158 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



interests on shore in which the property is not denied nor open to 

 dispute. 



The jurisdiction accorded to nations over the littoral seas is by no 

 means the only instance in which rules of international law, now com- 

 pletely established and universally recognized, and under which the 

 freedom of the sea has been largely abri dged, have arisen out of the 

 right and necessity of self-defense, and out of the general principle 

 that to such necessity individual righ ts and the acquisition of private 

 emoluments upon the ocean must give way. 



Some of these rules relate to the interests of nations when engaged 

 in war, and others, like that which concedes the jurisdiction over terri- 

 torial seas, chiefly to the interests of peace. 



The right of self-defense, as affecting nations, is no greater in war 

 than in peaee. Certain necessities are sometimes greater in one state 

 than in the other. But in both the measure of the necessity is the 

 measure of the right, and the justifiable means of self- protection are 

 such as the case requires. It is the principle that controls the case, 

 not the case that controls the principle. The state of war only exists 

 between the belligerents, and is only material between them and 

 neutrals, so far as it gives rise to a particular necessity on the part of 

 a belligerent, that would not otherwise arise. 



The international law of piracy is an infringement of the right which 

 even a criminal has, to be tried in the jurisdiction where his crime was 

 committed, and if upon the high sea, in the jurisdiction to which his 

 vessel belongs. Such is the rule in respect to every other crime known 

 to the law. But if an American in an American ship commits an act ot 

 piracy on the high seas on a British vessel, he may, by the rules of 

 international law, be captured by a French cruiser, taken into a French 

 port, and there tried and executed, if France thinks proper to extend 

 the jurisdiction of her courts to such a case. The reason of this well" 

 settled rule is not found in the character of the crime, which is but rob- 

 bery and murder at worst, but in the necessity of general defense, in 

 which all seagoing nations have a like interest and therefore a like 

 right to intervene, without waiting for the tardy or uncertain action of 

 others. 



The slave trade is an offense for which the sea is not free, though not 

 yet regarded in international law as piracy, because there are still 

 countries where slavery is legalized. But there is no question that a 

 nation whose laws prohibit slavery may capture on the high sea any 

 vessel laden with slaves intended to be landed on her coast, or any ves- 



