ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 541 



tompel aa entry of vessels, destined through those waters to Spanish territories, 

 wouhl be an usurpation of exclusive jurisdiction over all the navigation of the river. 

 If our Government had a right to compel the entry at our Custom-house of a French 

 ship in her transit, the same right existed to compel the entry of a Spanish ship. 

 Such a pretension was never asserted; and it would be an unjust interpretation of 

 our laws to give them a meaning so much at variance with the independence and 

 sovereignty of foreign nations. 



Then tliere is a passage tliat is not material upon tliis point. I have 

 the report here. 



But, even supposing for a moment that our laws had required an entry of the 

 "Apollon" in her transit, does it follow that the power to arrest her was meant to 

 be given after she had passed into the exclusive territory of a foreign nation? We 

 think not. It would be monstrous to suppose that our revenue officers were author- 

 ized to enter into foreign ports and territories for the purpose of seizing vessels 

 which had offended against our laws. It cannot be presumed that Congress would 

 voluntarily justify such a clear violation of the law of nations. The arrest of the 

 offending vessel must, therefore, be restrained to places where our jurisdiction is 

 complete, to our own waters, or to the ocean, the common highway of all nations. 

 It is said that there is a revenue jurisdiction which is distinct from the ordinary 

 maritime jurisdiction over waters within the range of a cannon-shot from our shores. 

 And the provisions in the Collection Act of 1799, which authorize a visitation of 

 vessels within 4 leagues of our coasts, are referred to in proof of the assertion. But 

 where is that right of visitation to be exercised? In a foreign territory in the 

 exclusive jurisdiction of another Sovereign? Certainly not; for the very terms of 

 the Act confine it to the ocean, where all nations have a common right, and exercise 

 a common sovereignty. And over what vessels is this right of visitation to be 

 exercised? By the very words of the act, over our own vessels, and over foreign 

 vessels bound to our ports, and over no others. To have gone beyond this would 

 have been an usurpation of exclusive sovereignty on the ocean, and an exercise of 

 an universal right of search, a right which has never yet been acknowledged by 

 other nations, and would be resisted by none with more pertinacity than by the 

 Americans. 



I need not read the rest of the judgment. It is equally in my favor 

 but not so pointed. May I ask the Tribunal to consider the enuncia- 

 tion of the law there laid down by a Judge second to none in the his- 

 tory of lawyers of the world, Mr. Justice Story. 



And it is, Sir, in accordance, so far as my research has enabled me 

 to discover, with every other Judge and writer of authority, namely, 

 that these statutes have only force, and are intended only to operate, 

 against persons who are attempting to break or have broken the munici- 

 pal law. I do not repeat the qualification which, for the purposes of 

 accuracy, I should have included, which Lord Hannen was good enough 

 to mention a few minutes ago, namely that even in the case of an actual 

 breach of the municipal law, the breach must be recent, the pursuit must 

 be hot. It is .suflicient for my j)urpose to say that the cases in which 

 these municipal statutes have ever been held of any authority at all are 

 cases in whicli the foreigner is entering or has entered the territorial 

 water with the intention of breaking the law. 



Sir, the other correlative proposition may be stated, I believe, with as 

 much clearness and with as much generality. I believe that in the 

 whole history of diplomatic relations, in the whole history of complaints 

 made by States in respect of acts which they thought were contrary to 

 international law, though you will find many justifications on the 

 ground of immediate and pressing danger, on the ground of the sudden 

 emergency in which a nation has been placed, on the ground that they 

 were willing to take the risk, having regard to the pressing danger, on 

 the ground that persons in respect to whom the complaint was made had 

 behaved so immorally and so unjustifiably that their cases ought not 

 to be taken up by the complaining State to which they belonged, there 

 is not a trace of a justification of any one of these acts upon the grounds! 

 now put forward by my learned friend Mr. Phelps. 



