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



based, upon a breach of that municipal Statute only, and that that 

 niiinicipal Statute purported to prevail and to be effective in a defined 

 area. 



If these facts are found (and I have already undertaken to formulate 



them in a more precise way and to put them in writing for the Tribunal) 



the conclusions are inevitable that these seizures were unwarranted: 



that they were an attack upon the equality of Great Britain on 



853 the high seas : that they were unwarranted by the law of nations, 

 the ships of Great Britain on the high seas being part of the 



territory of Great Britain: and that an offence has been thereby com- 

 mitted against international law, and against the sovereignty of the 

 Queen, for which we are entitled to demand adequate and just 

 compensation. 



Let me guard against a possible misapprehension. The Tribunal 

 will understand that so far I am arguing upon tlie question. Were these 

 measures justifiable or not. JMy argument has tended to show that 

 they were not justifiable on the grounds that were then advanced. 

 My argument has further tended to show that even if there were such 

 a right in respect of property — such a right of i)rotection as is now 

 advanced — that that right cannot be invoked in justification of these 

 seizures. The conduct of the United States, the whole teuour of their 

 proceedings, prevents them from being entitled to raise any such ques- 

 tion as a justification for such seizure. 



But I wish the Court to understand that I do not thereby mean to 

 say that they are shut out from tlie discussion or the claim of that 

 right. When I come to the larger, the general question, — I have been 

 confining myself, of course, to the question of seizure, as I hope the 

 Tribunal understands, — when I come to the question in its proper order, 

 I will discuss whether any such right exists, and what will be the 

 sanction which by international law, if it existed, could be brought 

 into use in supjjort of that right. 



Senator Morgan. — 1 believe, Sir Charlos, you do not claim that the 

 United States is estopped by that decision from going fully into the 

 question. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Xo; that is exactly what I want to convey. 

 I say as regards the question of the justification for those seizures, the 

 United States are not estopped from raising the general question which 

 the Tribunal has to decide. 



Senator Morgan. — Then why are they estoijped on the question of 

 seizure, if you did not take an appeal? 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Because they did not profess to act accord- 

 ing to international law; because they did not act according to inter- 

 national law; because the Court was not an international Court; 

 because it did not profess to be an international Court; because the 

 case of the United States was put on a different ground, and the Judge 

 acted on a different ground. But 1 do not suggest that they are 

 estopped from arguing the general question when it comes in the order 

 of these questions which the Tribunal has to decide. 



Tlie President. — 1 suppose you admit that in case the seizures were 

 to be authorized or could be authorized, in your opinion, by other 

 grounds than those indicated in the Judgment, you would not consider 

 that we should be bound to declare the United States answerable? 



Sir Chakles ILl'ssell. — I certainly do. Sir. As regards the seizures 

 which have actually taken i)lace I contend that the United States 



854 must rely upon the case they have themselves presented, and 

 which they have themselves made the basis of the Judgment 



they invoked from the Court. 



