" That worst of evils, poverty, to shun Dauntless through seas, and rocks, and fires you run To furthest Ind" " And have not the Romans described for us in the most exact way the greater part of Ceylon? r And as far as the other islands are concerned, not only the neighboring 1Code VIII, 40, 13 [Probably Fabius Claudius Gordianus Fulgentius (468- 533), a Benedictine monk, one of the Latin Fathers].
' Nonius Marcellus, On the various significations of speech, under the word 'occupare'; cf. Connan, Commentaries on the civil law III, 3; Donellus [Doneau], Commentaries on the civil law IV, 10. [Fran9ois de Connan (1508-1551), a French jurisconsult, a pupil of Alciati; Hugues Doneau (1527-1591) a famous jurisconsult, who wrote many volumes of commentaries on the Digest and the Code.]
* [See note on opposite page.]
•Digest XLI, 2, 3.
'Pliny, Natural History, VI, 22.
13 MARE LIBERVM finitimi tantum Persae et Arabes, sed Europaei etiam, praecipue Veneti noverant.
Praeterea inventio nihil iuris tribuit, nisi in ea quae ante inventionem nullius fuerant.1 Atqui Indi cum ad eos Lusi- tani venerunt, etsi partim idololatrae, partim Mahumetani erant, gravibusque peccatis involuti nihilominus publice atque privatim rerum possessionumque suarum dominium habuerunt, quod illis sine iusta causa eripi non potuit.2 Ita certissimis rationibus post alios auctores maximi nominis concludit Hispanus Victoria:3 'Non possunt', inquit, ' Christiani saeculares aut Ecclesiastici potestate ciyili et principatu privare infideles, eo dumtaxat titulo, quia in- fideles sunt, nisi ab eis alia iniuria profecta sit '.
Fides enim, ut recte inquit Thomas * non tollit ius natu- rale aut humanum ex eo dominia profecta sunt. Immo credere infideles non esse rerum suarum dominos, haereticum est; et res ab illis possessas illis ob hoc ipsum eripere f urtum est et rapina, non minus quam si idem fiat Christianis.
Recte igitur dicit Victoria 5 non magis ista ex causa Hispanis ius in Indos quaesitum, quam Indis fuisset in Hispanos, si qui illorum priores in Hispaniam venissent. Neque vero sunt Indi Orientis amentes et insensati, sed 'Digest XLI, 1, 3 (De adquirendo rerum domlnio).
4 Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 12.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 13 Persians and Arabs, but even Europeans, particularly the Venetians, knew them long before the Portuguese did.
But in addition to all this, discovery per se gives no legal rights over things unless before the alleged discovery they were res nullius.1 Now these Indians of the East, on the arrival of the Portuguese, although some of them were idolaters, and some Mohammedans, and therefore sunk in grievous sin, had none the less perfect public and private ownership of their goods and possessions, from which they could not be dispossessed without just cause.2 The Spanish writer Victoria,' following other writers of the highest authority, has the most certain warrant for his conclusion that Christians, whether of the laity or of the clergy, can- not deprive infidels of their civil power and sovereignty merely on the ground that they are infidels, unless some other wrong has been done by them.
For religious belief, as Thomas Aquinas* rightly ob- serves, does not do away with either natural or human law from which sovereignty is derived. Surely it is a heresy to believe that infidels are not masters of their own prop- erty; consequently, to take from them their possessions on account of their religious belief is no less theft and robbery than it would be in the case of Christians.
Victoria then is right in saying 5 that the Spaniards have no more legal right over the East Indians because of their religion, than the East Indians would have had over the Spaniards if they had happened to be the first foreigners to come to Spain. Nor are the East Indians stupid and unthinking; on the contrary they are intelligent and shrewd, 4 Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 12 [Thomas Aquinas (1227-1274), one of the most famous of the Schoolmen and Theologians, spoken of often as Aquila Theologorum, and Doctor Angelicas].
14 MARE LIBERVM ingeniosi et solertes, ita ut ne hinc quidem praetextus subiciendi possit desumi, qui tamen per se satis est mani- festae iniquitatis. lam olim Plutarchus npoqiaaiv it\tovegtas fuisse dicit qptpooaai ra /Sap/Sapixd, improbam scilicet alieni cupiditatem hoc sibi velum obtendere, quod barbariem mansuefacit. Et mine etiam color ille redigendi invitas gentes ad mores humaniores, qui Graecis olim et Alexandro usurpatus est, a Theologis omnibus, praesertim Hispanis,1 improbus, atque impius censetur.
