PROPERTY IN THE ALASKAN SEAL HERD 63 



necessary by man everywhere, such as Peruvian bark, could be pro- 

 cured, was within the exclusive dominion of a particular power, and 

 that it should absolutely prohibit the exportation of the commodity; 

 could there be any well-founded doubt that other nations would be 

 justified, under the law of nature, in compelling that nation by arms 

 to permit free commerce in such commodity? 



And this trust, of which we are speaking, is not limited to that sur- 

 plus of a nation's production which is not needed for its own wants, 

 but extends to its means and capabilities for production. No nation 

 has, by the law of nature, a right to destroy its sources and means of 

 production or leave them unimproved. None has the right to convert 

 any portion of the earth into a waste or desolation, or to permit any 

 part which may be made fruitful to remain a waste. To destroy the 

 source from which any human blessing liows is not merely an error it 



whereas, otherwise, their passions would impel them to hate and destroy each 

 other. * * * 



"The law of commerce is therefore based upon the obligation under which nations 

 are to assist each other mutually, and to contribute, as far as lies in their power 

 to the happiness of each other." 



From Levi (International Commercial Law, 2d ed., 1863. Vol. I, Preface, pp. 

 xxxix, xl) : 



* * * " Commerce is a law of nature, and the right of trading is a natural 

 right. (*) But it is only an imperfect right, -inasmuch as each nation is the sole 

 judge of what is advantageous or disadvantageous to itself; and whether or not it 

 he convenient for her to cultivate any branch of trade, or to open trading intercourse 

 with any one country. Hence it is that no nation has a right to compel another na- 

 tion to enter into trading intercourse with herself, or to pass laws for the benefit of 

 trading and traders. Yet the refusal of this natural right, whether as against one 

 nation only, or as against all nations, would constitute an offense against interna- 

 tional law, and it was this refusal to trade, and the exclusion of British traders from 

 her cities and towns, that led to the war with China. 



From Halleck (International Law (Ed. 1861), Ch. xi, sec. 13, p. 280): 

 "Sec. 13. To this right of trade there is a corresponding duty of mutual commerce, 

 fouuded on the general law of nature; for, says Vattel, 'one country abounds in 

 corn, another in pastures and cattle, a third in timber and metals ; all these countries 

 trading together, agreeably to human nature, no one will bo without such things as 

 are useful and necessary, and the views of nature, our common mother, will be ful- 

 filled. Further, one country is fitter for some kind of products than another; as 

 for vineyards more than tillage. If trade and barter take place, every nation, on 

 the certainty of procuring what it wants, will employ its industry and its ground in 

 the most advantageous manner, and mankind in general proves a gainer by it. Such 

 are the foundations of the general obligation incumbent on nations reciprocally to 

 cultivate commerce. Therefore, everyone is not only to join in trade as far as it 

 reasonably can, but even to countenance and promote it.'" 



Reddie (Inquiries into International Law. 2d Ed. 1851, Ch. v., Pt. n., sub sec. ii., 

 Art. ii, p. 207) : 



"But the chief source of the intercourse of nations in their individual capacity 

 * Vattel, b. I, ch. 8, sec. 88. 



