2r)0 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



unilcrstandiiig wliich fixes tlic range of a raiinon shot (wlicii it is mntlo the test of 

 jurisdiction) at 3 miles. So generally is this rule aece})ted that writers eonimonly 

 use the exiiressions of a range of cannon shot and 3 miles as equivalents of each 

 other. In other cases, they use the latter expression as a substitute for the former. 



And in a later communication on the same subject of the 10th An 

 gust, 1863, he observes : 



Nevertheless, it can not be admitted, nor indeed is Mr, Tassara understood to claim, 

 that the mere assertion of a sovereign, by an act of legislation however solemn, can 

 have the etfect to establish and iix its external maritime jurisdiction. His right to 

 a jurisdiction of 3 miles is derived, not from his own decree, but from the law of na- 

 tions, 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 n]K)n 

 motives of interest, ambition, or even upon caprice, fix it at 10, or 20, or 50 miles 

 without the consent or acquisescence of other powers which have a common right 

 with himself in the freedom of all the oceans. Such a pretension could never be suc- 

 cessfully or rightfully maintained. 



The same principles were hiid down in a note addressed to Sir E. 

 Thornton by Mr. Fish, then Secretary of State, on the 22d January, 

 1875. Mr. Fish there stated : 



We have always understood and asserted that pursuant to public law no nation 

 can rightfully claim jurisdiction at sea beyond a marine league from the coast. 



He then went on to explain the only two exceptions that were appar- 

 ently known to him so far as -the United States were concerned: Cer- 

 tain revenue laws which admitted the boarding- of vessels at a distance 

 of 4 leagues from the coast, which, he said, had never been so applied 

 in j)ractice as to give rise to complaint on the part of a foreign govern- 

 ment; and a treaty between the United States and Mexico of 1818, in 

 which the boundary line between the two States was described as be- 

 ginning in the Gulf of Mexico 3 leagues from land. As regards tliis 

 stipulation, he observed that it had been explained at the time that it 

 coukl only affect the rights of Mexico and the United States, and was 

 never intended to trench upon the rights of Great Britain or of any 

 other power under the law of nations. 



It would seem, therefore, that Mr. Fish was entirely unaware of the 

 exceptional jurisdiction in Behring Sea, which is now said to have been 

 conceded by the United States to Eussia from 1823 to 1807, trans- 

 ferred to the United States, so far as the American coast was concerned, 

 only eight years before he wrote, and which would presumably be still 

 asknowledged by them as belonging to Eussia on the Asiatic shore. I 

 must suj)pose that when Mr. Blaine states that '' both the United States 

 and Great Britain recognized, respected, obeyed "the ukase of 1821, 

 in so far as it affected Behring Sea, he has some evidence to go upon in 

 regard to the conduct of his country which is unknown to the world at 

 large, and which he has not as yet produced. But I must be allowed 

 altogether to deny that the attitude of Great Britain was such as he 

 represents, or that she ever admitted by act or by sufferance the extra- 

 ordinary claim of maritime jurisdiction which that ukase contained. 



Tlie inclosed copies of correspondence, extracted from the archives 

 of this office, make it very difficult to believe that Mr. Blaine has not 

 been altogether led into error. It results from them that not only <lid 

 Her Majesty's Government formally protest against the ukase on its 

 flrst issue as contrary to the acknowledged law of nations, but that the 

 Eussian Government gave a verbal assurance that the claim of juris- 

 diction would not be exercised. In the subse(|uent negotiations great 

 im])()rtanee was attached to obtaining ai more I'ornial disavowal of the 

 claim in the manner least hurtful to Eussian suscex)tibililies, but so as 



