810 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



regarded as lying within territorial boundaries, but over those larger 

 portions of the ocean comprised within lines drawn between distant 

 promontories or headlands, and often extending much more than 

 three miles from the nearest coast. Such waters were formerly 

 known in English law as " the King's Chambers." 



Chancellor Kent remarks on this subject (1 Com., pp. 30, 31) : 



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 mari- 

 time 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 Nan- 

 tucket to Montauk Point, and from that Point to the Capes of the Delaware, 

 and from the South Cape of Florida to the Mississippi. 



The principle upon which this exercise of maritime jurisdiction 

 reposes is only that of self-defence. As Chancellor Kent further 

 observes (1 Com., p. 26) : 



Navigable rivers which flow through a territory, and the seacoast adjoining 

 it * * * belong to the sovereign of the adjoining territory, as being neces- 

 sary to the safety of the nation and to the undisturbed use of the neighbouring 

 shores. 



That the right of self-defence is not limited by any physical 

 boundary, but may be exerted wherever and whenever necessity 

 requires it, upon the high sea or even upon foreign territory, is not 

 only the inevitable result of the application of just principles, but is 

 established by the highest authorities in the law of nations. 



Vattel says upon this subject (p. 128, sec. 289) : 



It is not easy to determine to what distance the nation may extend its rights 

 over the sea by which it is surrounded. * * * Each state may on this head 

 make what regulation it pleases so far as respects the transactions of the citi- 

 zens with each other, or their concerns with the Sovereign ; but, between nation 

 and nation, all that can reasonably be said is that in general the dominion of 

 the state over the neighbouring Feas extends as far as her safety renders it 

 necessary, and her power is able to assert it. 



Chancellor Kent observes (1 Com., p. 29) : 



It is difficult to draw any precise or determined conclusion amidst the variety 

 of opinions as to the distance to which a state may lawfully extend its exclusive 

 dominion over the sea adjoining its territories and beyond those portions of the 

 sea which are embraced by harbors, 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 sea 

 extends as far as is requisite for his safety and for some lawful end. 



And states may exercise a more qualified jurisdiction over the seas near their 

 coast for more than the three (or five) mile limit for fiscal and defensive pur- 

 poses. Both Great Britain and the United States have prohibited the tranship- 

 ment within four leagues of their coasts of foreign goods without payment of 

 duties. (Kent, Com. 1, p. 31.) 



******* 



[Extract from the oral argument of Mr. James C. Carter, one of the United States' 



Counsel.] 



******* 



* * * But there is nothing in this Ukase of 1821 importing 

 that the intention of Russia was to make any such pretension as that 

 in the way of authority over the sea. She said this : 



SEC. 1. The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishery, and of all other 

 industry on all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of the northwest 



