ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WARREtf. 1221 



It has already appeared from the long review of the facts in this 

 controversy that there is no evidence whatever of any claim by Great 

 Britain, based on assertion of jurisdiction over any of these bodies of 

 water more than 6 miles in width, and it, of course, necessarily fol- 

 lows that it has not been shown that there was any acquiescence in 

 any such assertion by the United States. 



Without taking up in detail the statutes relating to Chaleur and 

 Miramichi Bays, I will refer the Tribunal to the Printed Argument 

 of the United States, at p. 216, as to these statutes cited in the 

 British Case on pp. 113 and 114. I merely wish to cite in addition 

 to what was stated in the Printed Argument of the United States 

 the following decisions from the courts of Great Britain, as to the 

 effect of these unilateral acts of a nation. , 



In the case of " Le Louis," 2 Dodson, p. 239, Lord Stowell said : 



" Neither this British Act of Parliament, nor any commission 

 founded on it, can affect any right or interest of foreigners, unless 

 they are founded upon principles and impose regulations that are con- 

 sistent with the law of nations. That is the only law which Great 

 Britain can apply to them ; and the generality of any terms employed 

 in an Act of Parliament must be narrowed in construction by a re- 

 ligious adherence thereto." 



In the case of Regina v. Keyn (L. R., 2 Ex. Div., p. 210), Chief 

 Justice Cockburn said: 



" For where the language of a Statute is general, and may include 

 foreigners or not, the true canon of construction is to assume that the 

 Legislature has not so enacted as to violate the rights of other na- 

 tions." 



Two additional authorities to the same effect are : 



Cope v. Doherty, 2 De Gex and Jones, 614 ; 



Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. Cases, 926. 



The citation in the British Case from Taylor's " International Pub- 

 lic Law " and Wheaton's " Elements of International Law," and from 

 Kent's " Commentaries," have been sufficiently, it would seem, dis- 

 cussed in the Printed Argument of the United States, beginning at 

 p. 218 and going to p. 220 inclusive, and I shall not take the time to 

 further discuss the works of these authors, because it seems clear, as 

 stated in the Printed Argument of the United States, that they were 

 not taking positions in opposition to the present contention of the 

 United States. 



One observation, however, might be added here. Chancellor Kent 



was not stating a fact as to these large claims of the United 



736 States, but was expressing an opinion as to what he thought 



might be claimed, and was confining his discussion strictly to 



claims " for fiscal and defensive purposes." 



I desire to discuss somewhat in detail the views of Dr. Oppenheim, 

 Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cam- 

 bridge, as stated in his work on international law. 



