IIo BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
In relation to the subjects of another sovereign power the situation is quite 
different, for no single nation is allowed to interfere on the high seas with the 
vessels of another nation without previous agreement. Indeed, so liberally 
does international law guard the coast fishermen that even in war they are 
humanely exempted from capture while engaged in their legitimate pursuit. 
And a municipal law has no effect on the high seas except on the vessels flying 
the flag of that particular nation. 
Where vessels of several powers are concerned, it isa hardship and exceedingly 
unjust for one government to enforce restrictive regulations among its own 
fishermen without concurrent action by other governments, for this makes a 
hurtful monopoly in favor of foreigners. The principal effect of such action is 
usually to transfer the nationality of the operations from the government en- 
forcing the restriction to one under which greater freedom is enjoyed. Striking 
instances of this may be found in the transfer of pelagic fur-sealing vessels from 
the American to the British flag when the United States interdicted pelagic fur 
sealing in 1886, and also in their transfer to the Japanese flag after both America 
and England agreed upon the Bering Sea regulations in 1893. By united 
action of all the nations interested in a particular fishery, however, regulations 
may be established and enforced on the high seas as effectively as though that 
fishery were prosecuted within territorial waters. Hence arises the importance 
of concurrent action among the powers interested when such regulations are 
found necessary, and such action is obtained through international conventions 
and agreements. These conventions recognize the right of all nations to fish in 
the seas beyond the territorial waters, but for their mutual benefit each one 
agrees to restrict its own subjects by regulations to be observed by all alike. 
Such regulations do not apply to the subjects of nations which are not parties 
to the agreement and do not restrict their fishing in any place or in any manner. 
The number of instances in which nations have united or even concurred 
in regulating fisheries on the high seas is not large. Fortunately for the length 
of our paper, the much discussed “‘fisheries question,’ respecting the rights 
and privileges of the British provinces and of the United States on the north- 
eastern coast of America, does not relate to the high seas, although it bears — 
materially on the limit of maritime jurisdiction. 
The first prominent attempt at international regulation of the fisheries was 
the Anglo-French convention of 1839, applicable to the English Channel and 
adjacent seas, which set forth the limits of exclusive jurisdiction in marginal 
waters and established regulations for preserving the oyster and other fisheries and 
for maintaining order among the fishermen. The regulations prepared in 1843 
in accordance with the provisions of this convention were never satisfactory and 
have been of little effect. In 1867 an effort was made to revise them, and a 
convention was signed to this effect by representatives of the two nations; but 
this failed, owing to lack of confirmation by the French Government. 
The North Sea convention of 1882, among Belgium, Denmark, France, Ger- 
many, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, was strictly for the police of the 
