110 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



AUTHORITIES AS TO THE 3-MILE LIMIT. 



Admitting, in tlie consideration of tliis question, that 

 Eussia's title before 18G7 to the coast of Behring' Sea and 

 to the islands Avitliin those waters was coniplete, an exam- 

 ination of the principles of international law and the prac- 

 tice of nations will show that her jurisdiction (subject to 

 the question of embayed or inland waters) was contined to 

 the distance of 1 marine league or 3 miles from her shores. 



ORTOLAN. 



Ortolan, in his " Diplomatic de la Mer," pp. 145, 153 

 (edition 1864), says: 



Proceedings of Qn doit ranger sur la raeme ligne quelesrades et les ports, les golfes 

 ^8 Cominission ®^ ^^^ bales et tons les enfoncements coiniiis sons d'autres d6nomiua- 

 1877, p. 163. ' tions, lorsqne ces enfoncements, formes par les terres d'uu meme fitat, 

 ne d^passent pas en largeur la double portce du canon, on lorsqne 

 I'entr^o pent en ctre gouvern<^e par I'artillerie, on qu'elle est ddfendue 

 naturelleiuent par des lies, jtar des bancs, on par des rocbes. Dans 

 tons ces cas, en effet, 11 est vrai de dire que ces golfes on ces bales sont 

 en la puissance de I'l^tat raaltre du territoire qui les enserre. Get 

 £tat en a la possession : tons les raisonneinents que nous avons fait h 

 regard des rades et des ports peuvent se r6p^ter ici. 



^ -Jf Tf # -1? 



Ortolan, p. I5:i. ^gg ijo^jg et rivages de la mer qui baigne les cotes d'un Etat sont 

 les limites maritinies natureUes de cet Etat. Mais pour la protection, 

 \}o\\T la defense plus efficace de ces limites natureUes, la coutnme gen- 

 ^rale des nations, d'accord avec beaucoup de Traitc^s publics, permet 



de tracer sur mer, a une distance conveuable des cAtes, et 

 145 suivant leurs contours, nue ligne imaginaire qui doit etre con- 



sidoree comnie la fronticre maritime artificielle. Tout batiment 

 qui se trouve a terro de cette ligne est dit ctre dmts les eaux de I'fitat 

 dont elle limite le droit de souveraiuet6 et de jnridiction. 



CASE OF THE "WASHINGTON." — MR. JOSHUA BATES' 

 DECISION. 



Under the clauses of the Convention of the 8th Febru- 

 ary, 1853, the case of the "Washington" (which had been 

 seized in the Bay of Fundy and confiscated in the Vice- 

 Admiralty Court at Yarmouth, N. S.) came before the Joint 

 Commission for settlement of claims in London, and on the 

 disagreement of the Commissioners was decided by the 

 Umj)ire, Mr. Joshua Bates, in favour of the United States. 

 In his decision he said : 



shores and hays of Newfoundland; but they bad that right on the 

 shores, coasts, hoi/s, harboum, and creeks of Nova Scotia; and, as they 

 must land to cure lish on the shores, bays, and creeks, they were 

 evidently admitted to the shores of the hays, <fc. By the Treaty of 1818 

 the same right is granted to cure iish on the coasts, bays, &c., of New- 

 foundland; but the Americans relinquished that right, and the right 

 to fish within Smiles of the coasts, bays, .('c; of Xova Scotia. Taking 

 it for granted that the framers of the treaty intended that the word 

 "bay" or " bays" should have the same meaning in all cases, and no 

 mention being made of headlands, there api>ears no doubt that the 

 '•■ Washington," in Jishing 10 miles from the shore, violated no stipu- 

 lations of the Treaty. 



It was urged, on behalf of tlio liriti.sh Government that by "coasts," 

 "bays," SiC, is understooil an imaginary line drawn along the coast 



