184 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 



posed to be acquainted with these regulations, and are, consequently, 

 obliged to conform thereto. As an example, we will content ourselves 

 with quoting the law of Germinal 4th, year 11, Art. 7, Tit. 2: ' Captains 

 and officers and other functionaries directing the custom-house, or the 

 commercial or naval service, may search all vessels of less than 100 

 tons burden when lying at anchor or tacking within four leagues from 

 the coast of France, cases of vis major excepted. If such vessels have 

 on board any goods whose importation or exportation is prohibited in 

 France, the vessels shall be confiscated as well as their cargoes, and the 

 captains of the vessels shall be required to pay a tine of 500 livres.'" 



Says Pradier-Fodere (Traite* de Droit Internationale, Vol. n, sec. G33) : 



" Independently of treaties, the law of each state can determine of its 

 own accord a certain distance on the sea, within whi< h the state can 

 claim to exercise power and jurisdiction, and which constitutes the ter- 

 ritorial sea, for it and for those who admit the limitation. This is espe- 

 cially for the surveillance and control of revenues." 



And in a note to this passage he says: 



"In effect, in the matter of revenue, a nation can fix its own limits, 

 notwithstanding the termination of the territorial sea. Neighboring 

 nations are held to recognize these rules, and in consequence are con- 

 sidered to conform to them. On this point the French law of the 

 4th Germinal, year II, can be cited." 



This law fixes two myriameters, or about twelve English miles as the 

 limit within which vessels are subject to inspection to prevent fraud on 

 the revenue. 



La Tour (De la mer territoriale, page 230), speaking of the exterri- 

 torial effect of the French revenue laws at four leagues from the coast, 

 thus justifies them. 



"Is not this an excessive limit to which to extend the territorial sea 1 ? 

 !No, we assert. At the present day this question will hardly bear dis- 

 cussion, o)i account of the long range of cannon; and though we should 

 return to the time when that range was less, we should still undertake 

 to justify this extension of the custom-house radius; and for this it is 

 sufficient to invoke the reasons given in matters of sanitary police. It 

 does not involve simply a reciprocal concession of states, or a tacit 

 agreement between them, but it is the exercise of their respective 

 rights. * * * 



"The American and English practice allows the seizure, even outside 

 of the ordinary limit of the territorial waters, of vessels violating the 

 custom laws." 



Says M. Calvo (Le droit international, sec. 244): 



"In order to decide the question in a manner at once rational and 

 practical, it should not be lost sight of at the outset that the state has 

 not over the territorial sea a right of property, but a right of inspection 

 and of jurisdiction in the interest of its own safety, or of the protection 

 of its revenue interests. 



"The nature of things demonstrates, then, that the right extends up 

 to that point where its existence justifies itself, and that it ceases when 

 the apprehension of serious danger, practical utility, and the possi- 

 bility of effectively carrying on definite action cease. 



"Maritime states have an incontestable right, however, for the de- 

 fense of their respective territories against sudden attack, and for the 

 protection of their interests of commerce and of revenues, to establish 



