QUESTION FIVE. 95 



tary line for the purpose of excluding foreigners from fishing is meas- 

 ured along the shore of the bay, according to its sinuosities, and the 

 limit of exclusion is three miles from low-water mark. 



It is stated in the report of the Senate Committee of 1887 in the 

 following terms (App., p. 390) : 



It would seem to be clear that by the universally recognised public 

 law among civilised nations, territorial jurisdiction of every nation 

 along the sea is limited to 3 marine miles from its coasts, as they may 

 happen to be, whether embracing long lines of open coast or em- 

 bracing great curvatures of sea-shore, which may, and often do, 

 almost surround vast bodies of the waters of the ocean. The phrase 

 of the treaty, therefore, speaking of bays, creeks, and harbours of 

 His Britannic Majesty's dominions, must be understood as being such 

 bays, creeks, and harbours as by the public law of nations were, and 

 are, within the territorial jurisdiction of the British Government. 

 The committee is therefore clear in its opinion that any pretension 

 that exclusive British jurisdiction exists, either by force of public 

 law or of this treaty, within headlands embracing such great bodies 

 of water, and more than 6 marine miles broad, must be quite 

 untenable. 



The contention in effect is that in 1818 when the convention was 

 entered into, no nation could claim territorial rights over bays, creeks, 

 or habours on its coasts, if the lines between the headlands of such 

 waters were more than 6 marine miles in length. 



REPLY OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



His Majesty's Government submits that there is no principle or 



practice of the law of nations under which the right of a State to 



exercise territorial sovereignty over bays, creeks, or harbours 



108 on its coasts is limited to those bodies of waters only which 



are contained within headlands not more than 6 miles apart. 



At the time when the treaty of 1818 was entered into, the dominion 



of States over enclosed waters was claimed, and admitted, to a much 



greater extent than is the case at the present day, but His Majesty's 



Government believes that in no single instance, either before or since 



that time, has any such limitation been accepted. 



The usage of nations is absolutely opposed to the existence of a 

 6-mile limit; and the discussions of jurists show that no general 

 rule has ever been agreed on. It is not too much to say that if the 

 present contention of the United States were to receive the sanction 

 of this tribunal, difficulties and disputes would at once arise in 

 every part of the world. 



See also Sabine's Report, December 6, 1S52, House of Rep., Mis. Doc., No. 

 32, 42nd Congress, 2ud sess., p. 244; and an article by Professor Pomeroy, Am. 

 Law Rev., vol. 5. 



