THE FISHERIES ON THE HIGH SEAS 391 



de Droit International at its meeting in Paris in 1904. The general 

 opinion was that such an extension was desirable, and it was agreed 

 without a dissenting vote to recommend an increase to six miles, after 

 the proposal to extend it to ten miles had been rejected by twenty-five 

 votes against ten. 



However, in view of the approval which the three-mile margin has 

 received in international conventions, legislative bodies and judicial 

 tribunals, the indefiniteness of centuries ago has become the vested 

 rights of to-day, the once plastic cement which the workmen molded 

 has now become so set and solidified with the passage of time that it is 

 useless to discuss an extension of the distance of exclusive jurisdiction 

 without absolute international agreement. 



It can not be denied that such an extension would be vigorously 

 opposed by some influential interests. Doubtless one is safe in stating 

 that the trawl fishermen of Great Britain, for instance, would unques- 

 tionably object to it, and for very practical reasons. Exclusive of the 

 White Sea and the Baltic, the trawling area outside the three-mile limit 

 of northern and western Europe approximates 450,000 square miles. 

 An extension of the marginal belt to six miles would place 81,000 square 

 miles of this area within the territorial jurisdiction of continental coun- 

 tries, and an extension four miles further would exclude British fisher- 

 men from 135,000 square miles of the best trawling grounds, an area 

 nearly equal to that of the North Sea. As the British trawling fleet 

 greatly exceeds that of all the continental countries, the fishermen of 

 Great Britain would have much to lose and nothing to gain by the 

 extension. 



On this side of the Atlantic, acceptance of the extension would 

 depend very largely on how it would affect the rights and treaty priv- 

 ileges of the United States along the shores of the British provinces, 

 which probably more than any other factor has influenced the present 

 firm position of this government respecting a marginal belt of a marine 

 league only. 



More important from an economic point of view than several miles 

 increase in the width of the marine belt is a clear and unquestioned 

 international recognition of vested rights in attempts to exploit and 

 develop definite areas of ground under the high seas, as in the cultiva- 

 tion of sponges, corals, pearl oysters, etc. There is a distinction in law 

 as well as in fact between such an industry and a fishery dependent on 

 the pursuit of free swimming fish in the ocean. Oysters, sponges and 

 the like represent a peculiar kind of property. They are not ferce 

 natures, as they do not stray nor do they require taming, hence owner- 

 ship may be acquired in them. 



It can not be affirmed that this extension of territorial jurisdiction 

 to cultivated sea bottoms has ever been made the basis of any treaty 



