310 ORAL ARGUMP:NT of sir CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Tliis is the original text. It is noticeable 

 also that Lord Campbell who iilled very high judicial offices in Eng- 

 land — at one time he was Lord Chief Justice after having been Attor- 

 ney General, and he was afterwards Lord Chancellor — that he, in refer- 

 ence to the case, (and this is noted at page 187 of uiy learned friend's 

 Argument) refers to the affair of the "Caroline" as being a difficult 

 matter, and he then goes on to say: 



Eveu Lord Grey tokl me he thought we were quite wrong in what we had done. 



And he goes on to say, assuming the facts to be as he states, that he, 

 Lord Campbell, thinks it was justifiable. I read this for this purpose. 

 It makes very little for my learned friend's contention to cite isolated 

 cases in which things have beeu done by particular Governments and 

 in particular circumstances, and to show that those Governments sought 

 to justify what they had done under international law: the fact that 

 they sought to justify it under international law would not prove that 

 it was international law. 



A large number of cases of that kind, acquiesced in by different Gov- 

 ernments, might go, according to the extent and the number of instances 

 and the period of time over which they extended — the general acqui- 

 escence and consent would go, according to the volume and importance 

 of the cases, a certain way to jirove wliat was international law: but 

 isolated instances would not. 



The next case my learned friend refers to is at page 153 of the printed 

 book. That is the case of the fort on the Appalachicola river. This 

 was a case, shortly stated, of putting down a band of marauders. I 

 should have said that in every one of these cases we have tried to get 

 at the original documents; if it be a United States case, at the United 

 States documents; if it be a British case, at the British documents. 

 This was a United States case, and I will refer for a moment to what is 

 said in the argument about it. I will first read the account in the 

 United States Argument. 



In 1815, under orders of Mr. Monroe, measures were taken for the destruction of a 

 fort held by outlaws of all kinds on the Appalachicola River, then within Spanish 

 territory, from which parties had goue forth to pillage within the United States. 

 The governor of Perisacola had been called upon to rejjress the evil and punish the 

 marauders, but he refused; and on his refusal the Spanish territory was entered and 

 the fort attacked and destroyed, on the ground of necessity. 



Now I take the original United States documents; and I refer first 

 to the communication from the acting Secretary of War, George Gra- 

 ham, to General Gaines. I am reading from page 1140 of the United 

 States Official Papers : 



The papers have been submitted to the President, and I am instructed by him to 

 inform you that he approves- of the movement of the troops from Fort Montgomery 

 to Fort Scott. The appeavanci; of this additional force, he flatters himself, will at 

 least have the effect of restraining the Seminoles, 



1091 those are the Seminole Indians, with whom the United States 

 was at that time at war, 



from committing farther depredations, and perhaps of inducing them to make repa- 

 ration for the murders which they have committed. Should they, however, per- 

 severe in their refusal to make such reparation, it is the wish of the President that 

 you should not on that account pass the line and make an attack upon them within 

 the limits of Florida until you shall have received further instructions from this 

 Department. 



And, on page 1141, there is a further communication to the same 

 gentleman commanding the United States forces: 



Should the Indians, however, assemble in force on the Spanish side of the line 

 and persevere in committing hostilities within the limits of the United States, you 



