138 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
The action of the British Government appears inconsistent with its attitude 
in the Bering Sea controversy, and seems to be a revival of the view taken a 
century ago by our own Chancellor Kent, who suggested that, considering the 
length and characteristics of the American coasts, the United States might 
claim control of the waters included within lines stretching from distant head- 
lands, as, for instance, from Cape Ann to Cape Cod, from Nantucket to Montauk 
Point, from Montauk Point to the capes of Delaware, and from the South Cape 
of Florida to the Mississippi;? but which was said by Woolsey to be ‘out of 
character for a nation that has ever asserted the freedom of doubtful waters, 
as well as contrary to the spirit of more recent times,” ® and has never been 
accepted as an expression of the policy of the American Government. 
As a purely academic proposition, instances could be suggested in which 
it might seem that a nation would be warranted in interfering with some novel 
and highly destructive method of fishery employed contiguous to her marginal 
seas. For instance, it is not to be supposed that any of the countries bordering 
the North Sea would willingly tolerate the use of large quantities of poison or of 
dynamite in taking fish in those waters, or that similar destructive methods 
would be permitted on the Newfoundland banks, even though these vicious acts 
should be committed by foreigners operating more than 3 miles from land 
and with the-approval of their Government. But in the light of the Bering Sea 
decision, very slight is the probability of an instance actually arising in which a 
nation would unquestionably be justified in interfering with a method of fishery 
prosecuted by foreigners on the high seas, for no single nation may arrogate to 
itself executive power for the enforcement of international law. The provoca- 
tion would have to be so great as to threaten the very existence of its people, 
and it is scarcely presumable that a foreign government would permit its subjects 
thus to injure the resources of a friendly state, for the public opinion of the 
civilized world enforces submission from every nation. Obviously the exercise 
of this authority for a merely beneficial restriction or regulation would likely 
soon become the basis of complete jurisdiction over that particular area, and 
it would probably not be long before, through one pretext or another, the principal 
fishing grounds of the world would pass under control of individual powers. 
And, to quote the words of Dr. C. N. Gregory: ‘‘ No right to regulate what belongs 
to all nations can be conceded to one nation, however large her interests or 
enlightened her councils.’’° 
For the preservation of the coastal fisheries, as well as for the more impor- 
tant matters of national defense and safety, the opinion is growing that the 
present limit of the marginal belt is too narrow and that it should be extended 
considerably beyond the present distance of 3 miles. As already set forth 
@ Kent, Commentaries on American Law, vol. I, sec. 29, 30. 
b Woolsey, International Law, sec. 60. 
¢ American Political Science Review, May, 1907, p. 436. 