1 Vasquius, Preface (n. S) to Controversiae illustres.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 14 so that a pretext for subduing them on the ground of their character could not be sustained. Such a pretext on its very face is an injustice. Plutarch said long ago that it was greed that furnished the pretext for conquering bar- barous countries, and it is not unsuspected that greedy long- ing for the property of another often hid itself behind a pretext of civilizing barbarians. And now that well-known pretext of forcing nations into a higher state of civilization against their will, the pretext once monopolized by the Greeks and by Alexander the Great, is considered by all theologians, especially those of Spain,1 to be unjust and unholy.
'Vasquius, Preface (n. 5) to Controversiae illustres.
CAPVT III Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo donationis Pontificiae Secundo si Pontificis Alexandri Sexti divisione utentur, ante omnia illud attendendum est, volueritne Pontifex contentiones tantum Lusitanorum et Castellanorum dirimere, quod potuit sane, ut lectus inter illos arbiter, sicut et ipsi Reges iam ante inter se ea de re foedera quaedam pepigerant; 1 et hoc si ita est, cum res inter alios acta sit, ad ceteras gentes non pertinebit; an vero prope singulos mundi trientes duobus populis donare. Quod etsi voluisset, et potuisset Pontifex, non tamen continue sequeretur dominos eorum locorum esse Lusitanos, cum donatio dominum non faciat, sed secuta traditio;2 quare et huic causae possessio deberet accedere.
Turn vero si quis ius ipsum sive divinum sive humanum scrutari volet, non autem ex commodo suo metiri, facile 1 Cf. Osorium.
1 Institutes II, I, 40 (De reran divisione, § Per traditionem).
15 CHAPTER III The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East Indies by virtue of title based on the Papal Donation Next, if the partition made by the Pope Alexander VI * is to be used by the Portuguese as authority for jurisdiction in the East Indies, then before all things else two points must be taken into consideration.
First, did the Pope merely desire to settle the disputes between the Portuguese and the Spaniards?
This was clearly within his power, inasmuch as he had been chosen to arbitrate between them, and in fact the kings of both countries had previously concluded certain treaties with each other on this very matter.1 Now if this be the case, seeing that the question concerns only the Portuguese and Spaniards, the decision of the Pope will of course not affect the other peoples of the world.
Second, did the Pope intend to give to two nations, each one third of the whole world?
But even if the Pope had intended and had had the power to make such a gift, still it would not have made the Portuguese sovereigns of those places. For it is not a donation that makes a sovereign, it is the consequent de- livery of a thing 2 and the subsequent possession thereof.
Now, if any one will scrutinize either divine or human law, not merely with a view to his own interests, he will 1 [Grotius cites Osorius, but gives no reference.]
* [The Cambridge Modern History, I, 23-24, has a good paragraph upon this famous Papal Bull of May 14, 1493 (modified June 7, 1494, by treaty of Tordesillas).]
15 16 MARE LIBERVM 15 16 MARE LIBERVM deprehendet donationem eiusmodo ut rei alienae nullius esse momenti. Disputationem de potestate Pontificis, hoc est Episcopi Romanae Ecclesiae, hie non aggrediar, nee quic- quam ponam nisi ex hypothesi, hoc est, quod confitentur homines inter eos eruditissimi, qui plurimum Pontificiae tribuunt auctoritati, maxime Hispani, qui cum pro sua per- spicacia facile vident Dominum Christum omne a se terrenum imperium abdicasse,1 mundi certe totius dominium, qua homo fuit, non habuisse, et si habuisset, nullis tamen argumentis astrui posse ius illud in Petrum, aut Romanam Ecclesiam Vicarii iure translation; cum alias etiam certum sit, multa Christum habuisse in quae Pontifex non succes- serit,2 intrepide affirmarunt (utar ipsorum verbis) Pontifi- cem non esse dominum civilem aut temporalem totius orbis.3 Immo etiam si quam talem potestatem in mundo haberet, earn tamen non recte exerciturum, cum spirituali sua iurisdictione contentus esse debeat, saecularibus autem Principibus earn concedere nullo modo posse. Turn vero si quam habeat potestatem, earn habere, ut loquuntur in ordine ad spiritualia.4 Quocirca nullam illi esse potestatem in populos infideles, ut qui ad Ecclesiam non pertineant.5 Vnde sequitur ex sententia Caietani et Victoriae et 1 Luke XII, 14; John XVIII, 36; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 25.
* Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 21; Turre Cremata II, c. 113; Hugo on Dist. XCVI, C. VI (Cum ad verum); Bernhardus, De consolatione ad Eugenium II; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 27; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 9, n. 7.
4 Matthew XVII, 27; XX, 26; John VI, 15.
5 Victoria, De Indis I, n. 28, 30; Corarruvias on I Corinthians V in fine; Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 12, a. 2; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 29.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 16 easily apprehend that a donation of this kind, dealing with the property of others, is of no effect. I shall not enter here upon any discussion as to the power of the Pope, that is the Bishop of the Roman Church, nor shall I advance anything but a hypothesis which is accepted by men of the greatest erudition, who lay the greatest stress on the power of the Pope, especially the Spaniards, who with their perspi- cacity easily see that our Lord Jesus Christ when he said " My kingdom is not of this world " thereby renounced all earthly power,1 and that while He was on earth as a man, He certainly did not have dominion over the whole world, and if He had had such dominion, still by no arguments could such a right be transferred to Peter, or be transmitted to the Roman Church by authority of the ' Vicar of Christ '; indeed, inasmuch as Christ had many things to which the Pope did not succeed,2 it has been boldly affirmed — and I shall use the very words of the writers — that the Pope is neither civil nor temporal Lord of the whole world.3 On the contrary, even if the Pope did have any such power on earth, still he would not be right in using it, because he ought to be satisfied with his own spiritual jurisdiction, and be utterly unable to grant that power to temporal princes. So then, if the Pope has any power at all, he has it, as they say, in the spiritual realm only.4 Therefore he has no authority over infidel nations, for they do not belong to the Church.5 It follows therefore according to the opinions of 1 Luke XII, 14; John XVIII, 36; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 25.
•Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 21; Torquemada II, c. 113; Hugo on Dist. XCVI, C. VI; St Bernard, Admonitory epistle to Pope Eugene III, book 2; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 27; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum § 9, n. 7.
•Matthew XVII, 27; XX, 26; John VI, IS.
• Victoria, De Indis I, n. 28, 30; Covarruvias on I Corinthinas V, at the end; Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 12, a. 2; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 29 [Best edition of Ayala is in The Classics of International Law, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 2 vol., 1912].
17 MARE LIBERVM potioris partis tam Theologorum quam Canonistarum,1 non esse idoneum titulum adversus Indos, vel quia Papa dederit provincias illas tamquam dominus absolute, vel quia non recognoscunt dominium Papae; atque adeo ne Sara- cenos quidem isto titulo umquam spoliates.
'Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 66, a. 8; Silvius, De infidelibus § 7; Innocentius on Decretales Gregorii Papae IX, III, 34, 8 (De voto, c. Quod super his); Victoria, De Indis I, n. 31.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 17 Cajetan and Victoria and the more authoritative of the Theologians and writers on Canon Law,1 that there is no clear title against the East Indians, based either on the ground that the Pope made an absolute grant of those provinces as if he were their sovereign, or on the pretext that the East Indians do not recognize his sovereignty. Indeed, and in truth, it may be affirmed that no such pretext as that was ever invoked to despoil even the Saracens.
'Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 66, a. 8; Silvius, De infldelibus § 7; Innocent on the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, III, 34, 8; Victoria, De Indis I, n. 31. [Franciscus Silvius, or Sylvius, or du Bois (1581-1649), was a Belgian theologian.]
CAPVT IV Lusitanos in Indos non habere ius dominii titulo belli His igitur sublatis cum manifestum sit, quod et Vic- toria scribit,1 Hispanos ad terras remotiores illas navigantes nullum ius secum attulisse occupandi eas provincias, unus dumtaxat titulus belli restat, qui et ipse si iustus esset, tamen ad dominium proficere non posset, nisi hire praedae, hoc est post occupationem. Atqui tantum abest ut Lusitani eas res occupaverint, ut cum plerisque gentibus quas Batavi accesserunt, bellum eo tempore nullum haberent. Et sic igitur nullum ius illis quaeri potuit, cum etiam si quas ab Indis pertulissent iniurias, eas longa pace et amicis com- merciis remisisse merito censeantur.
