ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 167 



And Levi, ia his work upon International Commercial Law, says: 



Commerce is a law of nature, and the right of trading is a natural right. But it 

 is only an imperfect right, inasmuch as each nation is the solo judge of what is 

 advantageous or disadvantageous to itself; and whether or not it he convenient for 

 her to cultivate any branch of trade, or to open trading intercourse with any one 

 country. Hence it is that no nation has a right to compel another nation to enter 

 into trading intercourse with herself, or to pass laws for the benefit of trading and 

 traders. Yet the refusal of this natural right, whether as against one nation only, 

 or as against all nations, would constitute an offense against international law, and 

 it was this refusal to trade, and the exclusion of British traders from her cities and 

 towns, that led to the war with China. 



That war with China may well be referred to as illustrating the 

 j)roposition, that no nation has an absolute projicrty in any of the gifts 

 of Providence, but that they are given in part upon a trust to share 

 them with otliers. Let me suppose an article like India rubber, which 

 has become a supreme necessity to the human race all over the world. 

 It is produced in very few places. It is possible that the uatiou which 

 has dominion over those places might seek to exclude it from the com- 

 merce of the world. It might go so far as to attempt to destroy the 

 plantations which produce the tree from which the gum is extracted. 

 Would such an attempt give any right to any other nation! Most 

 certainly it would! It would give a right to other nations to interfere 

 and take possession, if necessary, of the regions in which that article 

 so important, so necessary to mankind, was alone grown, in order that 

 they might supply themselves; and the ground of such action would 

 be that the nation which had possession of this product refused to 

 perform its trust by sharing that blessing. 



The President. Do you mean a legal right! 



Mr. Carter. 1 mean a perfect legal right in international law. Let 

 me carry that a little further, if there be any doubt about it. In inter- 

 national law we have a whole chapter in regard to the instances in 

 which one nation may justly interfere in the affairs of another; and 

 there are numerous instances in history in which such interferences 

 have been had. Take one instance, which is generally spoken of as the 

 means adopted to "preserve the balance of power". When one nation 

 in Europe seeks to so extend itself as to threaten what has been styled 

 the balance of power, this has Irom an early period in European history 

 been deemed a cause of interference by other nations, and, if necessary, 

 of war. That interference is defended upon moral grounds, aiul it is 

 perfectly defensible; for what right has a nation to threaten the peace 

 of the world? 



The President. It is one of the forms of self-defence. 



Mr. Carter. Now, as I have said before, the benefits of nature were 

 originally given to mankind, and all the members of the human family 

 have a right to participate in them. The coffee of Central America 

 and Arabia is not the exclusive property of those two nations; the tea 

 of China, the rubber of South America, are not the exclusive property 

 of those nations where it is grown; they are, so far as not needed by 

 the nations which enjoy the possession, the common property of man- 

 kind; and if the nations which have the custody of them withdraw 

 them, they are failing in their trust, and other nations have a right to 

 interfere and secure their share. 



Lord Hannen. May they sell them at their own price, although it 

 may be a very high price? 



Mr. Carter. Yes, until they come to put a price upon them which 

 amounts to a refusal to sell them — when they arrogate to themselves 

 the exclusive benefits of blessings which were intended for all, then 



