34 . ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



Justice Holt were agreed in regarding it as part of the 

 law of England. 



That branch of international law whicih deals with the 

 rights of nations, and which owes its existence to the con- 

 sent of nations, derives its force from well icnown and 

 recognized principles of justice, while that branch of it 

 wliich deals with tlie rights of subjects of different nations 

 is based on principles common to the laws of all nations. 



International law does not nor can a Tribunal admin- 

 istering this law create novel principles, antagonistic to 

 such legal ])rinciples, nor is there any example which can 

 warrant Mr. Phelps' suggestion that this should be done. 



The consent of nations would not be presumed in favour 

 of such novel principles, if, as is assumed above, a prece- 

 dent is sought to be created on the strength of them; and 

 this consent is essential to the admission of such prece- 

 dent. 



It is, it is submitted, therefore clear that the decision of 

 the Arbitration Tribunal must conform to recognized i)rin- 

 ciples of law. 



No other method is sanctioned by the Treaty of Arbitra- 

 tion. That Treaty distinguishes clearly between the ques- 

 tions as to existing rights and the question of future 

 36 Eegulations. The former are dealt with by Article 

 Vl", the latter by Article VII. Further, Article V 

 of the modus vivendi nndvcs the matter clear. By that 

 Article it is provided that " if the result of the Arbitration 

 be to affirm the rif/ht of British sealers " compensation shall 

 be made "for abstaining from the exercise of that right" 

 during the Arbitration ; and " if the result shall be to deny 

 the righV compensation shall be made by Great Britain. 



THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED BEING COMMON TO 

 LAWS OF BOTH PARTIES TO DISPUTE, THEIR DECISION 

 MUST CONFORM TO THEM. 



When, as in the present case, the rights and duties of 

 the respective parties would be determined by the princi- 

 ples of law common to the two countries in the same way, 

 it is submitted that it is the duty of the Arbitration Tri- 

 bunal to follow the common principles of the two laws, and 

 no others. 



A STATE CAN AFFECT ONLY THE RIGHTS OF ITS OWN 

 SUBJECTS. 



A nation has no power to affect by its special Statutes 

 the fundamental rights of possession and property, except 

 with regard to its own subjects and persons within its juris- 

 diction. 



The United States Statutes, under which the British 

 vessels were seized and condemned, as those Statutes are 

 now construed by the Courts of the United States, would 

 aflect these fundamental rights with regard to the subjects 

 of other nations, and therefore are quoad the subjects of 

 other nations ultra vires. 