Quamquam ne fuit quidem quod bello obtenderent. Nam qui Barbaros bello persequuntur ut Americanos Hispani, duo solent praetexere, quod ab illis commercio arceantur, aut quod doctrinam verae religionis illi nolent agnoscere. Et commercia quidem Lusitani ab Indis im- petrarunt,2 ut hac in parte nihil habeant quod querantur.
1 Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 24; Victoria, De Indis II, n. 10.
18 CHAPTER IV The Portuguese have no right of sovereignty over the East Indies by title of war Since it is clear, (as Victoria also says),1 from the re- futation of any claim to title from the Pope's Donation, that the Spaniards when they sailed to those distant lands did not carry with them any right to occupy them as provinces, only one kind of title remains to be considered, namely, that based upon war. But even if this title could be justified, it would not serve to establish sovereignty, except by right of conquest, that is to say, occupation would be a prerequisite. But the Portuguese were as far as possible from occupation of those lands. They were not even at war with most of the peoples whom the Dutch visited. So therefore no legal claim could be established there by the Portuguese, because even if they had suffered wrongs from the East Indians, it might reasonably be con- sidered by the long peace and friendly commercial rela- tions that those injuries had been forgiven.
Indeed there was no pretext at all for going to war. For those who force war upon barbarous peoples, as the Spaniards did upon the aborigines of America, commonly allege one of two pretexts: either that they have been re- fused the right to trade, or that the barbarians are unwill- ing to acknowledge the doctrines of the True Faith. But as the Portuguese actually obtained from the East Indians the right to trade,2 they have, on that score at least, no 'Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 24; Victoria, De Indis II, n. 10.
18 19 MARE LIBERVM Alter vero obtentus nihilo est iustior, quam ille Graecorum in Barbaros, quo Boethius respexit: 1 An distant quia dissidentque mores, Iniustas acies, et fera bella movent, Alternisque volunt perire telis?
Non est iusta satis saevitiae ratio.
Ista autem et Thomae et Concili Toletani et Gregori et Theologorum, Canonistarum, lurisprudentiumque fere omnium conclusio est: 2 Quantumcumque fides annuntiata sit Barbaris (nam de his qui subditi ante fuerunt Christianis Principibus item de Apostatis alia est quaestio) probabiliter et sufficienter, et si noluerint earn respicere, non tamen licere hac ratione eos bello persequi, et spoliare bonis suis.s Operae pretium est in hanc rem ipsa Caietani verba describere: * ' Quidam ', ait, ' infideles nee de iure nee de facto subsunt secundum temporalem iurisdictionem Prin- cipibus Christianis, ut inveniuntur pagani, qui numquam imperio Romano subditi fuerunt, terras habitantes, in quibus Christianum numquam fuit nomen. Horum namque domini, quamvis infideles, legitimi domini sunt, sive regali sive politico regimine gubernantur; nee sunt propter in- fidelitatem a dominio suorum privati, cum dominium sit 1 De consolatione philosophiae IV, carmen 4, 7-JO.
'Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 8; Dist. XLV, C. V (De ludeis), C. Ill (Qui sincera); Innocentius, cf. note 1, page 17; Bartolus on Code I, 11, 1 (De paganis); Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 9, 10; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 28.
1 Matthew X, 23.
* On Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 4, 66, a. 8.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 19 grounds of complaint. Nor is there any better justification for the other pretext than the one alleged by the Greeks against the barbarians, to which Boethius makes the follow- ing allusion: " Unjust and cruel wars they wage, And haste with flying darts the death to meet or deal.
