168 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



you can interfere. 1 do not dispute the right of a nation to say: "For 

 certain reasonable purposes we must interdict commerce with sucli and 

 such a place." There may be grounds and reasons for that; there may 

 be reasons why a nation should refuse for a time to carry on commerce 

 at all; there may be exceptional circumstances which would entitle a 

 nation to act in this manner. But what I do assert is that where a 

 nation says: "We will for ever exclude the world from participating 

 in these benefits of which we have sole possession," that nation com- 

 mits a violation of natural law, and gives other nations a right to 

 interpose and assert for themselves a claim to those blessings to which 

 they are entitled under the law of nature. 



And let me next assert that the practice of mankind has universally 

 proceeded upon these principles. Upon what other ground can we 

 defend the seizures by the European Powers of the territories of the 

 New World — the great continents of Xorth and South America'? Eng- 

 land, France, Spain, nearly all the European maritime nations, engaged 

 in the enterprise of taking possession of enormous tracts of territory 

 in the New World from the peoples which occupied them. They never 

 asked permission ; they took them forcibly and against the will of the 

 natives. They said to those uncivilized nations: "These countries are 

 not intended for your sole benefit, but for ours also, and we choose to 

 treat them as such." That policy has been pursued by civilized nations 

 for centuries. Is it robbery, or is it defensible? I assert that it is not 

 robbery, because those barbarous and uncivilized peoples did not apply 

 the bounties they possessed to the purposes for which nature and 

 nature's God intended them; they were not faithful to the trust which 

 was imposed upon them; they were incapable of discharging to man- 

 kind the duties which the possessors of such blessings ought to dis- 

 charge. The nations of Europe say: "These vast tracts of the most 

 fertile parts of the earth, capable of affording measureless comforts to 

 mankind, and of sustaining a valuable commerce shall not be allowed 

 to remain a waste and a desolation. It was not for such purposes that 

 the earth was given to man, and it is the mission of civilized man to take 

 out of the possession of barbarous man whatever can contribnte to the 

 benefit of the human race in general, but which is left unimproved. 



Senator Morgan here asked a question as to the Conference at Berlin 

 previously referred to by the President, and at which this point was 

 considered. He was understood to ask whether the doctrine now upheld 

 had been then settled as a principle of international law. 



Mr. Carter. I cannot say; but I am certain that the practice of man 

 kind from an early period of history has been based upon these princi- 

 ples; and unless these principles are well founded, the whole course of 

 the settlement of the New World is indefensible robbery. What did 

 England do in the case of China in 1840, for instance? She made war 

 upon China and subdued her. Why? The real cause of war is not 

 always correctly stated in the pretext given for it, and in that instance 

 the pretext was, I believe, some discourtesy which had been shown to 

 individuals, some maltreatment of British officials. But if we look into 

 the history of the matter, we find that the dispute began wlien China 

 closed her ports, and that it terminated with the treaty by which she 

 bound herself to keep them open. This war was defensible; I do not 

 put it as an offence on the part of Great Britain. When a nation refuses 

 to perform the duties incumbent upon her in respect to the blessings 

 confided to her care, there is a cause for the intervention of other 

 nations. 



