ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 335 



passage for me, and, I think, correctly. I liave Azniii liere, and I will 

 hand it to my learned friend. It is Azuni, vol. 1, page 220. 



1121 This is the resume of the fnll passage and context, and my 

 learned friends Avill see the point he makes — the illustration he 



gives of the clashing of those rights. 



Marquis Venosta. — Azuni was an Italian. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Yes he was an Italian writer on the " Droit 

 maritime de I'Europe". 



Mr. Phelps. — I cited from the English tvauslatiou, this is the French. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — That may be so, but still his words are 

 there. 



Mr. Phelps. — Yes. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — My criticism is not one that turns upon 

 verbal translation. The translation that my learned friend has used is 

 quite accurate so far as the translation goes, but it is tl\e context I want 

 to call attention to to show what the particular passage means. 



It is in natuie a sacred and inviolable law which, in the conflict of 

 two equal rights, authorises the suspension of the one of which the 

 interruption produces a less damage, reparable in some manner either 

 more easily or with less expense. 



These are the instances, and the Tribunal will at once see that this 

 is my only point about it. 



The instances given are: 



Jettison : that is to say, a shii) is in peril, the whole adventure is in 

 peril, and the right of the owner of j^articular goods, which happen to be 

 on tlie top of the cargo and under the hatch way, must give way if the 

 jettison of that cargo is necessary for the preservation of the greater 

 j)ortion of the whole adventure, or of the lives of those on board. 



Demolition of a house to prevent a fire from spreading to one's own: 

 Like the case which frequently happens in the great prairies of America 

 where it is I believe thought pertectly justihable if a fire is raging, to 

 cut down the intervening vegetation, which belongs to somebody else, 

 to prevent that fire spreading and causing more widely si)read devasta- 

 tion. 



So, sinking a burning ship to ijrevent the fire from spreading to its 

 neighbours. 



Taking one's neighbour's timber to raise the bank of a stream which 

 is on the point of overflowing. 



In extreme scarcity, taking ship-loads of food to supply the nation 

 which is in want. That is of course a very extreme case. 



In all these cases says Azuni it is enough to repair the damages in 

 order to prevent complaint. 



This violation of right is commanded by the imperious law of neces- 

 sity which, in this conflict, chooses that one avoid the imminent, irre- 

 parable, and greater evil, of the death or ruiu of a great number of 

 individuals, equivalent compensation being granted. 



I think that Avill show that the particular passage is not of any value 

 upon the subject we are discussing. 



I pass on now to one of a series of illustrations given by my learned 

 friend, which, of course, he would not have given if he had not satis- 

 fied his own mind that they were in some sense analogies. But 



1122 analogies are like metaphors. They are very difficult to man- 

 age; and indeed an analogy brings you but a very short way, 



and that not very satisfactory either, upon your journey, because you 

 have first to establish that the analogy is really a perfect analogy, and 

 when you have got to that point it becomes a question idem ;per idem^ 



