APPENDIX TO PAET THIRD DIVISION II. 183 



eign rights of tlie nation to which she belongs, because it is the law of 

 reason and the general understanding of nations that the offending 

 individual forfeits liis claim to protection, and every nation is the legal 

 avenger of its own wrongs. Within their jurisdictional limits the rights 

 of sovereignty are exclusive; upon the ocean they are concurrent. What- 

 ever the great principle of self-defense in its reasonable and necessary 

 exercise will sanction in an individual in a state of nature, nations may 

 lawfully perform upon the ocean. This principle, as well as most others, 

 may be carried to an unreasonable extent; it may be made the pretence 

 instead of the real ground of aggression, and then it will become a jnst 

 cause of war. I contend only for its reasonable exercise. 



The act of Great Britain of 24 Geo., 3, Chap. 47, is predicated upon 

 these principles. It subjects vessels to seizure which approach with 

 certain cargoes on board within the distance of four leagues of her 

 coast, because il would be difficult, if not impossible, to execute her 

 trade laws if they were suffered to approach nearer in the prosecution 

 of an illicit design; but if they have been within that distance, they 

 are afterwards subject to be seized on the high seas. They have then 

 violated her laws, and have forfeited the protection of their sovereign. 

 The laws of the United States upon the subject of trade appear to have 

 been framed in some measure after the model of the English statutes; 

 and the twenty-ninth section of the act of 1799 expressly authorizes 

 the seizure of a vessel that has within the jurisdiction of the United 

 States committed an act of forfeiture, wherever she may be met with 

 by a revenue cutter, without limiting the distance from the coast. 



Se also the act of 180(5, for prohibiting the importation of slaves, 

 authorizes a seizure beyond our jurisdictional limits, if the vessel be 

 found with slaves on board, hovering on the coast; a latitude of expres- 

 sion that can only be limited by circumstances, and the discretion of 

 a court, and in case of fresh pursuit would be actually without limita- 

 tion. Indeed, after passing the jurisdictional limits of a State, a ves- 

 sel is as much on the high seas as if in the middle of the ocean, and if 

 France could authorize a seizure at the distance of 2 leagues, she could 

 at the distance of 20. * * * Seizure on the high seas for a breach 

 of the right of blockade during the whole return voyage, is universally 

 acquiesced in as reasonable exercise of sovereign power. The princi- 

 ple of blockade has, indeed, in modern times, been pushed to such an 

 extravagant extent as to become a very justifiable cause of war, but 

 still it is admitted to be consistent with the law of nations when con- 

 fined within the limits of reason and necessity. 



[NOTE 1 (PAGE 152). CITATIONS FROM CONTINENTAL WRITERS ON THE SUBJECT OP 



SELF DEFENSE.] 



Every nation may appropriate things, the use of which, if left free 

 and common, would be greatly to its prejudice. This is another rea- 

 son why maritime powers may extend their domain along the seacoast, 

 as far as it is possible, to defend their rights. * * * It is essential 

 to their security and the welfare of their dominions. (Azuni, Part I, 

 Chap, ii, Art. I, Sec. 4, page 185.) 



Plocque (De la Mer et de la Navigation Maritime, ch. I, pp. 6-8), 

 after discussing the limits of the territorial sea, and pointing out the 

 great divergence of opinion that had existed ou that point, remarks: 



"Moreover, in custom-house matters, a nation can fix at will the 

 point where its territorial sea ends; the neighboring nations are sup- 



