114 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



See Lord Lans- 1879 and 1881 ; and Mr. Bayard, in 1886. (Wheaton's [Wharton J 

 stmho e° No- " I"t«ruatioual Law," vol, i, sec. 32, pp. 100 and 109.) 

 venibt-r 27 isse! Sanctioned thus by an unbroken line of precedents coveriu<;' tlie 

 Blue Book,'"ITDi- first century of our national existence, the United States would not 

 ted States No. 2 abandon this doctrine if thev could; they could not if they 

 (1890),"p.28,Ai,.,^Ould. ... 



pendix, vol. iii. 



150 EFFECT OF CESSION OF ALASKA ON MARE CLAUSUM 

 DOCTRINE. 



The llussian claim to extraordinary jurisdiction was 

 expressly founded on a supposed right to hold a i)ortioii 

 of the Pacitic as maredansum, because that nation claimed 

 the territory ou both sides. Even if this claim had been 

 well founded the Treaty of 1867 destroyed it, since the sea 

 was no longer shut in or surrounded by the territory of one 

 nation. 



ORTOLAN. 



On this subject Ortolan writes: 



Quant aux mers particulii'tes et intorieures, uu droit exclusif de 



Ortolan, "Reg- domaine et de souverainete de la part d'uue nation sur uue telle mer 



le.s Interuatioii- n'est incontestable qu'autant quo cette mer est totalement enclavee 



.YesetD^loiuatie jij^yg Jq ^gj.j.j^QJj.g ^^^^ telle sorte ({u'elle eu fait partie integraute, et 



^■diti'on torn. 1, p. 'I'l'elle lie peut absolument servir do lieu de communication et de com- 



147. ' ' merce qu'entre les seuls citoyeus de cette nation. Alors, en etil'et, 



aucune des causes (jui font obstacle soit a la propriote, soit a I'empire 



des mers, i;e trouve ici sou ajiplicatiou. Mais du moment que ])lusi('urs 



Etats ditlorents possedent (les cotes autour de cette mer, aucun d'eux 



ne peut s'en dire ijroiirietaire ni souveraiu a I'exclusion des autres. 



Sir Travers Twiss writes to the same effect : 



"Rights and If a eea is entirely inclosed by the territory of a nation, and has no 



piitie.sot_NationH other communication with the ocean thau by a channel, of which that 



I884"if "93.'^'^*^'' nation may tiike jiosaession, it appears that such a sea is no less 



capable of being occupied and becoming property than the laud, and 



it ought to follow the fate of the country that surrounds it. 



HALI.ECK. 



So Halleck says: 



Halleck's In- 21. It is generally admitted that the territory of a State includes 

 tern.ational^Law, ^^^ seas, lakes, and rivers entirely inclosed witliin its limits. Thus, 

 143^145!'^^' ' ^''^ so long as the shores of the Black Sea were exclusively possessed by 



and whether we have ever recognized the clairn of Spain to a (i-iiiile 

 limit, or have ever protested against such claim. 



"In reply, I have the honour to inform you that this (iovernmeiit 

 has uniformly, under every Administration Avhich has had occasion 

 to consider the subject, objected to the pretention of Spain adverted 

 to, upon the same ground and in similar terms to those contained in 

 the instruction of the Earl of Derby. 



" Wo have understood and asserted tliat, pursuant to ]tublic law, 

 no nation can rightfully claim jurisdiction at sea beyond a iiiarine 

 league from the coast. 



"This opinion on our jiart has sometimes been said to be inconsis- 

 tent with the facts that, by the law of theUnit«!d States, rc^venue cut- 

 ters are anthorizc<l to board vessels anywhere Avithin 4 leagues of 

 their coasts, and that by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, so called 

 between the United States and Mexico, of the 2nd February, 1848, 

 the boundary-line between the (lominions of the parties begins in the 

 Gulf of Mexico, 'A leagues from land.'' 



And he })roceeds to explain tliese two instaiUH's as being excep- 

 tional. . . . (Wharton, "International Law/' vol i, p. 105,; 



