164 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



The illustrations thus cited are cases of such common and frequent 

 occurrence, that the rules which control them have become exactly 

 formulated by courts of justice, as well as by writers on the subject, 

 and have passed by common consent and usage into the domain of set- 

 tled international law. 



But many instances have occurred in the history of nations, excep- 

 tional in their character and not provided for under any general rule, 

 where a similar necessity to that which dictated those rules lias required 

 an analogous act of selfdefen.se by a nation, in some particular case. 

 And such protection has been extended, through both legislative and 

 executive action, by the governments affected. Some of these instances 

 may be usefully referred to, since they are in complete analogy to the 

 present case, except that, both in respect to the necessity that prompted 

 them and the importance of the injury sought to be restrained, they all 

 fall far short of the exigency here under consideration. 



In the valuable pearl fisheries of Ceylon, the British authorities have 

 long excluded all other nations from participation in or interference 

 witli them, though these fisheries extend into the open sea for a dis- 

 tance varying from 6 to 20 miles from the shore. 



A regulation was enacted by the local British authorities, of March 

 9, 1811, authorizing the seizure and forfeiture of any vessel found 

 hovering on the pearl banks on the west coast of Ceylon, on water 

 of between 4 and 12 fathoms, the same being an area of the open 

 sea extending 00 miles up and down the coast and of variable width, 

 but distant about 20 marine miles from the coast at the farthest point. 

 This regulation is still in force. (Regulations No. 3, of ] 811, for the pro- 

 tection of Her Majesty's pearl banks of Ceylon). 



An ordinance issued in 1842 prohibited the use of any dredge for 

 fishing within the limits of the pearl banks, on pain of forfeiture and 

 imprisonment. 



The ordinance of November 30, 1843, prohibited the possession or 

 use of nets, dredges, and other instruments such as might be prejudicial 

 to the Government pearl banks, within 12 miles of any part of the 

 shore lying between two designated points. The penalties annexed 

 were forfeiture and imprisonment. Suspected persons might be 

 searched. This regulation is still in force. (No. 18, 1843, an ordinance 

 to declare illegal the possession of certain nets and instruments within 

 certain limits.) 



The ordinance of November 18, 1890, prohibited all persons from 



