178 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



any source of happiness and advantage to mankind, which it failed to 

 use for the beiietit of nianlviud, other nations might assert a right to 

 interfere and take possession of it and turn it to tlie general benefit; 

 that the whole policy of the colonization by civilized states of the 

 newly discovered regions of the globe was a constant illustration of 

 that truth and of that policy, and that it was defensible upon that 

 ground and upon that ground alone. It is true that there have been a 

 thousand excesses committed in the course of carrying out those 

 policies of colonization. The excesses cannot be defended, but the 

 policy itself is entirely defensible. 



These views, as it seems to me, respecting the origin and foundation 

 of property and the reasons upon which it stands furnish a true and 

 sufficient answer, and the only sufficient answer, to the attacks of 

 socialism upon the institution of property. They regard the institu- 

 tion of property as proceeding from great social necessities, and as 

 founded upon the nature of man himself, and consequently they assure 

 the everlasting perpetuity of the institution. So long as the nature of 

 man remains unchanged the institution of private property, the most 

 beneficent of all the fruits of civilization, will remain also. 



In the course of my observations on the value which municipal law 

 assigns to the preservation of property itself, I had occasion to recur 

 to an instance which 1 supposed the law of Admiralty furnished, 

 namely, in cases of salvage. I stated, what I supposed to be the law, 

 that a salvor on the high seas meeting with a ship that was absolutely 

 disabled and unable to save itself by its own means and its own 

 resources, might take possession of it, even against the will of the 

 master, and even though the master were himself the owner. One of 

 the learned Arbitrators (Lord Hannen) requested to be furnished with 

 an authority ujwn that point. It was rather disturbing to me, I con- 

 fess, to have a doubt suggested from such a source. 



Lord Hannen. I thought you were stating it too broadly; that 

 was all. 



Mr. Carter. Yes; I was afraid I had stated it too broadly. I have 

 no access here to books of reports either American or English, to ascer- 

 tain fully what has passed into judgment; but I did recur to one or two 

 text writers, and I have something upon that subject which may be 

 deemed pertinent. Prof. Parsons in his work upon maritime law, which 

 is a book of recognized autliority, he having been for many years a 

 leading professor in tlie principal law school of the United States (that 

 of Harvard) says this, (page 204, Vol. II, "Parsons on Shipping and 

 Admiralty"): 



It has been made a question whether persons forcibly taking possession of a ves- 

 sel against the will of the ujaster can claim as salvors. But we think it must be 

 obvious ami certain that, on the one iiand, the master's reluctance or resistance to 

 the saving of the property under his charge should not bar the claims of salvors, but 

 rather enhance them, if their services were necessary, or in all respects meritorious 

 and useful. But on the other hand his opposition would be a circumstance of great 

 weight in determining whether their services were necessary or meritorious. 



Sir Charles Eussell. I think that is not the case where the master 

 is the owner. 



Mr. Carter. I tliink it is. Do you mean to say that Prof. Parsons 

 does not so intend? 



Sir Charles Kussell. No; he is dealing with the case of the repre- 

 sentative of the owner — the master, not the owner himself. 



Mr. Carter. What the case is, with which he is dealing I am unable 

 to say, not liuviug access to any Reports; but the principle which he 



