86 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



tion clearly expressed or to be inferred either from its language, or 

 from the object or subject-matter, or history of the enactment, the 

 presumption is that Parliament does not design its Statutes to operate 

 on them, beyond the territorial limits of the United Kingdom. They 

 are, therefore, to be read, usually, as if words to that etfect had been 

 inserted in them 



Maxwell on the 99 Section 2. — Presumption against a Violation of International Law. 



"Interpretation x- j j 



of Statutes," 2nd . . 



edition, London, So it IS an admitted principle of public law that, except as regards 



1883, chap, vi, p. pirates /«re /yew^JMm, and, perhaps, nomadic races and savages who 



^^s e 34 Vict ^lave no political organization, anatiou hasno jurisdiction over offences 



cap. 8. ' committed by a foreigner out of its territory, including itc ships and 



waters as already mentioned; and the general language of* any crim- 



Ibid., p. 17,5. inal Statute would be so restricted in construction as not to violate 



thispriuciple .... So it has been repeatedly decidedin America 



that an Act of Congress which enacted that any person committing 



robbery in "any vessel on the high seas " should be guilty of jiiracy 



api)lied only to robbery in American vessels, and not to robbery in 



foreign vessels even by an American citizen. 



rein," Swabey^s To tlie above quotatioiis may be added tlie following^ ex- 

 Keports, p. 98. tract froiii tbe Judgment of Dr. Lusbiugton iii tbe case of 

 tbe " Zollverein :" 



In endeavouring to put a construction on a statute, it must be borne 

 in mind how far the power of the British legislature extends, for 

 unless the Avords are so clear that a contrary construction can in no 

 way be avoided, I must presume that the legislature did not intend 

 to go beyond this power. The laws of Great Britain affect her own 

 subjects everywhere — foreigners only when within her own jurisdic- 

 tion. ' 



CONCLUSIONS. 



It is submitted tbat an examination of tbe Colonial and 

 foreign laws referred to in tbe United States Case sbows 

 tbat international usage in no way establisbes, and in no 

 instance sanctions, tbe principle asserted by the United 

 States, but, on tbe contrary, confirms tbe following propo- 

 sitions at p. 160 of tbe Britisb Case: 



The right of the subjects of all nations to navigate and fish in the 

 non-territorial waters of the sea, now known as Behring Sea, remains 

 and exists free and unfettered ; and cannot be limited or interfered 

 with, excejDt with the concurrence of any nations aftected. 



No regulations aftecting British subjects can be established for the 

 protection and preservation of the fur-seal in the non-territorial waters 

 of Behring Sea without the concurrence of Great Britain. 



