INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS OF FISHERIES ON THE HIGH SEAS. 107 
among those who preferred a distinct and uniform distance to a general and 
somewhat indefinite one. It was specifically acknowledged in the maritime 
regulations adopted by Tuscany in 1778, and in those of Genoa and of Venice 
in 1779; it was affirmed by Russia in 1787, by the United States in 1794, by 
Austria in 1803, and by various other nations at different dates. It was recog- 
nized in the convention of 1818 between Great Britain and the United States, 
in the fishery conventions between France and Great Britain of 1839 and 1867, 
in the convention of 1882 between Belgium, France, Denmark, Germany, Great 
Britain, and the Netherlands for the police of the fisheries in the North Sea, and 
in various other conventions, treaties, and arbitrations. Indeed, for many 
years the terms “ maritime belt” and “the marine league” have been used inter- 
changeably. 
Objection to a universal recognition of the rule that territorial jurisdiction 
extends only 3 miles from land is made chiefly by Norway and Sweden. These 
states have never recognized the 3-mile limit as the confines of their territorial 
waters, and have never concluded nor acceded to any treaty setting forth that 
rule. By their municipal or national laws the limit has generally been fixed 
at 4 geographical miles. This was established in Norway by royal rescript of 
June 18, 1745, and has been affirmed repeatedly since then, especially in the 
early part of the last century.” 
The Government of Spain has from time to time claimed exclusive juris- 
diction within 6 nautical miles of her coasts and of those of her colonies. This 
claim was expressed in a royal cedula of December 17, 1774, which was supported 
by a royal decree of May 1, 1775, and by another of May 3, 1850, and was 
asserted as recently as August 4, 1874. But both Great Britain and the United 
States refused to accede to this pretension or to concede the extension of Spanish 
sovereignty beyond 3 littoral miles.” 
Since harbors and small bays have more of the characteristics of terri- 
toriality than the open seas along the coast, it has been customary to recognize 
jurisdiction as extending over these within reasonable limits, even though they 
be not wholly within the 3-mile belt. But there is not at present any generally 
recognized standard as to what can be justly regarded as territorial bays when 
the width exceeds 2 marine leagues. Some authorities claim that the limit of 
exclusive jurisdiction is 3 miles from a line drawn from headland to headland, 
@ See p. 109 and 137. 
b See letter of Lord Derby to Mr. Watson, December 25, 1874, Foreign Relations of the United 
States, 1875, p. 641, 649. In the language of Mr. Seward, it can not be admitted “that the mere asser- 
tion of a sovereign, by an act of legislation, however solemn, can have the effect to establish and fix its 
external maritime jurisdiction. This right toa jurisdiction of 3 miles is derived not from his own decree 
but from the law of nations, and exists even though he may never have proclaimed or asserted it by any 
decree or declaration whatsoever. He can not, by a mere decree, extend the limit and fix it at 6 miles 
because if he could, he could in the same manner, and upon motives of interest, ambition, or even upon 
caprice, fix it at 10, or 20, or 50 miles, without the consent or acquiescence of other powers which have 
a common right with himself in the freedom of all the oceans.” (Letter to Mr. Tassara, Spanish min- 
ister, August 10, 1863.) 
