198 



liavetlie means of n a vi grating' its surface" — not that it may be used of 

 right to the injury of mankind in order that a few may reap a temi)orary 

 profit from the destruction of that which has been bestowed for the 

 benefit of all. Pt. 1, c. 1, § 11. In view of these authorities^how can it be 

 said that the doctrine of the freedom of the seas justifies and protects 

 the use of the seas for the purpose or with the inevitable effect of destroy- 

 ing a race of valuable animals, limited in numbers, easily exhaustible 

 by waste, and in the preservation of which all mankiiul is interested"? 



If the United States does not own this herd of seals, and if, in order 

 that they may reap temporary jiroflt, British subjects may, of right, 

 exterminate it when found in the high seas, and temporarily absent 

 from its land home, and thus destroy an important industry maintained 

 for more than a century within the present territory of the United States, 

 then, I admit, that any interference by the United States with the hunt- 

 ing and killing of these animals in the high seas by British subjects would 

 be a marine trespass of which their country could rightfully complain. 

 But I deny that any use of the seas for the purpose, or with the cer- 

 tainty, of producing that result, is a lawful use of the ocean, or that 

 the right of the United States to preserve its material interests, thus 

 directly attacked, depends upon the consent of other countries to be 

 manifested by treaty or legislation. The nation, whose interests are 

 thus assailed may stand upou its inalienable right of self-protection, 

 and by force, if need be, prevent the commission of such acts, even if 

 it may not in its own courts inflict jiersonal punishment for such wrongs 

 upon the subjects of other countries who commit them. If it employs 

 for its self-protection more force than is reasonably necessary it will be 

 responsible therefor to the country upon whose subjects such force is 

 used. But its inability to inflict such jDunishment, in its own courts, 

 can not affect its right, by such force as is necessary, to preserve its 

 material interests by repressing the acts of wrongdoers directly injurious 

 to those interests. When the books speak of the equal rights of all people 

 to use the ocean for purposes of navigation they mean navigation for 

 purposes that are innocent and lawful, and not for purposes which are, 

 in themselves, unjust and injurious to others. 



These views are not at all in conflict with the general rule that a 

 state may not exercise sovereign authority or jurisdiction beyond the 

 line of territorial waters, whether that line be a marine league from its 

 shores, or at such distance as may be measured by cannon shot. That 

 rule has its origin in the necessity which every state is under to provide 

 for the safety of its own people and interests. But the right of self- 



