246 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



The President. You would not admit of that power in times of 

 peace? 



Mr. Carter. That is another question. Whether you may exercise 

 a power of that sort in time of peace is a question to which I shall 

 presently come. What I am exj^laining now is tJw character of the act. 

 It is not legislative; that is certain. It is an act of self-defensive 

 poiver. There are other instances of it in the case of belligerent 

 rights. Take the case of contraband of war. A belligerent can cap- 

 ture a vessel that is carrying contraband of war, upon any of the 

 high seas. You can enter even the territory of a friendly state, if it 

 is necessary for the ])urpose of' protecting yourself against your 

 adversary; and even when there is no condition of war. They had a 

 rebellion in Canada some years ago, and a vessel was fitted out by 

 persons making use of the soil of the United States for the purpose of 

 aiding the rebellion, as it was called. A British military force crossed 

 the Niagara Eiver, captured that vessel in the territory of the United 

 States — not on the high seas, but in the territory of the United States. 



Senator Morgan. You refer to the Caroline? 



Mr. Carter. I refer to the case of the Caroline. There was a con- 

 flict between Great Britain and the United States upon the point as 

 to whether the former had the right to do that; but the conflict was 

 not upon the point of principle at all, it being admitted on both sides 

 that if there was a necessity for doing tliat act Great Britain was right 

 in doing it; that if there was a well grounded apprehension that that 

 vessel was going to proceed across the river and engage in enterprises 

 hostile to the authority of Great Britain in Canada, she was justified 

 in that action. 



A celebrated instance in history was the seizure by Great Britain of 

 the Danish fleet in the harbor of Copenhagen. There was the fleet of 

 a friendly power. There was absolute x>^ace between Great Britain 

 and Denmark; but Great Britain was apprehensive that that fleet 

 would fall into the possession of France, and the seizure was defended 

 by her ablest statesmen on the ground of necessity. This necessity of 

 nations, when it appears, must have its way; and the inconvenience, 

 the trouble, the damage, the loss which individual citizens of anotlier 

 nation may occasionally suffer in consequence of these exertions^ of 

 self-defensive authority, are not to be taken into account. 



The President. Do you not think that all of that takes us out of 

 this sphere of law and right? 



Mr. Carter. Not at all. We are right within the sphere of law and 

 right. 



The President. I do not think the whole world generally considers 

 it so. 



Mr. Carter. Weareright within the sphere of law; and the exercise 

 of these acts of self- defensive authority — the extent to which they may 

 go, the necessities which create them, how far the necessities extend — 

 constitute a great chapter in international law, and are all dealt with, 

 all their limitations defined, and the principle which governs them laid 

 down. 



What is said upon the other side? They agree that all these things 

 may be done. What do they say? Well, they say that they cannot be 

 done in time of peace^ — that you cannot defend" yourself by the exercise 

 of force on the high seas in time of peace. Where, I should like to 

 know, is any such doctrine as that laid down? I hope my learned 

 friends will find some authority for those positions. I have never been 

 able to find such authority. The assertion is that a nation cannot defend 



