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



vague speculation, uor embarked upou metaphysical discussion. I have 

 felt it to be my duty to try and assist the Tribunal in ascertaining what 

 the Law is, because, as I have previously taken the opportunity of saying 

 I conceive it to be the function of this Tribunal not to make a law but 

 to declare the law; not to consider what the law ought to be; but to say, 

 upon their responsibility, what the law is, — not to formulate new rights, 

 but to affirm what, in their judgment, they believe to be existing rights. 



In this domain of law, the armoury of argument is full. Here, indeed 

 are the weapons of Achilles; but where are the strength and skill to 



use them with their full force and effect? 

 1202 I have dealt with the law as I believe it to be. I am content 

 to think that that law, as it has come down to us, fashioned by 

 the wisdom of ages modified by the experience of Human Society, in its 

 evolution is a fitting and noble instrument to serve the just purposes 

 and uses of Mankind in the adjudication of their rights. 



My friend, Mr. Carter, in his impressive opening, well said that this 

 submission to arbitration was a great fact. Mr. President, it is a great 

 fact — a fact of weighty moral significance. 



There are two great Powers before you: One, a representative of the 

 civilization of the Old World, great in its extent of dominion, greater 

 still in its long enduring traditions of well ordered liberty and in the 

 stability of its ancient Institutions; the other a young but stalwart 

 member of the Family of Nations, great also, in its extent of territory, 

 in the almost boundless resources at its command, great, too, in the 

 genius and enterprise of its people, possessing enormous potentialities 

 for good on the future of the human race. These Powers are in differ- 

 ence. Great Britain conceives that she has been wronged by these 

 seizures, as we submit justly so conceives, that her sovereignty has been 

 invaded; her rights upon the high sea, represented by her nationals, 

 set at nought. Happily the dread extremity of war was avoided. These 

 nations have not sought to turn their ploughshares into swords to settle 

 their differences. They are here before you, friendly litigants, peaceful 

 suitors in your Court, asking by pacific means the adjustment and the 

 determiuation of their rights in times of peace. This is, indeed, a fact 

 of great moral significance. 



Peace liath her victories not leas renowned than war. 



This arbitration is, who will gainsay it? who can gainsay it? — a vic- 

 tory for peace. Will your award be a victory for peace ? You, Gentle- 

 men of this Tribunal, alone can answer. 



It will be, it must be, a victory for peace if, as I cannot permit myself 

 to doubt, it conform to and leaA^e untouched and undoubted the princi- 

 ples of that law which have been consecrated by long usage and stamppd 

 with the approval of generations of men: that law which has, after all, 

 grown up in response to that cry of humanity heard through all time, a 

 cry sometimes inarticulate, sometimes drowned by the discordant voices 

 of passion, pride, ambition, but still a cry, a prayerful cry, that has gone 

 up through all the ages, for peace on earth and good will amongst men. 



The President. — Sir Charles, we have to thank you for the great 

 pains you have taken in making clear the very intricate questions 

 brought before us for decision. You have reaped so much applause in 

 the course of your profession as a lawyer and far-famed speaker, that 

 what I might add would be but of small purport. I will merely say that 

 the vigour and incisiveness of your argument have been fully appre- 

 ciated. We feel that England has done honor to this Tribunal when she 

 chose as her counsel in this memorable case one of her ablest and most 

 powerful legal debaters. 



