ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 379 



SO far from helping, disproves the contention which my learned friends 

 are snbmitting, as 1 think yon will see. 

 The learned Judge says: 



That the law of nations prohibits the exercise of any act of authority over a vessel 

 in the situation of the Aurora, and that this seizure is, on that account, a mere marine 

 trespass, not within the exception, cannot be admitted. To reason irom the extent 

 of i)rotection a nation will afford to foreigners to the extent of the means it may use 

 for its own securitj^ does not seem to be perfectly correct. It is opposed by princi- 

 ples which are universally acknowledged. The authority of a nation within its own 

 territory is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a vessel within the range of its 

 cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territoi-y, and is a hostile act which 

 it is its duty to repel. But its power to secure itself from injury may certainly be 

 exercised beyond the limits of its territory. 



Upon this principle the right of a belligerent to search a neutral vessel 



Here we get at once to belligerent rights 



On the high seas for contraband of war is universally admitted, because the bellig- 

 erent has a right to prevent the injury done to himself by the assistance intended 

 for his enemy: so too a nation has a right to prohibit any commerce within its colo- 

 nies. Any attempt to violate the laws made to protect this right, is an injury to 

 itself which it may prevent, and it has the right to use the means necessary for its 

 prevention. These means do not appear to be limited within any certain marked 

 boundaries, which remain the same in all times and in all situations, If they are 

 such 



this is the part which is conclusive against the suggestion of right which 

 my learned friend is making 



if they are such as unnecessarily to vex and harass foreign lawful commerce, foreign 

 nations will resist their exertions. If they are such as are reasonable and necessary 

 to secure their laws from violation they will be submitted to. 



1175 And again : 



Thus in the channel, where a very great part of the commerce, to and from all the 

 north of Europe, passes through a very narrow sea, the seizure of vessels on suspi- 

 cion of attem])ting an illicit trade, must necessarily be restricted to very narrow 

 limits; but on the coast of South America, seldom frequented by vessels but for the 

 purpose of illicit trade, the vigilance of the Government may be extended somewhat 

 further; and foreign nations submit to such regulations as are reasonable in them- 

 selves and are really necessary to secure that monopoly of colonial commerce, which 

 is claimed by all nations holding distant possessions. 



If this right be extended too far, the exercise of it will be resisted. 



Again, the principle is stated, which I have already enunciated, and 

 which will be found again and again echoed in the textwriters, this being 

 a question of the protection of revenue laws, the whole jurisdiction or 

 assertion of authority is not based on the absolute right of one nation 

 to put that authority in force, but on the fact that if the regulations are 

 reasonable, and are recognized as such by the authority of the country 

 against whose nationals they are to be enforced, they will be assented to ; 

 but if they are extended too far, they will be resisted. It is not the asser- 

 tion of an absolute right — it is the assertion of a qualitied measure of 

 protection depending, for its sufficient exercise, upon assent. 



Now the rest of the judgment I need not trouble the Tribunal with, 

 because it has no bearing upon the point with which I am concerned. 

 There is also another reason for dismissing it as an authority upon this 

 question, that it was not necessary to the decision whether the risk was 

 within the j^olicy or not, for that alone was the point to be determined, 

 and it was to be determined by municipal law. 



Now I come to the two cases of Rose v. Himeli/, and Sudsony. Guestier, 

 I have spent some liours with the assistance of my friends, Mr. Box and 

 Mr. Piggott, in trying to get at the meaning of these cases which 

 occui^y a very considerable space in the Keports, but when you come to 



