MODERN PRACTICE 665 



i 



came to the front, more particularly with reference to the 

 waters around Cuba. In 1862 the American Government 

 intimated that they were not prepared to admit that Spain, 

 without a formal concurrence of other nations, could exercise 

 exclusive sovereignty upon the open sea beyond a line of three 

 miles from the coast ; while Spain, relying on the legal prin- 

 ciple governing the extent of the territorial sea, argued that 

 the improvement of modern artillery made the three-mile limit 

 ineffective. Two years later a discussion on the subject took 

 place between the British and American Governments, the 

 former desiring that during the existence of hostilities the 

 limit of neutral waters should be greatly extended, so that shots 

 from belligerents might be prevented from falling, not only on 

 land, but within the neutral waters, and limits of ten, eight, and 

 five miles were mentioned. 1 In 1874 the British Government 

 had itself occasion to object to the claim of Spain ; and on com- 

 munication with the Government of the United States, they 

 were informed that that Government had always protested 

 against it, and on the same grounds, that by the law of nations 

 jurisdiction could only extend to one marine league from the 

 coast. 2 Notwithstanding the opposition of the two chief 

 maritime Powers, Spain did not abandon its claim, for by a 

 royal order of 16th May 1881, passed with special reference to 

 the jurisdiction over American vessels in Cuban waters, it was 

 declared that full jurisdiction extended to a distance of six 

 miles from the coast. This limit was also fixed for customs 

 purposes in Spanish waters by royal decrees in 1830 and 1852, 

 and in the general ordinances of the customs in 1884, the six 

 miles being stated to be equivalent to eleven kilometres. 3 



With regard to fisheries, Spain has entered into various 

 treaties with Portugal as to the right of fishing along their 



1 Mr Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr Tassara, 6th December 1862. The same 

 to Mr Burnley, 16th September 1864. Wharton, A Digest of the International 

 Law of the United States, i. 105. American ships were charged with pursuing Con- 

 federate vessels into British waters, and the balls from the guns they fired had 

 struck objects on shore. The facts were used to show that the hostile acts had 

 occurred within our territorial jurisdiction. Hansard, vol. 173, p. 509; February 

 1864. 



2 Secretary Fish to Sir E. Thornton, 22nd January 1875. " We have understood 

 and asserted that, pursuant to public law, no nation can rightfully claim jurisdic- 

 tion at sea beyond a marine league from the coast." Loc. cit. 



3 Torres-Campos, in Fifteenth Ann. Rep. Assoc. for Reform and Codification of the 

 Law of Nations, 93. Negrin, Tratado de Derecho internacional maritimo, 1883. 



