104 ORAJ. ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



It is exceptional in its cbaracter. It asserts the general rule of the 

 freedom of the seas, but says, notwitlistandiug that freedom, there are 

 instances in which all nations are subjected to certain necessities, and 

 those necessities beget and create the authority to use reasonable meas- 

 ures of defense and protection. All reasonable nations will accede to 

 them, and do accede to them, and, consequently, they have had tiieir 

 place in all time on the statute books of nations, and have never yet 

 led to contention except in cases where they were really unreasonable, 

 or supi)Osed to be so. 



Senator Morgan. Mr. Carter, I believe that you have not as yet read 

 that part of the correspondence between the two Governments relating 

 to the question of an assumption of damages in this treaty for tres- 

 passes alleged to have been committed against the Government of the 

 United States. 



Mr. Oartek. No; I have not. 



Senator Morgan. I wanted to ask you if, in the correspondence that 

 led up to this treaty, Great Britain did not refuse to admit her liability 

 for any trespasses by her nationals upon the i^roperty of the United 

 States? 



Mr. Carter. Well, perhaps she did. 



Sir Charles Russell. Certainly she did. 



Senator Morgan. She did refuse? 



Sir Charles Russell. Certainly. 



Senator Morgan. And that was the reason why a claim for damages 

 on tlie part of the United States was excluded from this treaty. 



Mr. Carter. At a later stage in my argument I shall deal with that 

 matter; but it does not seem to me to be especially relevant here. 



Sena-tor Morgan. It seems to my mind to be exactly in point, if you 

 will allow me. Therefore, I ask the question; if Great Britain refuses 

 such responsibility for trespasses by her nationals on the high seas 

 must it not follow if the United States were the owners of this property, 

 and if Great Britain has refused to become responsible for the trespass 

 by her subjects or nationals, the United States may prevent the tres- 

 pass and the consequent damage which they would otherwise suffer. 



Mr. Carter. In my judgment the United States has the power to 

 prevent the trespass and the consequent damage, whether Great 

 Britain is willing to answer for the damages or not. 



Senator Morgan. In this case I am trying to get at the history of it. 

 That matter had been under discussion, and Great Britain had refused 

 to become responsible for the trespasses of her nationals. 



Sir Charles Kussell. She denied that there was any trespass upon 

 the property of the United States. 



Senator Morgan. I understand that. My question is predicated upon 

 the supposition that there was a trespass. It was the property of the 

 United States, and if there was a trespass, has not Great Britain in 

 this very negotiation refused to became responsible, and excluded it 

 from this treaty on that account? That is the point I wanted to get at. 



Mr. Carter. 1 believe that to have been the case. 



Senator Morgan. I think that is pertinent. 



Mr. Carter. In my view it is not among those things which in my 

 mind are pertinent to the present discussion; and, of course, I cannot 

 very well argue myself, except by employing those grounds and reasons 

 which in my mind seem to be material. 



Senator Morgan. I was only claiming the right to have the difficulty 

 in my mind cleared up. 



The President. Perhaps the counsel on either side will clear the 

 matter up later on. 



