The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-03-29
MIR. PHELPS on OUR BEHRISo SEA
CLAIMS.

TO force 10 protect tneii "non o"'n'"'"" 80
the high seas. The discussion of this matter
would not be complete. however. without an
answer TO the arguments of those who main
tain our right TO use force in protecting them.
The subject has been fully discussed by MIR.
Blaine in his dispatches. but nowhere with
the same fullness and clearness as by Mr. +.
J. Phelps. lately our minister to England, in
an article contributed by him to Harper s
Magazine for April. 1891. We shall this
morning undertake the task OF answering Mr..
Phelps. believing that IN answering him, we
have answered all that can be said on that
side of the question.
Mr.. Phelps main contention may DO stated
thus: The right of seH-defense and Its KIN
bred right, the right to project ones own
property. is 80 essential 10 existence that the
right of the citizens of the world to travei on
and fish and hunt in the high seas must De SO
exercised by him as not to interfere Win our
right or self.desense. and protection OF our
propertv and If the citizen OF the world,
using the worlds highway. does so IN man.
ner TO invade our rights of person or property
we have right under every principle OF pun
lie law TO resist that invasion by either de-
fens;ve or aggressive use of force. If Mr..
Phelps whole and entire article were printed
IT. our columns we do not think any more
coud he made of it than is contained IN this
statement of his case.
Now. il cannot be denied that Mr.. Phelps
| proposition is perfectly sound one II is the
universal law of nations and nature. 1t is the
law expressed in the Latin maxim SIC dere tuo
NJ j,,s alicnuni non ledds, which is the basis of
all law in all countries.
II is on this principle that we defend our
selves from all unlawful attacks. If it is once
established that given article is our prop
erty we have. of course. by the law OF nature
and nations. the right TO resist forcbly any
ATTEMPT TO deprive US of it unlawfully on the
sea or elsewhere The difficulty with Mr..
Phelps argument is that he assumes that
we have a property in the seals when they
are swimming in the high seas, while we
| think we demonstrated in our Sundays issue
that we have no property in them whatever
when they get outside of the throe-mlle line
under any principle of the international law.
The answer to Mr. Phelps might properly
rest Just at this point, and we should rest 1t
here but for one fact. He has resorted to the
~ quoquc argument. He cites the action of
Great Britain herself in two notable cases as
presidents for us if we capture and condemn
Canadian sealers killing the seals in the high
seas, the argument being that if Great
did so and so in given case it does not lie
in her mouth to object 20 our doing so and
so in the seals case. This TO the philoso-
pher, is most unsatisfactory method Of ar
cument. Still it is one which goes down with
the public and would probably be sufficient
to arouse the American people to willing
ness to 60 to war with Great Britain if the
analogies really exist We Will therefore
examine the cases he cites and see Just what
anaiogies to the seals case they contain.
The first case is this While Napoleon
Bonaparte was confined by England on the
island Of ST. Helena. the English Parliament
passed an act forbidding ships Of all nations,
English ships as well as all others to touch at
the island without permission, or to hover
within eight leagues thereof under penalty of
seizure and forfeiture. This, says Mr..
| Phelps, is q clear case of Eng
land herself invading and treating
with contempt the Wanted liberty of the
high seas and all English statesmen would
admit it to be a case of her invading it,
| though they would repudiate the assertion
! that it was treating it with contempt. They
would say it was a case of an acknowledged
violation Of law made by consent of all the
parties interested. and justifable on the
universal principle of public law c0lunh non
| ft injuri1. No man can complain of an act
to which he consents.
The English were guarding at ST. Helena
that most prodigious personality Napoleon
Bonaparte. Through the efforts of his own
wonderful genius he had overthrown almost
all the institutions of Europe. he had deluged
the whole face of the land in blood and his
continued liberty threatened renewal and
continuance of bloody strife until all mankind
submitted to his will. Checked in his
career, abdicating his throne, agreeing
to quit Europe and live in retirement
upon the island of Elba, lie had
violated his parole, reappeared in France
seized the reins of power and had at once in
volved all Europe IN war again The world
had come to the conclusion that no truce could
be kept with this man, and that he must either
be put TO death or confined in absolute secu-
rity The powers of Europe were AL in Con-
gress at Vienna celebrating on the measures
necessary to pacify the world after his extra
ordinary performances when he escaped from
Elba and reappeared in France. This Con-
gress of Powers at once adopted pro-
clamaton to the world which it styled
"A solemn declaration of the sentiments with
which this event has inspired them" 1t
went on rs follows:
in thus breaking the agreement by which
he was established in the Island Of Elba.
Bonaparte has destroyed the only safeguard
attached 10 his existence. In reappearing in
France with designs of disorder and revolu-
ton. he has by his own act deprived himself
of the protection of the laws. and manifested,to
the world that neither peace nor truce can
be made with him. The powers consequently
declare that Napoleon Bonaparte has placed
himself beyond the pale of civil and social
relations. and that as the enemy and disturber
of the worlds peace. he has delivered himself
M TO public iusticer