C. 445. 



52 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



58 III. 



COLONIES HAVE NO POWER OF EXTRA-TERRITORIAL 

 LEGISLATION FOR FOREIGNERS. 



It may furtlier be demonstrated that Great Britain has 

 not assumed to grant to her Colonies any larger legislative 

 power than she assumes to possess herself; and that tlie 

 Colonial Legislatures cannot assume to themselves any 

 l)ower of extraterritorial legislation for foreigners, as is 

 alleged in the United States Case. 



On this point, it would be sufl1(;ient to refer to the words 

 of "The Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878," which 

 defines the territorial waters "adjacent to the United King- 

 dom or any other part of Her Majesty's dominions" to extend 

 no fart'nor than 1 marine league from low-water mark. 



Tlie fitidicial Committee of the Privy Council have ex- 

 ])ressly declared the limits of the Colonial Legislative 

 I*ower. 

 L. R., 1S31, A. In jMacleod v. Attorney-General for New South Wales 

 the colonial law as to l)igamy was considered. 



The section enacted that — 



Whosoever beiug married marries another person during the life of 

 the former husband or wife, wlieresover such second marriage takes 

 place, shall be liable to penal servitude for seven years. 



Here were general words similar to the words "any per- 

 son" so much relied on by the United States. 



The Judicial Committee nevertheless rejected their gen- 

 eral ai)plication. They said: 



The colony can have no such jurisdiction, and their Lordships do 

 not desire to attribute to the Colonial Legislature an effort to enlarge 

 their jurisdiction to such an extent as would be inconsistent with 

 the powers committed to a colony, and indeed inconsistent with the 

 most fauiilar principles of international law. 



.f * # « * 



The words "Whosoever being married" mean "whosoever being 

 nmrried and who is amenable at the time of the offence committed to 

 the jurisdiction of the colony." 



# « * * * 



"Wheresoever" may be read, "Wheresoever in this colony the 

 offence is committed." 



And so, both in case of colonial laws and in the case of 



English laws, the words "any person" mean "any person 



subject to the jurisdiction of the Legislature passing such 



laws," subject, that is, in accordance with the prin- 



59 ciples of international and constitutional law here 

 explained. 



The contention of the United States that the British 

 colonial laws warrant, or afford some analogy to, the Alas- 

 kan Seal Statute, is entirely devoid of foundation. 



ly. 



HOW FAR INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZES A RIGHT TO 

 POSSESSION OP PARTS OF THE BED OF THE SEA. 



It is next submitted — 



That international law recognizes the right of a State to 

 acquire certain portions of the waters of the sea and of the 



