298 ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 



have yet claimed, I do not know in the evolntion of argument tliat they 

 will claim, that we could not prevent a raid. If so, when we bought 

 the seals from Russia, we paid a very large i)rice for the animals. If 

 there is any further argument upon that, I will leave it to my associate 

 who will close the discussion. So far I have been unable to see any 

 ground upon which could be justitied the claim that so long as these 

 animals were upon our soil and attached Thereto, they were not abso- 

 lutely ours, itti et abuti, to do absolutely what we pleased with them. 



Chancellor Kent has laid down the rule in a very few lines. I do not 

 know how far his fame may have penetrated the Contiuent of Europe. 

 Our jurisprudence in many respects is very different, and it may be 

 that his commentaries, so highly respected by us and in Great Britain, 

 may not have attained the reputation here tliat they deserve; but, sir, 

 your exceptional knowledge of the English language has permitted 

 you, probably, to enjoy the perusal of those lectures; but it is no affront 

 to say that the knowledge of the English language is imperfect, as a 

 general rule, in your country. 



The President. I believe that the name of Chancellor Kent is 

 known all over Europe. 



Mr. CouDERT. I am very glad to hear it. Then I may read with 

 double assurance and comfort what he says. It is on page 143: 



Every vessel in time of jieace has a right to consult its own safety and conven- 

 ience, and to pursue its own course and business without being disturbed, when it 

 does not violate the rights of others. 



The freedom of the high seas for the inoffensive navigation of all nations is firmly 

 established. 



You will see here the cautious language that tliis great jurist uses. 



Sir Charles Kussell. That last statement is by an English jurist, 

 not Kent. 



Mr. Coudert. Does not Kent adopt it"? 



Sir Charles Russell. I do not know. It is quite long afterward. 



Mr. Phelps. That is quoted in the ojiinion in Queen v. Kehn. 



Mr. Coudert. Well, I do not object to it for that reason. Perhaps 

 in some respects it would be all the stronger. I am sure, however, that 

 it is precisely the same idea. 



Sir Charles Russell. Oh no. 



Mr. Coudert. Kent says that the vessel in time of peace may pursue 

 its own course and business on the high seas when it does not violate the 

 rights of others. If it does violate the rights of others, it is not inof- 

 ieusive, and therefore the sentiment is the same. Still, I am obliged 

 to Sir Charles Russell for correcting me. I was wrong. 



So with regard to Mr. Justice Story, another of our most distin- 

 guished jurists, and long a member of the court to which one of your 

 Arbitrators now belongs: 



Every ship sails there [in the open sea] with the unquestionable right of pursuing 

 her own lawful business withont interruption, but wliatever may be that business, she 

 is bound to i)ursue it in such a manner as not to violate the rights of others. The 

 general maxim in such cases is sic utere tuo ut alienton von Iwdas. 



Are they doing us no injury when they destroy our property by kill- 

 ing the pups through the killing of the motlier ? xVre they tising their 

 rights without injury to us when they are destroying a valuable and 

 costly industry? The question answers itself. 



The safety of states and the protection of their commercial interests were not sac- 

 rificed to the idea of the freedom of the sea. That freedom was conceded for the 

 purposes of such protection, and as aftbrding its best security. 



