds for Duties, we shall mention two of
them, One an Act confirming to the Governor of this Province
the Duty of Three Pence p Ton upon the Burthen of Ships and
Vessels made in 1704, prior to both the Acts your Excellency men-
tions; the other an Act laying an Imposition on Negroes, and on
several Sorts of Liquors imported, &c. made in the Year 1715,
prior to the Act giving a Fee on Impost Bonds. From hence then
arose the Necessity of Restricting the Attorney-General in putting
this Kind of Bonds in Suit, and of Limiting the Naval Officer's Fee
for taking them by the Acts you mention; for as the Law above-
mentioned, made in 1704, directed or allowed them to be taken, we
presume it was found Necessary to restrain the Officers, (ever fond
of encreasing Fees), within due Bonds: And we think it may be
fairly inferred, that if Impost Bonds had been constantly and uni-
versally taken, from the earliest down to the present Times, in all
Cases, without Exception, it would have been necessary to have laid
those Restrictions much earlier; indeed had that been the Case, it
would have been altogether unnecessary by any particular Law to
have given a Power to the Naval Officer in any Case to have taken
such Bonds, since, according to your Excellency's Argument, the
constant and universal Custom, must have sufficiently established
such a Power. But your Excellency will probably find, upon better
Information, that this constant and universal Indulgence given to
Trade has been no more than an Indulgence given by the Officer at
his own Risque, with a View to draw Traders to his Office, and
thereby increased his own Fees and Perquisites; so that we must
still insist, that Impost Bonds ought not to have been taken for the
Duties imposed by the Act of 1754, as being an Indulgence unknown
to the Law, that Law we mean, as it is plain the late Lower House

p. 75