199 



protection or self-prcservntioii dcics not end with tlie outer line of mar- 

 ginal or territorial waters. In tlie very nature of tilings it eould not 

 end with that line without rendering the right valueless. 



Rutherford, in his Institutes oflSTaViiral Law, gives expression to views 

 upon the doctrine of self-protection which are universallv accepted. 

 He says: "In short, the true principles upon which our right of 

 defending either our persous or our goods depends is this: The law of 

 nature does not oblige us to give them up when any one has a mind to 

 hurt them, or to take them from us; and that the law of nature does 

 not oblige us thus to give them up, is evident; because our right to 

 them would be unintelligible, or would, in etiect, be no right at all if 

 we were obliged to suffer all mankind to treat them as they pleased, 

 without endeavoring to prevent it. If this, then, is the principle upon 

 which the right of defense depends, we can not expect to find that the 

 law of nature has exactly defined how far we may go, or what we may 

 lawfully do, in endeavoring to prevent an injury which anyone designs 

 and attempts to do us. The law allows us to defend our persons or 

 our property; and such a general allowance implies that no particular 

 means of defense are prescribed to us. We may, however, be sure 

 that whatever means are necessary must be lawful, because it would 

 be absurd to suppose that the law of nature allows of defense, and yet 

 forbids us at the same ^ime to do what is necessary for this purpose." 

 Blc. 1, c. IG, 2(1 American ed. 



An illustration of these principles is furnished by the case in 

 the Supreme Court of the United States of Church vs. Huhhart [2 

 CrancKs Reports^ ISO, 231), decided in ISQl. That was an action upon 

 policies of insurance upon the cargo of a vessel, which contained pro- 

 visions exempting the insurance company from liability in case of a 

 seizure of the vessels by the Portuguese for illicit trade. During the 

 life of the policies the vessel was seized by the Portuguese and con- 

 demned iu one of its municipal tribunals for a violatiou by it of the 

 laws of Portugal prohibiting commercial intercourse between its colo- 

 nies and foreign vessels. On behalf of the insured it was contended, 

 among other things, that the policy of insurance did not exempt the 

 company from liability, unless the seizure was justified by the laws of 

 Portugal and by the law of nations. His counsel said: "The sentence 

 does not go on the grouiul of illicit trade. At most it only expresses a 

 suspicion. The vessel was seized five leagues from the land, at anchor 

 on the high seas. The seizure was not justified by their [Portuguese] 

 laws. She was not within their territorial jurisdiction. By the law 