No right nor reason can they show; 'Tis but because their lands and laws are not the same." l Moreover the verdict of Thomas Aquinas, of the Council of Toledo, of Gregory, and of nearly all theologians, canon- ists, and jurists, is as follows:2 However persuasively and sufficiently the True Faith has been preached to the heathen — former subjects of Christian princes or apostates are quite another question — if they are unwilling to heed it, that is not sufficient cause to justify war upon them, or to despoil them of their goods.3 It is worth while on this point to quote the actual words of Cajetan:* 'There are some infidels who are neither in law nor in fact under the temporal jurisdiction of Christian princes; just as there were pagans who were never sub- jects of the Roman Empire, and yet who inhabit lands where the name of Christ was never heard. Now their rulers, though heathen, are legitimate rulers, whether the people live under a monarchical or a democratic regime. They are not to be deprived of sovereignty, over their pos- 'On the Consolation of Philosophy IV, 4, 7-10 [H. R. James' translation, •Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 10, a. 8; Dist. XLV, C. V, C. Ill; Innocent, see note 1, page 17; Bartolus on Code I, 11, 1; Covarruvias in c. Peccatum, § 9, 10; Ayala, De Jure I, 2, 28.
•Matthew X, 23.
4 On Thomas Aquinas, Summa II. II, q. 4, 66, a. 8 [Thomas de Cajetan (1469-1534), an Italian cardinal, wrote voluminous commentaries on Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Bible], 20 MARE LIBERVM 20 MARE LIBERVM ex iure positive, et infidelitas ex divino iure, quod non tollit ius positivum, ut superius in quaestione habitum est. Et de his nullam scio legem quoad temporalia. Contra hos nullus Rex, nullus Imperator, nee Ecclesia Romana potest movere bellum ad occupandas terras eorum, aut subiciendos illos temporaliter; quia nulla subest causa iusta belli, cum lesus Christus Rex Regum, cui data est potestas in caelo et in terra, miserit ad capiendam possessionem mundi, non milites armatae militiae, sed sanctos praedicatores, sicut oves inter lupos. Vnde nee in testamento veteri, ubi armata manu possessio erat capienda, terrae infidelium inductum lego bellum alicui propter hoc quod non erant fideles, sed quia nolebant dare transitum, vel quia eos offenderant, ut Madianitae, vel ut recuperarent sua, divina largitate sibi concessa. Vnde GRAVISSIME PECCAREMVS, si fidem Christi lesu per hanc viam ampliare contenderemus; nee essemus LEGITIMI DOMINI illorum, sed MAGNA LATROCINIA committeremus, et teneremur ad restitu- tionem, utpote INIVSTI DEBELLATORES AVT OCCVPATORES. Mittendi essent ad hos praedicatores boni viri, qui verbo et exemplo converterent eos ad Deum; et non qui eos opprimant, spolient, scandalizent, subiciant, et duplo gehennae filios faciant, more Pharisaeorum '.
Et in hanc formam audimus saepe a Senatu in Hispania, et Theologis praecipue Dominicanis decretum fuisse, sola verbi praedicatione non bello Americanos ad fidem tradu- cendos; libertatem etiam quae illis eo nomine erepta esset, FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 20 sessions because of their unbelief, since sovereignty is a matter of positive law, and unbelief is a matter of divine law, which cannot annul positive law, as has been argued above. In fact I know of no law against such unbelievers as regards their temporal possessions. Against them no King, no Emperor, not even the Roman Church, can de- clare war for the purpose of occupying their lands, or of subjecting them to temporal sway. For there is no just cause for war, since Jesus Christ the King of Kings, to whom all power was given in heaven and on earth, sent out for the conquest of the world not armed soldiers, but holy disciples, " as sheep in the midst of wolves." Nor do I read in the Old Testament, when possession had to be obtained by force of arms, that the Israelites waged war on any heathen land because of the unbelief of its inhabi- tants; but it was because the heathen refused them the right of innocent passage, or attacked them, as the Midianites did; or it was to recover the possessions which had been bestowed upon them by divine bounty. Wherefore we should be most miserable sinners if we should attempt to extend the religion of Jesus Christ by such means. Nor should we be their lawful rulers, but, on the contrary, we should be committing great robberies, and be compelled to make restitution as unjust conquerors and invaders. There must be sent to them as preachers, good men to convert them to God by their teaching and example; not men who will oppress them, despoil them, subdue and proselytize them, and " make them twofold more the children of hell than themselves," * after the manner of the Pharisees '.
