90 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



the flag- of mankind and claimed to take a hand in those Fisheries in 

 the sea outside of the three mile limit, and that the Mexican Govern- 

 ment have permitted him to do it; or that any nation has asserted any 

 such right? Those laws apply in terms to foreigners, but I lay no 

 stress ui^on that. You cannot extend the jurisdiction of a statute, by 

 the words of the statute itself, beyond the power which the nation has 

 to pass sucli a statute. If a Statute does not operate beyond the juris- 

 diction of the country tliat enacts it, it cannot be made to operate by 

 jjassing another Statute in that country that it shall. I lay no stress 

 (except for a purpose I shall come to l)y and bye), upon the fact that 

 many of these statutes — both British and Foreign — are general in their 

 terms, and nmnifestly apply, so far as the language goes, to foreigners. 

 I am upon the question of what has taken place under such statutes. 

 International law is not made by any nation passing a statute — it is 

 the acquiescence of mankind in the assertion of a right that makes 

 International law. 



iSTow take the matter of the Coral Reefs. The French law protecting 

 that product will be found in Volume I of the United States Appendix 

 page 4C9. You will find opposite page 4G1) on the map, the area of the 

 Coral lisheries on the coast of Algeria which are protected by the French 

 law. The second article li'om the Decree of the 10th May 1862 is quoted 

 in French at page 469; and the translation is this: 



Upou the request of the expert lisliermeii of their representatives, or, for the want 

 of them, of the syndicates (organizations) of seafaring men, certain fisheries may lie 

 temporarily forbidden over an extent of sea sitnated beyond three miles from the 

 shore, if such measure is required in the interest of the preservation of the bed of the 

 sea or of a fishery composed of migratory fishes. 



You will see on the map the extent to which that runs out," which is 

 considerable. I do not know that the exact figures are given — 7 miles 

 I am told is the extent. 



The Australian Pearl Fisheries will be seen indicated in a previous 

 map opposite to page 468. You will see how very extensive they are — 

 much beyond any limit of territorial jurisdiction, and that statute is by 

 its terms restricted to British subjects and boats. It has been remarked 

 upou by my friends on the other side. But there again whatever the 

 effect of the statute nniy be, the same question occurs: what has taken 

 place? Is that a business that is open to mankind at large? Has it 

 ever been attempted ? 



The Italian Coral Beds have been referred to. The Coral beds of 

 Sardinia and Sicily, the former from 3 to 15 miles from the land; the 

 latter 14 to 32 miles from the land. The maps relative to those will be 

 found opposite pages 470 and 472 showing the extent of these "fish- 

 eries", if that is a correct term. One map is of the coral beds of Sar- 

 dinia and the other of the coral beds of Sicily. You will see to what 

 distance they extend. And those statutes are general in their terms so 

 that by the language of the statutes they would apply to foreigners. It 

 was observed by the Marquis Venosta when that was under discussion 

 before — I believe when my associate was speaking — that he did not 

 understand those Statutes to ai)i)ly to foreigners, but that foreigners did 

 not go there. Well that is the point upon which I am now. Has Sicily, 

 or has it not, from the beginning, up to now, successfully asserted its 

 protection over this property? Has any writer challenged it? Has 

 any nation challenged it? 



Passing from the subject of coral — we have considered the pearl 

 oysters and the coral — I believe I have named all that there are — pass- 

 ing to oyster beds, the British Fisheries Act of 1868 (which will be 



