QUESTION FIVE. 103 



of water more than 6 marine miles in width, and that the usage of 

 nations is entirely inconsistent with the existence of any general 

 limitation of that kind or, indeed, of any precise limitation at all. 



OPINIONS OF JURISTS. 



Dealing next with the writings of jurists, it will be seen that the 

 weight of authority negatives the existence of the limit contended 

 for by the United States, or of any other precise limit. 



AMERICAN WRITERS. 



Turning first to American writers we find that Chancellor Kent, 

 writing in 1832, not long after the treaty had been concluded, states 

 the law as follows a : 



KENT. 



It is difficult to draw any precise or determinate conclusion, amidst 

 the variety of opinions, as to the distance to which a State may law- 

 fully extend its exclusive dominion over the sea adjoining its terri- 

 tories and beyond those portions of the sea which are embraced by 

 harbours, gulfs, bays, and estuaries, and over which its jurisdiction 

 unquestionably extends. All that can reasonably be asserted is, that 

 the dominion of the Sovereign of the shore over the contiguous 

 116 sea extends as far as is requisite for his safety and for some 

 lawful end. A more extended dominion must rest entirely 

 upon force and maritime supremacy. According to the current of 

 modern authority, the general territorial jurisdiction extends into 

 the sea as far as cannon-shot will reach, and no farther; and this is 

 generally calculated to be a marine league; and the Congress of the 

 United States have recognised this limitation, by authorising the dis- 

 trict courts to take cognisance of all captures made within a marine 

 league of the American shores. The executive authority (of this 

 country) in 1793 considered the whole of Delaware Bay to be within 

 our territorial jurisdiction: and it rested its claim upon those author- 

 ities which admit that gulfs, channels, and arms of the sea belong to 

 the people with whose lands they are encompassed. It was intimated 

 that the law of nations would justify the United States in attaching 

 to their coasts an extent into the sea beyond the reach of cannon-shot. 



Considering the great extent of the line of the American coasts, we 

 have a right to claim, for fiscal and defensive regulations, a liberal 

 extension of maritime jurisdiction; and it would not be unreasonable, 

 as I apprehend, to assume for domestic purposes connected with our 

 safety and welfare the control of the waters on our coasts, though 

 included within lines stretching from quite distant headlands, as, for 

 instance, from Cape Ann to Cape Cod, and from Nantucket to 

 Montauk Point, and from that point to the capes of the Delaware, 

 and from the South Cape of Florida to the Mississippi. It is certain 

 that our Government would be disposed to view with some uneasiness 

 and sensibility in the case of war between other maritime Powers 

 the use of the waters of our coast, far beyond the reach of cannon- 



Kent's Commentaries, 9th ed., vol. i, pp. 31-33. 



