ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 95 



Kussia uDclertook to do Avas to protect an exclusive grant of its colonial 

 trade; and it adopted the measure — a familiar one in that age — of 

 interdicting tlie a})proacli of a foreign vessel within a certain line of 

 the coast, Noay what was the reason of that! The general rale of 

 international law which limited the sovereignty of a nation to a strip 

 of the sea three miles in width and along its coast, was not as well 

 known and acknowledged in that age as it is now, but it was nearly so. 

 It was perfectly familiar at that time to the statesmen, jurists, and 

 legislators of the world; not ])erhaps so perfectly established as now — 

 for the freedom of the seas was snbject to more limitations then than 

 now — bnt still it was a recognized doctrine at that time. But of conrse 

 the territorial limit of a nation conld not be the limit beyond which 

 it could not exercise any power at all for the purpose of protecting an 

 interest attached to the shore; it would be permissible for a nation to 

 preserve the right to its colonial trade by interdicting the approach of 

 foreign vessels within a much greater width than three miles. If a 

 foreign vessel could cojne to within a short distance though more than 

 three miles at a favorable moment for its purposes, all the benefits of 

 the colonial trade of -a nation could not be secured to that nation. A 

 nation must be permitted to prevent vessels from hovering on the coast. 



The Peesideis't. Do you mean in reference to offences involving 

 confiscation'? 



Mr. Carter. What I mean to say is that the offences which involve 

 confiscation could be committed by coming within one hundred miles. 



The President. But could that be if committed outside the three 

 mile limit ? 



Mr, Carter. I say not only beyond the three mile limit, but even 

 beyond the hundred mile limit. The ukase is silent upon that point, 

 but that is one of the sections of the prohibition, Now, in order to 

 show what measures were usually resorted to for the purpose of pro- 

 tecting colonial trade, and what measures were sanctioned, I may refer 

 the learned Arbitrators to a decision of Chief Justice Marshall of the 

 Supreme Court of the United iStates in the case of Church against 

 Hubbart, which is reported in the second of Cranch's Reports, page 

 187. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in that case says: 



That the law of nations prohibits the exercise of auy act of authority over a vessel 

 in the situation of the Aurora, and tliat this seizure is, on that account, a mere 

 maritime trespass not witiiin tlie exception, cannot he admitted. To reason from 

 the extent of the protection a nation will afford to foreigners, to the extent of the 

 means it may use for its own security, does not seem to be perfectly correct. It is 

 opposed by principles which are universally acknowledged. The authority of a 

 nation within its own territory is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a vessel 

 within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territory, and 

 is a hostile act which it is its duty to repel. But its power to secure itself from injury 

 may certainly be exercised beyond the limits of its territory. 



Upon this principle, the right of a belligerent to search a iieutral vessel on the high 

 seas for contraband of war is universally admitted, because the belligerent has a 

 right to prevent the injury done to himself by the assistance intended for his enemy. 

 So too, a nation has a right to proliibit any commerce witli its colonies. Any 

 attempt to violate the laws made to protect this right is an injury to itself which it 

 may prevent, and it has a right to use the means neeessai-y for its prevention. These 

 means do not apjiear to bo limited within any certain marked boundaries, which 

 remain the same at all times and in all situations. If they are such as unnecessarily 

 to vex and harass foreign lawful connnerce, foreign nations will resist their exercise. 

 If they are such as are reasonable and necessary to secure their laws from violation, 

 they will be submitted to. 



In different seas and on different coasts a wider or more contracted range in which 

 to exercise the vigilance of tlie Government will be as.'-ented to. Thus in the Chan- 

 nel, where a very great pari of the conmierce to and from all the north of Europe 

 passes through a very narrow sea, the seizure of vessels on susjiicion of attempting 

 an illicit trade must necessarily be restricted to very narrow limits; but on the coast 