Indeed I have often heard that it has been decreed by the Council of Spain, and by the Churchmen, especially the Dominicans, that the Americans (Aztecs and Indians) should be converted to the Faith by the preaching of the Word alone, and not by war, and even that their liberty of •Matthew XXIII, IS.
21 MARE LIBERVM restitui debere, quod a Paulo tertio Pontifice, et Carolo V Imperatore Hispaniarum Rege comprobatum dicitur.
Omittimus iam Lusitanos in plerisque partibus religionem nihil promovere, ne operam quidem dare, cum soli lucro invigilent. Immo et illud ibi verum esse, quod de Hispanis in America Hispanus scripsit, non miracula, non signa audiri, non exempla vitae religiosae, quae ad eandem fidem alios possent impellere, sed multa scandala, multa facinora, multas impietates.
Quare cum et possessio et titulus deficiat possessionis, neque res dicionesque Indorum pro talibus haberi debeant quasi nullius ante fuissent, neque cum illorum essent, ab aliis recte acquiri potuerint, sequitur Indorum populos, de quibus nos loquimur, Lusitanorum proprios non esse, sed liberos, et sui iuris; de quo ipsi doctores Hispani non dubitant.1 1 Victoria, De Indis II, 1.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 21 which they had been robbed in the name of religion should be restored. This policy is said to have received the approval of Pope Paul III, and of Emperor Charles V, King of the Spains.
I pass over the fact that the Portuguese in most places do not further the extension of the faith, or indeed, pay any attention to it at all, since they are alive only to the acquisition of wealth. Nay, the very thing that is true of them, is the very thing which has been written of the Span- iards in America by a Spaniard, namely, that nothing is heard of miracles or wonders or examples of devout and religious life such as might convert others to the same faith, but on the other hand no end of scandals, of crimes, of impious deeds.
Wherefore, since both possession and a title of posses- sion are lacking, and since the property and the sovereignty of the East Indies ought not to be considered as if they had previously been res nullius, and since, as they belong^o the East Indians, they could not have been acquired legally by other persons, it follows that the East Indian nations in question are not the chattels of the Portuguese, but are free men and sui juris. This is not denied even by the Spanish jurists themselves.1 1 Victoria, De Indis II, 1.
CAPVT V Mare ad Indos aut ius eo navigandi non esse proprium Limtanorum titulo occupationis Si ergo in populos terrasque et diciones Lusitani ius nullum quaesiverunt, videamus an mare et navigationem, aut mercaturam sui iuris facere potuerint. De mari autem prima sit consideratio, quod cum passim in iure aut nullius, aut commune, aut publicum iuris gentium dicatur, hae voces quid significent ita commodissime explicabitur, si Poetas ab Hesiodo omnes, et Philosophos; et lurisconsultos veteres imitati in tempora distinguamus, ea, quae tempore forte baud longo, certa tamen ratione, et sui natura discreta sunt. Neque nobis vitio verti debet si in iuris a natura pro- cedentis explicatione auctoritate et verbis eorum utimur quos constat naturali iudicio plurimum valuisse.
Sciendum est igitur in primordiis vitae humanae aliud quam nunc est dominium, aliud communionem fuisse.1 Nam dominium nunc proprium quid significat, quod scilicet ita est alicuius ut alterius non sit eodem modo. Commune autem dicimus, cuius proprietas inter 'plures consortio 1 Castrensis on Digest I, 1, 5 (De iustitia et iure, L. Ex hoc iure); Dist. I, C. VII (Ius naturale).
CHAPTER V Neither the Indian Ocean nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the Portuguese by title of occupation If therefore the Portuguese have acquired no legal right over the nations of the East Indies, and their territory and sovereignty, let us consider whether they have been able to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over the sea and its navigation or over trade. Let us first consider the case of the sea.
Now, in the legal phraseology of the Law of Nations, the sea is called indifferently the property of no one (res nullius), or a common possession (res communis), or public property (res publica). It will be most convenient to ex- plain the signification of these terms if we follow the prac- tice of all the poets since Hesiod, of the philosophers and jurists of the past, and distinguish certain epochs, the divi- sions of which are marked off perhaps not so much by in- tervals of time as by obvious logic and essential character. And we ought not to be criticised if in our explanation of a law deriving from nature, we use the authority and defini- tion of those whose natural judgment admittedly is held in the highest esteem.