175 



must bo very mncli prejudiced in this respect; especially since 'tis very 

 usual tliat some particular kind offish, or perliaps some more precious 

 commodity, 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 borderers should not rather challenge to 

 themselves this happiness of a wealthy shore or sea than those who 

 are sealed at a distance from it." Law of Nature and Nations, Bk. i, 

 Chax>. 5, Sec. 7. 



Vattel, upon the same general subject: "The various uses of the sea 

 near the coasts render it very susceptible of property. It furnishes 

 tish, shells, pearls, amber, etc. Now, in all these respects, its use is 

 not inexhaustible; wherefore the nation to whom the coasts belong may 

 appropriate to themselves, and convert to their own prolit, an advan- 

 tage which nature has so placed within their reach as to enable them 

 conveniently to take possession of it in the same manner as they pos- 

 sessed themselves of the dominion of the land they inluibit. Who can 

 doubt that the pearl fisheries of Bahren and Ceylon may lawfully 

 become property'? And, though, where the catching of fish is the 

 only object, the fishery appears less liable to be exhausted; yet, if a 

 nation have on their coast a particular fishery of a profitable nature, 

 and of which they may become masters, shall they not be permitted 

 to appropriate to themselves that bounteous gift of nature, as an 

 appendage to the country they possess, and to reserve to themselves 

 the great advantages which their commerce may thence derive in case 

 there be a sufficient abundance of fish to furnish the neighboring 

 nations'?'' Again: "A nation may appropriate to herself those 

 things of which the fiee and common use would be i^rejudicial or 

 dangerous to her. This is a second reason for which governments 

 extend their dominion over the sea along their coast as far as they 

 are able to i)rotect their right." Law of Nations, Bk. II, Chap. 23, 

 Sees. 217, 2S8. This passage from Vattel is quoted by Sir Travers 

 Twiss, who says: "The usns of all parts of the open Sea in respect 

 to navigation is common to all nations, but the fructns is distinguish- 

 able in law from the usus, and in respect of fish, or zoopliites, or fossil 

 substances, may belong in certain parts exclusively to an individual 

 nation." Cli. XI, Sec. 191. 



The essential grounds upon which the doctrine is placed in these 

 extracts is precisely that upon whicli the similar decisions have been 

 made in the instances from numicipal law of bees, pigeons, and the like. 

 It is that these i)ropcrties would he destroyed and lost unless they 



