ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 77 



that country must be very much prejudiced in this respect; especially since 'tis 

 very usual that some particular kind of tish, or perhaps some more precious com- 

 modity, as pearls, coral, amber, or the like, are to be found only in one part of the 

 sea, and that of no considerable extent. In this case there is no reason why the 

 borders sbould not rather challeuiie to themselves this happiness of a wealthy shore 

 or sea than those who are seated at a distance from it. 



It is very apparent tliat this lan^nnage refers to that portion of the 

 sea which is ontside of the territorial line, because inside of that line it 

 has never been questioned that the exclusive right of pursuing any 

 kind of property to be found in the sea, belongs to the nation. That 

 is not questioned here by my learned friends. This language applies 

 to those adjacent seas \Yashing the shores of the nation in which a 

 product of that kind is found, which would be destroyed if it were 

 thrown open to the world witliout protection, and a title to which may 

 well be asserted by the nation to which it properly belongs. • 



Another citation is from Vattel, and perhaps there is no other among 

 the many great authors on tlie subject of international law whom the 

 world has the benetit of, that is more generally recognized as sound 

 authority. His work, written at a comparatively early date, before 

 most of those now extant, still retains its original authority, and is 

 vStill quoted, and this very passage is cited by my learned friends in the 

 printed argument on their side. 



The various uses of the sea near the coast render it very susceptible of property. 

 It furnishes iish, shells, pearls, amber, etc.; now in all these respects its use is not 

 inexhaustible. Wherefore, the nation to whom the coast belongs may appropriate 

 to themselves, and convert to their own profit, an advantage which nature has so 

 placed within their reach as to enable tliem conveniently to take possession of it, 

 in the same manner as they possess themselves of the donunion of the land thej'- 

 inhabit. Who can doubt that the pearl hsheries of Bahrem and Ceylon may law- 

 fully become property? And tliough, Avhere the catching of fish is the only object, 

 the tishery appears less liable to be exiiansted, yet if a nation have on their coasts 

 a particular hsherj' of a profitable nature, and of which they may become masters, 

 shall not they be permitted to appropriate to themselves that bounteous gift of 

 nature as an appendage to tlie country they possess, and to reserve to themselves the 

 great advantages which their commerce may thence derive, in case there be a sufifi- 

 cieut abundance offish to furnish the neighbouring nations? 



Then citing from another section of the same author, not reading it 

 continuously : 



A nation may appropriate to herself those things of which the free and common 

 use would be prejudicial or dangerous to her. This is a second reason for wliich 

 governments extend their dominion over the sea along their coasts, as far as they are 

 able to protect their right. 



That passage will be found more frequently quoted by writers on the 

 subject of international law, by jurists and in diplomatic correspond- 

 ence, than any ijassage that can be found in any other writer, quoted 

 with approbation and never questioned; and what is the purport of if? 



Here again the author is not speaking of the cannon shot limit, the 

 three-mile limit — there is no question about that at all; he is speaking of 

 that sort of marine property extending even to fish, in which specific- 

 ally nobody ever claimed a property — an animal tliat has no animus 

 revcrtendi, not capable of being shut up until after it is caught, when it 

 dies, which is absolutely free, and carrying the proposition much 

 further than we have any occasion to carry it here. 



The President. — Do not you think he means fishery rather than the 

 fish. 



Mr. Phelps. — Quite so, Sir, I was about to mention thatj the right 

 of fishing, not the individual fish. 



The President. — A distinct right of property. 



