The Daily Telegraph. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1883.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3806, 26 September 1883, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1883.

I AYe do not suppose that many of our readers interested themselves in tho late breach of the Customs Act that occurred in Auckland. The telegrams concerning it were very meagre, but tho case itself was a most important one, as showing the severity of our law, the rigorous manner in which it was carried out, and the need of its amendment. The facts of tlie case are these: .A. ba,rque named tho Gazelle, owned by Captain Ellis, of Sydney, the master of which was a Captain Garth, arrived at Auckland, i and a day or two after the latter was [ charged with an alleged breach of tho Customs laws in importing goods contrary, to the Customs Act. Captain Garth wetife< to Court without legal assistance, pleaded guiltj r , and was fined £100 and costs, which ho- paid. The captain no doubt did this because he and he alone, if any one, was to blame, and he knew full well that his owner knew nothing whatever of the matter. The extent of the master's guilt appears to consist of the following : He had on board broken packages of tobacco, whereas the law says that '' if a vessel has on board or conveys tobacco in less than whole and complete packages of not less than 601bs weight she shall be forfeited." The master never anticipated that after admitting his guilt, and paying his fine, that the ship belonging to his innocent owner would be seized and forfeited. Such, however, took place, and tho vessel is now held by the authorities as a forfeited vessel. There is no question as to the innocence of the owner. Not one particle of proof can be obtained that he had tho slightest knowledge of any such act on the part of the master. All this is clear and beyond doubt. The owner sued in the Supreme Court to have it decided whether a vessel arriving in port from another colony with loose tobacco in broken packages on board is liable to forfeiture, and that Court has decided that she is, and this though the owner is ever so innocent. A case of this kind could not fail to attract tho attention of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, the chairman of which is reported t-o" have said: —" I can conceive nothing more likely to alarm shipowners from using New Zealand ports than that this state of our law should be generally known. I do not know who Mr Ellis is, and you will, I am sure, believe mo when I say. that I am entirely disinterested in the credit of the colony, as I feel assured such a scandalous legal wrong to an innocent stranger must be very prejudicial to us, and the sooner a Bill is passed enabling the Government to restore the ship or the value of it to the lato owner tlie better it will bo to the credit of the Parliament, who are responsible for such an arbitrary Act being on the Statutebook in these days of supposed enlightened and liberal legislation. I know that vigorous measures must be taken to protect tho revenue, for there would be no security to honest trading if a door is open for the perpetration of fraud; but, surely, in tho united Avisdom of our public mon, some law can be devised that would servo to protect the revenue, and punish tho fraudulent on the ono hand, while steering clear of absolute injustice on the other. AYe have now the finest ship in the harbour that.. I suppose, ever came to Auckland. Just fancy the uproar and discredit that would ensue if the Government dared to seize and forfeit tho Doric if one of hor crew sold a few sticks of tobacco, or a broken package of cigars was found to-<bo on board ! The law of New Zealand would bo the laughing stock of tho whole commercial world. Yet the Supreme Court Avould bo quite justified in ruling the legal seizure of the Doric, or ono of tho mail steamers, for an offence against tho Customs Act similar to what the captain of the Gazello pleaded guilty to.- All should stand on an equality before the law. There should be no distinction between the owner of a small cutter and tho owner of the Great Eastern." Outrageously severe as the law stands there was not the slightest occasion for the Government to have had the full penalties inflicted. The seizure of tho tobacco, and the fine of £100 were surely punishment enough, even though the caso had been a wilful breach of the Act._ It seems, however, to have been one of inadvertence, and which might happen to the captain of any vessel against whom au officer or a steward on board had a grudgo. But it ia worth while to note how differently tho Imperial Government acts in cases of this kind. In England wo believe the law is as .. strict as it is here, but as the greatest care' is taken to employ revenue officers of sound judgment there is never exhibited there , that keen desire to "hunt a man to his death" as is sometimes so conspicuous in tho colonies. The case to which we refer was that of a Mr Rafferty, a general merchant in Monaghan, who smuggled tobacco to the amount that rendered him liable to penalties amounting to £6066. Did the Government claim its " pound of flesh P" No. Tho Crown was satisfied with the judgment of the Court_ being recorded against the offender, with having 1 seized tho tobacco, and with the payment of tho actual duty upon the quantity, namely £2022, and a nominal penalty of £100. In the caso at Auckland the New Zealand Herald well says that it is true that smuggling is an offence to be guarded against by stringent legislation. So is burglary ;so is thieving; but nobody thinks of advocating sucli Draconian principles as that the houso and all the belongings among which aro found stolen goods should bo forfeited to the person whose stolen goods are found there J and there is no more right reason why Custom house officers should bo favoured in their negligence or laxity by involving the property of innocent persons in ruin because of the possibilities of an olfenco with which these may havo had nothing to do. Tho law is an abitrary ono, eminently tyrannical, fitted enough for tho days when irresponsible tj'i-anny ruled tho relations of the governing, and the governed, but utterly alien to the spirit of fair dealing that characterises tho administration of public affairs, quite as much as the ordinary dealings of man with man. It is of a piece with the rule under which, until recently, throughout all these colonies, no man, however wronged, could bring an action against the Government for compensation without* first obtaining tho permission of the Government. But assuming that this is law, tho law not alone of New Zealand, but tho Customs law in all the colonies, it is none the less a disgrace that it should have been carried out to its bitter end by tho ment. Of course, in the circumstances, tho law Courts could havo done nothing losb than interpret the law. But there is nothing binding on the Government to havo enforced the penalty. That was in the discretion of Ministers, who must have known perfectly well that the owner of tho Gazelle in Sydney must have been wholly innocent of the offence or negligence of his servants. It will be seen by our Auokland telegram that Captain Ellis is about to appeal against the decision of tho Court. „ y