170 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



I read from Sergeant Stephen's Coniineiitaries on the Laws of Eng- 

 land, Vol. 1, Book 2, pages 159-165: 



111 tlie beginning of the world, as we are informed by Holy Writ, the All Bonnti- 

 fiil Creator gave to man "dominion over all the earth; and over tlie tisli of the sea, 

 and over the fowls of the air, and over every living thing that moveth npou 

 the earth". 



Hence the earth and all things therein are the general property of all mankind, 

 exclnsive of other beings, from the immediate gift of the Creator. And while the 

 earth contimied bare of inhabitants, it is reasonable to suppose that all was in com- 

 mon among tiiem, and that every one took from the public stock, to his own use, 

 such things as his immediate necessities required. 



From Vattel, 7th American Edition, Book 2, section 21: 



All men ouglit to find on earth the things they stand in need of. In the primitive 

 state of communion, they took them wherever they happened to meet witli them, if 

 another had not before appropriated them to his own use. The introduction of 

 dominion and property could not deprive men of so essential a right; and, con- 

 sequently, it cannot take place without leaving tliem, in general, some means of 

 procuring what is useful or necessary to them. This means comuierce; by it every 

 man may still supply his wants. Things beiug now become property, there is no 

 obtaining them without the owner's consent, nor are they usually to be had for 

 notJiing; but they may be bought, or exchanged for other things of equal value. 

 Men are, therefore, under an ohligation to carry on that commerce with each otlier, if 

 they wish not to deviate from the views of nature; and this obligation extends also to 

 ■whole nations or states. It is seldom that nature is seen in one place to produce 

 everything necessary for the use of man ; one country abounds in corn, another in 

 pastures and cattle, a third in timber and metals, &c. If all those countries trade 

 together, as is agreeable to human nature, no one of them will be without such 

 things as are useful and necessary; and the views of nature, our common motlier, 

 will be fulfilled. Further, one country is fitter for some Icind of products than for 

 another, as, for instance, fitter for the vine than for tillage. If 'trade and barter 

 take place, every nation, on the certainty of procuring what it wants, will emi)loy 

 its lands and its industry in the most advantageous manner, and mankind in general 

 prove gainers by it. Such are the foundations of the general obligations incumbent 

 on nations reciprocally to cultivate commerce. 



International law is filled with statements of the general doctrine, 

 that the earth was giv^eu to all mankind for their common benefit, that 

 that original gift cannot be changed or perverted, and that it must be 

 so administered as to enable mankind to enjoy that common benefit; 

 that commerce is the means by wiiich that common benefit can be 

 extended to all nations, and therefore the carrying on of commerce is 

 an obligation resting upon all nations. 



When we speak of an obligation resting upon nations, as it is spoken 

 of by almost every writer who has dealt with the question, we are not 

 dealing in mere empty words. These things are not mentioned by 

 them as meaning nothing. They mean what they say. They mean 

 that this is an obligation, and that it is an obligation which in a suit- 

 able case can be enforced. 



So much for the first limitation which I have stated property was 

 subject to, whether held by nations or by individuals. It is held sub- 

 ject to a trust for the benefit of the world. As to so much of it as is 

 not needed for the purposes of tlie particular owner, be that owner 

 nation, or man, the benefit of it must be extended on just terms to 

 those for whose benefit it was designed. 



I now have to state a second limitation upon property whether held 

 by nations or by men, and that is, that things themselves are not given, 

 but only the use of them. That is all — the use of them. The world is 

 given to be used, and only to be used, not to be destroi/ed. Men bring 

 into the world their children, those who are to follow them. They are 

 umler an obligation to leave the means of support to them. Is it 

 necessary for me to argue that no man has so absolute a property in 



