202 



The diligence of learned counsel lias not brought to light any ad- 

 judged case, either in England or in America, which is in conllict with 

 or modifies to any extent the principles announced in Church vs. Huh- 

 hart. If the judgment in that case is consistent with the settled prin- 

 ciples of international law, it must follow that the right of the United 

 States to prevent the extermination of a race of animals upon whose 

 existence depends an important industry maintained within its limits — 

 an industry which is a source of revenue, and is directly connected 

 with the government of the native inhabitants of the Pribilof Islands — 

 is not to be denied upon the ground merely that such force, to be effect- 

 ive to accomplish that end, must be used on the high seas beyond its 

 territorial waters. 



It is a fact, not without interest, that the decision in Church vs. 

 Huhhart was referred to with approval in the opinion of Lord Chief 

 Justice Cockburn (concurred in by Lush and Field, J. J. and Pollock B.) 

 in the great case of The Queen vs. Keyn [L. B. 2 Uxch. Div., 63, 

 214). The principal question in that case was whether an English 

 criminal court had jurisdiction to try a foreigner, charged with the 

 offense of manslaughter committed by him on his vessel, a foreign ship, 

 while it was passing within three miles of the shores of England on a 

 voyage to a foreign i^ort. In the course of his opinion, the Loixl Chief 

 Justice said : "I pass on to the statutory enactments relating to foreign- 

 ers within the three-mile zone. These enactments may be divided, 1st, 

 into those which are intended to protect the interests of the State and 

 those which are not; 2d, into those in which the foreigner is expressly 

 named, and those in which he has been lield to be included by impli- 

 cation only. Hitherto legislation, so far as relates to foreigners in 

 foreign ships in this part of the sea, has been confined to the main- 

 tenance of neutral rights and obligations, the prevention of breaches 

 of the revenue and fishery laws, and, under particular circumstances, 

 to cases of collision. In the first two, the legislation is altogether irre- 

 spective of the three-mile distance, being founded on a totally differ- 

 ent principle, namely, the right of a state to tal^e all necessary meas- 

 ures for the protection of its territory and tights and the i)revention 

 of any breach of its revenue laws. This principle was well explained 

 by Marshall, 0. J., in the case of Church vs. Hubbart (2 Cranch, 234)." 

 After quoting what appears in the above extract from the opinion of 

 Chief Justice Marshall, the Lord Chief Justice proceeds: "To this 

 class of enactments belong the acts imposing penalties for the viola- 



