ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P, 307 



In the first case the British Authorities in Canada had a right to retaliate war for 

 war; in tlie second case tliey were no louger bound to respect as neutral that portion 

 of territory which, by shakiug otf its obedience to a neutral Government, had ceased 

 to be neutral, and could certaiuly not be entitled to the privilege of protecting per- 

 sons who were actively engaged in making war upon Her Majesty's territory: 



Whether that view was right, or whether it was wrong, I am only con- 

 cerned in showing that the justification of tlie proceedings was a justi- 

 fication based upon a belligerent right, and as Lord Palmerston 

 declared, it was an act of defence against an act of war; and it is 

 enough to conclude this story to say that after some correspondence 

 the authorities of the United States accepted that explanation, and did 

 not press any claim for reparation. 



Mr. Phelps. — The correspondence on which this matter was con- 

 cluded was between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, and was of a 

 very different character from that. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I do not think it is of an essentially differ- 

 ent character from that. My learned friend is so courteous, that 1 am 

 sure he would not make that observation unless he thought it was well 

 founded. We have the correspondence of Lord Ashburton at page 

 186, and J do not admit that it differs in any sense. I do observe this, 

 that Lord Ashburton takes up the language which Mr. Webster form- 

 ulates, and says that you have to show that the necessity for what you 

 did was instant and overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no 

 moment for deliberation; and Lord Ashburton proceeds to show that 

 it came within that principle. But I am not aware that there is any 

 other difference between them. 



Mr. Phelps. — The difference was not put upon the ground of being 

 an act of war or of the United States having lost its character of 

 neutral territory; but simply as an act of self-defence against a band 



of robbers. 

 1088 Sir Charles Eussell. — Be it so. I think 1 have in effect 

 already said so, because I pointed out that in answer to Mr. 

 Webster, who says "can you in justification of this show that the 

 necessity was instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and 

 no moment for deliberation ", Lord Ashburton proceeds to accept that 

 and justify it. 



l!^ow, before the Tribunal rises, as my learned friend has been good 

 enough to call attention to this point, let me refer to the bottom of 

 page 186. Lord Ashburton says: 



Give me leave, sir, to say, with all possible admiration of your very ingenious dis- 

 cussion of the general principles which are supposed to govern the right and practice 

 of inttrfereuce by the }>eople of one country in the wars andqunrrels of others, that 

 this purt of your argument is little applicable to our imuuMuate case. If Great 

 Britain, America, or any other country, suffer their people to lit out expeditions to 

 take part in distant quarrels, such conduct may, according to the circumstances of 

 each case, be justly matter of complaint, and perhaps these transactions have gen- 

 erally been in late times too much overlooked or connived at. 



That is very much what Lord Palmerston had said : 



But the case we are considering is of a wholly different description, and may be 

 best determined by answering the following question: Supposing a man standing 

 on ground Avhere you have no legal right to follow him, has a weapon long enough 

 to reach you, and is striking you down and endangering your life, how long are you 

 bound to wait for the assistance of the authority having the legal power to relieve 

 you? Or, to bring the facts more immediately home to tlie case, if cannon are mov- 

 ing and setting up in a battery which can reach you, and are actually destroying 

 life and property by their fire; if you have remonstrated for some time without 

 effect and see uo»pro.spect of relief, when begins your right to defend yourself, should 

 you have no other means of doing eo than by seizing your assailant on the verge of 

 neutral territory? 



