ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 249 



Indeed, the right given to onr revenne cutters to visit vessels four leagues from 

 our coasts, is a declaration that in the opinion of the American govern inent no such 

 principle as that contended for has real existence. Nothing, then, is to be drawn 

 from the laws or the usages of nations, which gives to this part of the contract 

 before the court the very limited construction which the plaintitf insists on, or 

 which proves that the seizure of the Auroi-a by the Portuguese governor was an act 

 of lawless violence. 



That very extract — I think the whole of it; at all events the most 

 substantial part of it — was quoted by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, of 

 England, in delivering his judgment in the very celebiated and rather 

 recent case of the Queen v. Kehn. It is found in the 2nd Exchequer 

 Keports. I do not know but my learned friends may have it in their 

 possession. I find that I have the passage. The part to which I par- 

 ticnlarly refer will be fcmnd on page 149 of our printed argument. Lord 

 Chief Justice Cockburn says : 



Hitherto legislation, so far as relates to foreigners in foreign ships in this part of 

 the sea, has been contined to the maintenance of neutral rights and obligr.tions, the 

 prevention of breaches of the revenue and fishery laws, and, under particular cir- 

 cumstances, to cases of collision. In the two first, the legislation is altogether 

 irrespective of the three mile distance, being founded on a totally different princi- 

 ple, viz, the right of the state to take all necessary measures for the protection of 

 its territory and rights and the prevention of any breach of its revenue laws. This 

 principle was well explained by Marshall, C. J., in the case of Church v. Hubbart. 



And he then cites the passage which I have just read from that 

 opinion. 



[The Tribunal thereupon adjourned until Tuesday, April 25, 1893.] 



