186 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



"It is necessary to concede to every nation a right of surveillance 

 over the bordering sen within the limits which its security, its tran- 

 quillity, and its wealth demand. * * * Balde and other authorities 

 place the line at 60 miles from the shore, Gryphiander and Pacuinez, 

 at 100. Locennius, at a point from which a ship can sail in two days. 

 Bynkershock maintains that the territorial sea extends as far as the 

 power of artillery. This hunt is regarded as the correct one, not because 

 it is founded on force, but because it is the limit necessary for the safety 

 of the state." 



[NOTE 1, PAGE 153. THE CAROLINE CASE.] 



Mr. Webster said, addressing the British Government: 



" Under those circumstances, and under those immediately connected 

 witli the transaction itself, it will be for Her Majesty's Government to 

 show upon what state of facts and what rules of international law the 

 destruction of the Caroline is to lie defended. It will be for that Gov- 

 ernment to show a necessity of self- defense, instant, overwhelming, 

 leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. 



••It will be for it to show, also, that the local authorities of Canada, 

 even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter 

 the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or 

 excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must 

 be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it. It must be 

 shown that admonition or remonstrance to the persons on board the 

 Caroline was impracticable, or would have been unavailing." (Web- 

 ster's Works, Vol. vi, page 261.) 



Lord Ashburton in his reply says: 



"Every consideration, therefore, leads us toset ashighlyas yourGov- 

 ernment can possibly do this paramount obligation of reciprocal respect 

 for the independent territory of each. But however strong this duty 

 may be, it is admitted by all writers, by all jurists, by the occasional 

 practice of all nations, not excepting your own, that a- strong overpow- 

 ering necessity may arise when this great principle may and must be 

 suspended. It must be so, for the shortest possible period during the 

 continuance of an admitted overruling necessity, and strictly confined 

 within the narrowest limits imposed by that necessity. Self-defense is 

 the first law of our nature, and it must be recognized by every code 

 which professes b> regulate the condition and relations of man. Upon 

 this modification, if 1 may so call it, of the great general principle, we 

 seem also to be agreed ; and on this part of the subject I have done 

 little more than repeat the sentiments, though in less forcible language, 

 admitted and maintained by you in the letter to which you refer me. 



" Agreeing, therefore, on the general principle, and on the possible ex- 

 ception to which it is liable, the only question between us is whether 

 this occurrence came within the limits fairly to be assigned to such ex- 

 ceptions; whether, to use your words, there was that necessity of 

 self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, which 

 preceded the destruction of the Caroline while moored to the shore of 

 the United States. Give me leave, sir, to say, with all possible admi- 

 ration of your very ingenious discussion of the general principles which 

 are supposed to govern the right and practice of interference by the 

 people of one country in the wars and quarrels of others, that this part 

 of your argument is little applicable to our immediate case. If Great 

 Britain, America, or any other country, suffer their people to fit out 



