_Trade with the East Indies does not belong to the Portuguese by
title of prescription or custom_
Last of all, prescription, or if you prefer the term, custom.[164] We
have shown that according to Vasquez, neither prescription nor custom
had any force as between free nations or the rulers of different
peoples, or any force against those principles which were introduced
by primitive law. And here as before, mere efflux of time does not
bring it to pass that the right of trade, which does not partake of
the nature of ownership, becomes a private possession. Now in this
case neither title nor good faith can be shown, and inasmuch as good
faith is clearly absent, according to legal rules prescription will
not be called a right, but an injury.
Nay, the very possession involved in trading seems not to have
arisen out of a private right, but out of a public right which
belongs equally to all; so on the other hand, because nations perhaps
neglected to trade with the East Indies, it must not be presumed that
they did so as a favor to the Portuguese, but because they believed
it to be to their own best interests. But nothing stands in their
way, when once expediency shall have persuaded them, to prevent them
from doing what they had not previously done. For the jurists[165]
have handed down as incontestable the principle that where things
arbitrable or facultative are such that they produce nothing more
than the facultative act _per se_, but do not create a new right,
that in all such cases not even a thousand years will create a title
by prescription or custom.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
affirmative et negative procedit, ut docet Vasquius. Nec enim quod
libere feci facere cogor, nec quod non feci omittere.
Alioquin quid esset absurdius quam ex eo quod singuli non possumus
cum singulis semper contrahere, salvum nobis in posterum non esse
ius cum illis, si usus tulerit, contrahendi? Idem Vasquius et illud
rectissime, ne infinito quidem tempore effici, ut quid necessitate
potius, quam sponte factum videatur.
Probanda itaque Lusitanis foret coactio, quae tamen ipsa cum hac in
re iuri naturae sit contraria, et omni hominum generi noxia, ius
facere non potest.[166a] Deinde illa coactio durasse debuit per
tempus, cuius initii non exstet memoria; id vero tantum hinc abest,
ut ne centum quidem anni exierint, ex quo tota fere negotiatio Indica
penes Venetos fuit, per Alexandrinas traiectiones.[167a] Debuit etiam
talis esse coactio, cui restitum non sit. At restiterunt Galli et
Angli, aliique. Neque sufficit aliquos esse coactos, sed ut omnes
coacti sint requiritur, cum per unum non coactum servetur in causa
communi libertatis possessio. Arabes autem et Sinenses a saeculis
aliquot ad hunc usque diem perpetuo cum Indis negotiantur.
Nihil prodest ista usurpatio.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This, as Vasquez points out, acts both affirmatively and negatively.
For I am not compelled to do what I have hitherto done of my own free
will, nor am I compelled to stop doing what I have never done.
What moreover could be more absurd than to deduce from the fact that
we as individuals are not able always to conclude a bargain with
other individuals, that there is not preserved to us for the future
the right of bargaining with them if opportunity shall have offered?
The same Vasquez has also most justly said that not even the lapse
of infinite time establishes a right which seems to have arisen from
necessity rather than choice.
Therefore in order to establish a prescriptive right to the trade
with the East Indies the Portuguese would be compelled to prove
coercion. But since in such a case as this coercion is contrary to
the law of nature and obnoxious to all mankind, it cannot establish
a right.[166] Next, that coercion must needs have been in existence
for so long a time that “the memory of its beginning does not exist”;
that, however, is so far from being the case that not even a hundred
years had elapsed since the Venetians controlled nearly the entire
trade with the East Indies, carrying it via Alexandria.[167] Again,
the coercion ought to have been such that it was not resisted; but
the English and the French and other nations besides, did resist
it. Finally, it is not sufficient that _some_ be coerced, but it
is indispensable that _all_ be coerced, because the possession of
freedom of trade is preserved to all by a failure to use coercion
upon even one person. Moreover, the Arabians and the Chinese are at
the present day still carrying on with the people of the East Indies
a trade which has been uninterrupted for several centuries.
Portuguese usurpation is worthless.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPVT XII
_Nulla aequitate niti Lusitanos in prohibendo commercio_
Ex his quae dicta sunt satis perspicitur eorum caeca aviditas, qui,
ne quemquam in partem lucri admittant, illis rationibus conscientiam
suam placare student, quas ipsi magistri Hispanorum qui in eadem
sunt causa manifestae vanitatis convincunt.[168a] Omnes enim qui in
rebus Indicis usurpantur colores iniuste captari quantum ipsis licet,
satis innuunt, adduntque numquam eam rem serio Theologorum examine
probatam. Illa vero querela quid est iniquius, quod dicunt Lusitani
quaestus suos exhauriri copia contra licentium? Inter certissima enim
Iuris enuntiata est, nec in dolo eum versari, nec fraudem facere, ne
damnum quidem alteri dare videri, qui iure suo utitur; quod maxime
verum est, si non ut alteri noceatur, sed rem suam augendi animo
quippiam fiat.[169a] Inspici enim debet id quod principaliter agitur,
non quod extrinsecus in consequentiam venit. Immo si proprie loquimur
cum Vlpiano, non ille damnum dat, sed lucro quo adhuc alter utebatur
eum prohibet.
Naturale autem est et summo iuri atque etiam aequitati
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -