204 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



Grotins, referring to tlie same right to trading iu articles not usually 

 contraband, says: 



For, if I cannot defend myself without seizing articles of this nature which are 

 beinji: sent to my enemy, necessity gives me the right to seize them, as we have 

 already explained elsewhere, under the obligation of restoring them unless there be 

 some other reason supervening to prevent me. 



That is while engaged in a trade which is proper enough in itself 

 except that it supplies an enemy. 



Mr. Wheaton, commenting upon this opinion of Grotins, points out that it is 

 placed by that author entirely upon the ground of the right of self-defense, under 

 the necessities of a particular case; that Grotius does not claim that the traiisjior- 

 tation of such property is illegal in itself, or exposes the vessel carrying it to capture ; 

 but that necessity nevertheless justifies in the case in which it actually arises, the 

 seizure of the vessel as a measure of self-defense. And he shows by further refer- 

 ence that it was the opinion of Grotius that a necessity of that sort exemi)ts a case 

 from all general rules. 



Mr. Manning, the author I cited before, at page 263 of his book, thus 

 defines the rights of belligerents as against neutral commerce. 



It consists merely in preventing vessels from interfering with the rights of bel- 

 ligerents, and seeking their own emolument at the direct expeuse of one party iu 

 the contest. 



And Azuni (I am reading from the same page, p. 163 of the Ameri- 

 can Argument, where the reference to the page is given), says: 



The truth of this theory (right of neutral trade) does not, however, deprive bel- 

 ligerents of the right of stopping the commerce of neutrals with the enemy wheu 

 they deem it necessary for their own defense. 



All those cases — the right to prohibit a vessel entering a port — the 

 right to prohibit a vessel carrying what is called contraband of war — 

 although that may be the subject of a pre-existing, regular, established, 

 and proper trade — the right to ijrohibit vessels from carrying j^fissen- 

 gers if they are connected with the forces of belligerent, or carrying 

 des])atches — all that interference on the sea, in cases of war rights, 

 with the plain and obvious rights of individuals, is reposed upon the 

 idea that the riglit of the individual must give way, although what he 

 is doing is not otherwise objectionable, when the consequence of it is 

 to work an injury to the important interest of a maritime nation, that 

 is, a nation able to protect itself upon the sea. These rights stand 

 upon nothing else, and as I have said, while these illustrations apply 

 to the time of war, (and I shall cite others that api)ly to the time of 

 peace) it is only the difference in the necessity which the war creates, 

 because the neutrals not parties to the war are in no way concerned 

 with its relations. 



Perhaps, Sir, you will permit me to cite the other illustrations to- 

 morrow morning. 



The Presidknt. — If you please. 



[The tribunal adjourned accordingly till Wednesday the 5th July, 

 at 11.30.J 



