106 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
Although surrendered slowly and reluctantly, these extravagant claims of the 
great powers have given way to a just consideration of the rights of weaker 
nations. With development of commerce, the modern conception of the freedom 
of the seas, first formally set forth in 1609 by Grotius, that master builder in the 
science of international jurisprudence, was gradually established, and the limit 
of territoriality of a maritime state became restricted to a narrow margin sur- 
rounding her external seacoast. Within this limit the authority of a nation is 
paramount and exclusive, except as it may be affected by treaty rights and 
subject to peaceable passage by ships of other nations. Grotius, however, 
although restricting the authority of a maritime state to a limited distance 
seaward, gave only an indefinite idea as to the extent of this marginal belt, 
stating that it must be a reasonable area and bear a proper relation to the 
adjacent land.* Difference of opinion as to the precise limit has been great. 
Claims have been made now and again and by various authorities for 100 
miles,’ for 60 miles,° for two days’ sail,? as far as the bottom can be found with 
the lead line,‘ and for as much as can be seen from the shore on a clear day./ 
Nearly one hundred years after the publication of Grotius’s ‘‘Mare liberum,”’ 
the learned yet practical Bynkershoek made the first statement of the present 
rule which defines the marginal waters as extending as far as the riparian state 
is able to exercise jurisdiction from the shore, the maxim in which this doctrine 
is tersely expressed being ‘‘ Terre finitur potestas ubi finitur armorum vis.” 9 
This seemed a just and practical solution of the controversy, and succeeding 
publicists adopted the attractive formula. 
The modern conception of international law and the just relations and 
jurisdictions of nations had its birth and made its greatest progress in the 
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, after the introduction of firearms and 
before the great development in modern artillery. Since authority over the 
marginal waters was exercised by means of cannon, it was natural to assume 
the distance of a cannon shot as the limit of jurisdiction. The extreme limit of 
cannon range being then about 3 marine or geographical miles, this distance 
from low-water mark became recognized as the extent of the marginal belt 
@ De Jure Belli ac Pacis, 11, ch. 3, sec. 3. 
b Coepolla, De servitutibus preediorum urbanorum, ch. XXVI, no. 14. 
¢ Bodin, De Republica, lib. 1, ch. x. 
4 Locenius, De Jure Maritimo, ch. Iv, sec. 6. 
¢ Valin, Commentaire sur l’Ordonnance de la Marine du mois d’aout 1681. Paris, 1761, ch. v, p. 687. 
/ Rayneval, Institution du Droit de la Nature et des Gens, lib. 11, ch. rx, ch. x. 
An old Scottish law recognized the jurisdiction of that country as extending seaward to the visible 
distance from the shore. Mackenzie calls attention to the grim sense of humor entertained by James 
V of Scotland (1513-1542): “In the time of K. James the 5th, the Hollanders having only a verbal 
licence to fish at 28 miles distance cam neere the shore into the mouth of the Furth of Edenborough, 
and ther fished in despight of the Kings comand. Then the King sent out men of warre and took so 
manie of them that he sent a barilful of their heads into Holland with their names fixed to their fore- 
heads uppon cards.” (MS. in Public Records Office. State Papers, vol. cLII, no. 63; quoted in Mac- 
kenzie’s History of the Outer Hebrides, p. 304. Paisley, 1903.) 
9 Bynkerskoek, De Domino Maris, ch. 11; Questionum Juris Publici, 1737, lib. 1, ch. 8. 
