72 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



Well, now, what is the subsequent course which this correspondence 

 takes'? It may be described in a sentence, though I have two more 

 despatches to refer to, one at a little length. Lord Salisbury meets 

 him upon his own ground and says: You say that this is vonira bonos 

 mores; Have nations said HI You say that this is an injury to your 

 rights. What are your rights? Upon what law are they defeusible? 

 By Miiat law are they recognized and i)rotected? 



From that moment you will tind that Mr. Blaine, driven from his 

 conira honon mores ground, driven from the field, recurs to the Kussian 

 derivative title, and thereafter, until he comes to cite with a])probation 

 an eloquent passage from a communication of my learned friend Mr. 

 Phelps, we hear no more of the contra honos mores doctrine. 



Now, in the few moments that remain, I should like to call attention to 

 that despatch of Lord Salisbury, which 1 take leave to say is a despatch 

 that has not been answered, and 1 submit cannot be answered. It 

 will be found on page 462. 



In the beginning of that despatch, which I will not read, he repeats, 

 as every fair man arguing is bound to do, fully and fairly what is the 

 contention of his adversary. He says: Y^ou say that our vessels were 

 engaged in a i)ursuit contra honos mores: You say that these fisheries 

 were under the exclusive control of Eussia: You say that the seals 

 being taken by i^elagic sealing iu the open sea will speedily destroy the 

 species. ISTow how are these arguments taken to pieces? 



With regard to the tirst of tbese aiguiuents, namely that the seizure of the Cana- 

 dian vessels in the Behiing Sea was justified by the fact that they were euijaged in 

 a pursuit that is in itself contra honos vwres — a pursuit which of necessity involves 

 a serious and permaiieut injury to the rights of the Government and people of the 

 LUiited States, it is obvious that two questions are involved; first whether the pur- 

 suit and killing of fur-seals in certain parts of the open sea is, from the point of 

 view of international morality, an offence contra bonos mores ; and secondly, whether, 

 if such be the case, this fact justifies the seizure on the high seas and subsequent 

 confiscation in time of peace of the private vessels of a frendly nation? 



806 Can any one doubt that tliat is the test which must be applied, 



and the only test that ought to be applied to the proposition so 

 jiropoanded by Mr. Blaine? You say this i)ursuit is contra honos mores. 

 I do not agree with you. Has law declared it so? According to inter- 

 national morality even has it been so declared? It does not become 

 immoral according to international law merely because you choose to 

 say it is so! And even if that were so you still lag behind the necessi- 

 ties of your position, because you have still to shew that even if it were 

 contra honos mores international law would justify you in seizing in time 

 of peace and in confiscating the ships of a friendly nation. He then 

 proceeds to argue the broad principles which cannot be doubted, and 

 cites in siqiport of them the utterances of a wise President of the United 

 States (President Tyler) who after stating there was a right to detain 

 and search a vessel on suspicion of piracy goes on to say: 



"With this single exception no nation has in time of peace any authority to detain 

 the ships of another upon the high seas on any pretext whatever outside the territo- 

 rial jurisdiction. 



Then Lord Salisbury goes on to point out, as I have already taken 

 occasion to point out, that even in the case of the slave trade, a practice 

 which the civilized world has agreed to look upon with abhorrence, the 

 right of arresting the vessels of another country engaged in that trade 

 is only exercisable by special international agreement. And he finally 

 draws this conclusion. 



But Her Majesty's Government must question whether this pursuit can of itself be 

 regarded as contra honos vwres, unless and until for special reasons it has been agreed 

 by international arrangement to forbid it. 



