ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 53 



soil under the sea, and to include tlieni Avitlnu the territory 

 of the State. 



This affords a legiliinate explanation of the cases of for- 

 eifju extra-territorial fishery hiws cited by the United States, 

 quite apart from any question whether they apply to for- 

 eigners or not. 



Bnt it affords no justification for, nor are they analogous 

 to, the Alaskan Seal Statute, as is contended by the Unitedi 

 States. 



The territory of the imtion extends to low-water mark; 

 but certain portions of the sea may be added to the domin- 

 ion. For exam])le, the sea which lies inter fauces terrw, 

 and, in certain exceptional cases, parts of the sea not lying 

 infer fauces terra\ 



The chiiui applies strictly to the soil under the sea. Such 

 claim may be legitimately made to oyster beds, pearl fish- 

 eries, und coral reefs; and, in the same way, mines within 

 the territory may be worked out under the sea below low- 

 water nuu'k. 



Isolated portions of the high sea cannot be taken by a 

 nation unless the bed on which the^^rest can be physically 

 occupied in a manner analogous to the occupation of land. 



These liriuciples, though they explain legitimately all 

 the examples of foreign laws dwelt on by the United States, 

 show also that no right to, or on, so vast an area of the high 

 sea as Behring Sea can be acquired, i^or has any such 

 claim ever been made. 



V. 



ABSENCE OF ANALOGY BETWEEN PROTECTION OF SWIM- 

 MING ANIMALS AND OF OYSTER AND CORAL BEDS. 



It is further submitted that there is no analogy between 

 a claim to property in and to protect swimming animals, 

 such as fish and seals, and a like claim in respect of oyster, 



pearl, or coral beds. 

 60 The exclusive fishery right recognized by inter- 



national law within the territorial waters, or the 

 wateys of tbe dominion, cannot at any rate be placed 

 higher than the right to take possession of wild animals 

 which the common law gives to the owners of land on 

 which the animals are. 



If there were any land animals which by nature were 

 attached to the soil, the cominon law right would be prac- 

 tically equivalent to a right of pro[)erty; and so as to oys- 

 ters and coral beds, Avhen they are within the waters over 

 which international law recognizes an exclusive fishery 

 right, this right becomes equivalent to a right of property 

 because they are attached to the soil. 



But in aninmls which move from this area into the high 

 sea no such property can be acquired. 



