604 Assembly Proceedings, Mar. 28— May 13, 1758.

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

That the Duty on such Servants is required to be paid at the Time
of Entry :

And that it was the Duty of those Officers to have refused to have
Entered the Vessels Importing them, until the Duty was paid :
And consequently that their Conclusion, drawn from those Prem-
ises " for which those Officers ought to be answerable " cannot be
wrong.

We can by no Means allow, that the Report of the Committee of
the late Lower House, omits doing that Justice to the Naval Officers
which is strictly their due; for though perhaps the Committee in
that Report, might have more clearly expressed by what Means they
came by their Knowledge of the Refusal of the Masters to pay the
Duty on Convicts, and might have mentioned the N. B. placed at
the Foot of the List of Entries, in which the Naval-Officer of An-
napolis mentions his being in possession of Impost Bonds, on which
the Duties, if due, might be Recovered, yet the nature of the Charge
must still have been the same, viz. That they had omitted to collect
the Duty on Convicts : And as the late Lower House, by their Ad-
dress, gave it as their Opinion, that the Naval-Officers ought not to
have taken Impost Bonds for that Duty, we must presume they were

p. 83

informed that such Bonds were taken, and very probably from the
abovementidned N. B. and since there is no room to imagine they
would have been of a different Opinion, upon receiving their Informa-
tion from the Report of the Committee, it seems very clear, that every
thing done, in consequence of the Report as it now stands, must have
been done, if the Report in the most clear and express Manner, had
mentioned the N. B. at the Foot of the List of Entries : Where then
is the Foundation for your Excellency's Insinuations, that Facts were
not mentioned, and that some Transactions were noticed, when others
appearing upon the Face of the same Evidence, were concealed, merely
for the Sake of patching up a Charge against the Naval-Officers, in
order to get their Office Bonds sued; that the Representations of the
late Lower House were unjust, and our Complaints in Consequence
of them unreasonable? " We are really concerned to find your Ex-
cellency, on such slight Pretences, charging the Representatives of a
People, with Want of Firmness and Candour, and determining not
to pay the least Regard to their Representations.
And now to conclude this Part of our Address; since it is clear
to us that Convicts are liable to the Duty imposed on Servants for
Seven Years or upwards, by the Act in Question; since it is the plain
Construction of that Act, that the Duty on such Servants shall be
paid by the Importer at the Time of his Entry; since all Duties are
to be paid at the Time of Entry, unless it be otherwise directed by
the particular Law imposing them; and since it is Clear, that Impost
Bonds, except where the Law in any particular Case directs them
to be Taken, are no more than an Indulgence in the Officer at his