CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 117 



aud subjects of other imtions from entering territorial 

 waters for tlie purpose of capturing such animals. 



ANALOGOUS QUESTIONS. 



Upon analogous questions similar principles have been 

 generally maintained and recognized. 



RKiHT Ol' SKARCH ON HUiU SKAS. 



Thus, with reference to the right to search neutral ves- 

 sels on the high seas — In 1<S()4, during the war with France, 

 Great Britain claimed to search neutral vessels on the high 

 seas, and to seize her own subjects when found serving 

 under a neutral Hag. 



The ])Osition taken on this subject bv the United States m^?v^"'^'T *" 



1 • • • i "i • 1 1 1 j^ ii L Mr. Monroe, Jan- 



was not only m opposition to such aright, but that country uary 5, 1804, 



insisted that in no e<tse did the sovereignty of any nation pap?r!f%oref<^ii 



extend beyond its own dominions and its own vessels on it';iati<>n8,voi.ii. 



the high seas. 



i«. 730. 



SLAVK TRADE. 



A similar view has been adopted by all nations in rela- 

 tion to the Slave Trade. 



Although it cannot properly be argued that the taking 

 of seals in any manner whatever is comi)arable with the 

 immorality or injustice attaching to the Slave Trade, yet, 

 even in the case of vessels engaged in that trade, the 

 rights of nations have not been allowed to be overruled on 

 such pleas. 



Upon this point legal authorities both in the United 

 States and in (Ireat Britain are quite clear. 



CASE OF "LE I.OUIS" ENGAGED IN SLAVE TRADE AND SEIZED. 



In 1810 a French vessel ("Le Louis") sailing from ^^^'^- x^li'^ i^^T^l^S 

 tinicjue, destined on a voyage to the coast of Africa and sons Ad'minuty 

 back, was captured 10 or VI leagues to the southward of 2j'{,'"'"''' ^"^' ''' ''• 

 Cape Mesurada, by the "Queen Charlotte" cutter, and' 

 carried to Sierra Leone. She was proceeded against in 

 the Vice-Admiralty Court of that colony. 



It was alleged that the vessel was fitted out for the pur- 

 pose of carrying on the African Slave Trade, after that 

 trade had been abolished by the internal laws of France, 

 and by the Treaty between Creat Britain and France. 

 154 The King's Advocate admitted the proposition to 



be true genendlij that the right of visitation and 

 to search does not exist in time of peace, but denied it 

 be so universally. Occasions, he argued, may and must 

 arise, at a period when no hostilities exist, in which an 

 exercise of this power would be justifiable. The rule of 

 law could not be maintained as a universal proposition, 

 but was subject to exceptions, and within those exceptions 

 must be included tlie present transaction, which was a 

 transgression, not only of municipal law, but likewise of 

 the general law of nations. In whatever light the Slave 

 Trade might have been viewed in former times, it must no 

 longer be deemed within the protection of the law of 



