94 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



possession, it appears tliat ancli a sea is uo less capal)le of being occupied and becom- 

 ing property than the land, and it ought to follow the fate of the country that sur- 

 rounds it. The Meililernineau in former times was absolutely inclosed within the 

 territories of the Romans, and that people, by rendering themselves masters of the 

 strait Avhich joins it to the ocean miglit subject the Mediterranean to their Empire, 

 and assume the dominion over it. They did not by such proceeding injure the rights 

 of other nations, a particular sea being mauiJestly designed by nature, for the use 

 of the countries and nations that surround it. (Yattel's Law of Nations, pp. 129 

 and 130.) 



Chancellor Kent, in 1826 before the doctrine as to the marine league limit was aa 

 firmly established as it now is, says: 



"It is difficult to draw any precise or determined conclusion amid the variety of 

 opinions as to the distance a State may lawfully extend its exclusive dominion over 

 the seas adjoining its territories and beyond those portions of the sea which are 

 embraced by harbours, gulfs, bays, and estuaries, and over which its jurisdiction 

 unquestionably extends." (Kent, vol. I, p. 28.) 



Jurisdiction of States. 



It thus appears that, while in 1826 the limit of the marine belt was unsettled, the 

 jurisdiction of a state over its inland waters was unquestioned. 



"In the laws of nations bays are regarded as a i)art of the territory of the country 

 Avhen their dimensions and configurations are sucli as to show that the nation occu- 

 pying the coast also occupies the bay as apart of its territory." (Manning's Law of 

 Nations, p. 120.) 



"An inland sea or lake belongs to the state in which it is territorially situated. 

 As illustrations, may be mentioned the inland lakes whose entire body is within the 

 United States, and the Sea of Azof." (Wheaton's International Law, vol. I, sec. 31.) 



"Rivers and inland lakes and seas, when contained in a particular State, are sub- 

 ject to the Sovereign of such State." (Idem, vol. Ill, sec. 300.) 



"Undoubtedly it is upon this principle of international law that out right to domin- 

 ion over such vast inland waters as the Great Lakes, Boston Harbor, Long Island 

 Sound, Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, Albemarle Sound, and the Bay of San Fran- 

 cisco rests. This country, in 1793, considered the wliole of Delaware Bay to be 

 within our territorial jurisdiction, and it rested its claim upon these authorities, 

 which admit that gulfs, channels, and arms of the sea belong to the people within 

 whose land they are encompassed." (Kent's Com. vol. I, p. 528.) 



The Doctrine Always Asserted. 



It thus appears that our Government asserted this doctrine in its infancy. It was 

 announced by Mr. Jelferson as Secretary of State, and by the Attorney General in 

 1793. Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State in 1796, reaftirms it, in his letter to the 

 833 Governor of Virginia, in the following language: "Our jurisdiction has been 

 fixed to extend 3 geographical miles from our shores, with the exception of 

 any waters or bays which are so land-locked as to be unquestionably witliin the 

 jurisdiction of the states, be their extent what they may." (Wheaton's International 

 Law, vol. I, sec. 32, pp. 2-100.) 



Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State to Mr. Jordan, in 1849 reiterates this rule in the 

 following language: "The exclusive jurisdiction of a nation extends to the ports, 

 harbors, bays, mouths of rivers, and adjacent parts of the sea enclosed by head 

 lands." (Idem p. 101.) 



Mr. Seward, in the Senate in 1852, substantially enunciates the same doctrine by 

 declaring that if we relied alone upon the old rule that only those bays whose entrance 

 from headland to headland do not exceed six miles are within the territorial jurisdic- 

 tion of the adjoining nation, our dominion to all the larger and more important arms 

 of the sea on both our Atlantic and Pacific Coasts would have to be surrendered. 

 Our right to jurisdiction over these rests with the rule of international law which 

 gives a nation jurisdiction over waters embraced within its laud dominion. 



BeliritKfs Sea Inland Water. 



It thus appears that from our earliest history, contemporaneously with our accept- 

 ance of the principle of the marine league belt, and supjiorted by the same high 

 authorities is the assertion of the doctrine of our right to dominion over our inland 

 waters under the Treaty of 1867, and on this rule of international law we base our 

 claim to jurisdiction and dominion over the waters of the Behring Sea. While it is, 

 no doubt, true that a nation cannot by treaty acquire dominion in contravention of 

 the law of nations, it is none the less true that, whatever title or dominion our 

 grantor, Russia, possessed under the law of nations at the time of the treaty of ces- 



