152 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



The Continental publicists are in full concurrence on this poiut with 

 English and American authorities. 1 



In respect to the exercise of the right of self-defense, not merely 

 upon the high seas but in the territory or territorial waters of a foreign 

 and friendly state, authority is equally strong. Says Mr. Wharton (1 

 Dig. of Int. Law., p. 50): 



Intrusion on the territory or territorial waters of a foreign state is 

 excusable when necessary for self-protection in matters of vital impor- 

 tance, and when no other mode of relief is attainable. 



Aud (pp.221, 222): 



When there is no other way of warding off a perilous attack upon a 

 country, the sovereign of such country can intervene by force in the 

 territory from which the attack is threatened, in order to prevent such 

 attack. 



A belligerent may, under extreme necessity, enter neutral territory 

 and do what is actually necessary for protection. 



And he cites the case of Amelia Island, in respect to which he says: 



Amelia Island, at the mouth of St. Mary's River, and at that time in 

 Spanish territory, was seized in 1817 by a band of buccaneers, under 

 the direction of an adventurer named McGregor, who, in the name of 

 the insurgent colonies of Buenos Ayres and Venezuela, preyed indis- 

 criminately on the commerce of Spain and of the United States. 

 The Spanish Government not being able or willing to drive them off, 

 and the nuisance being one which required immediate action, President 



to a 3-mile belt, but would undoubtedly be sanctioned as far as reasonably nec- 

 essary to secure the practical benefits of their possession. If self-defense or regula- 

 tion of fisheries should reasonably require assumption of control to a greater distance 

 than 3 miles, it would undoubtedly he acquiesced in by other nations. 



"The murine league distance has acquired prominence merely hecause of its adop- 

 tion as a boundary in certain agreements and treaties, and from its frequent mention 

 in text-boohs, hut has never been established in law as a fixed boundary. 



" These rights belonged to England as a member of the family of nations, and did 

 not constitute her the possessor of a proprietary title in any part of the high sens 

 nor add any portion of these waters to her realm. In their nature they were rights 

 of dominion and sovereignty rather than of property." 



Mr. Justice Blatcbford, in delivering the opinion of the court, says: "We think 

 it must be regarded as established that, as between nations, the minimum limit of 

 the territorial jurisdiction of a nation over tide-waters is a marine league from its 

 coast; that bays wholly within its territory not exceeding two marine leagues in 

 width at the mouth, are within this limit; and that included in this territorial juris- 

 diction is the right of control over fisheries, whether the fish be migratory, free- 

 swimming fish, or free-moving fish, or fish attached to or embedded in the soil. The 

 open sea within this limit is, of course, subject to the common right of navigation, 

 and all governments, for the purpose of selfprotection in time of war or for the pre- 

 vention of frauds on its l'eveuue, exercise an authority beyond this limit." 



'For citations from Azuni, Plocque, La Tour, Calvo, Hefi'ter, Bluntsehli, and Car- 

 nazza-Amari, see Appendix, infra pp. 183-186. 



