38 ARGUMENT OP GREAT BRITAIN. 



Uiiited^^states 1. To eiideavour to prove a uiiiform practice of nations 

 ase, p. — . ^^ protect seal life froui detstr action by means of extra- 

 tcriitorial lej?islation. 

 Bjid., p. 231. 2. To endeavour to show a uniform practice of nations 



of extending the provisions of their fishery laws beyond 

 the 3-niile limit; and of making these i)rovisions api)licable 

 to foreigners. 

 Ibid., p. 237. 3^ To show that other examples of extra-territorial juris- 



diction are to be found in the laws of other nations. 



DEDUCTIONS DRAWN FROM SUCH LAWS. 



The deductions desired to be drawn by the United States 

 from the examples cited are: 



From 1. That the United States law under which Brit- 

 ish vessels have been seized is justified by the laws of other 



nations for the i)rotection of seals. 

 40 From 2. That this law is justified by analogy to 



the fishery laws of other nations; and 



That the application of this law to foreigners beyond 

 the 3-mile limit is also justified by example and analogy. 



From 3. That the law, and more especially in its appli- 

 cation to foreigners beyond the 3 mile limit, is further justi- 

 fied by analogy of other extra-territorial laws not dealing 

 with fisheries. 



It is proposed to demonstrate in the following Argu- 

 ment that these premises are not well founded, and that 

 the position assumed by the United States is untenable. 



With regard to the argument from the practice of other 

 nations, or from analogy to the practice of other nations, 

 it is submitted that the following propositions can alojie be 

 maintained. 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH ANY EXCEPTION MUST 



REST. 



To warrant any exceptional departure from the prin- 

 ciples commonly accepted by all nations as ])art of the law 

 of nations, it is essential that there should bean agree- 

 ment between all — 



1. As to the sufficiency of the causes calling for such 

 exceptional legislation. 



2. As to the means for remedying such causes, i. e., as to 

 the purport of such legislation. 



This follows from the fundamental principle on which 

 the law of nations rests, viz., consent of nations. 

 3'!11'^^^b"°' This subject has already been dealt with, but it is neces- 

 sary to examine categorically the examples of extra-terri- 

 torial legislation adduced by the United States in order to 

 show that they utterly fail to support the argument for 

 which they are cited. 



In supiiort of the first proposition advanced — that seal 

 life is ]>r<)teeted by extra-territorial laws of other nations, 

 the instauces adduced by United States are the following: 



ter-Case, p. 86. 



