520 MISCELLANEOUS 



that Government; in other words, it was contended that the simple 

 grant to foreign subjects of the right to enjoy certain national prop- 

 erty in common with the subjects of the State carried with it by 

 implication an entire surrender, in so far as such national property 

 was concerned, of one of the highest rights of sovereignty, namely, 

 the right of legislation. That the American Government should have 

 put forward such a claim is scarcely intelligible." 



As to the duty of the subjects of one nation to conform to the laws 

 of another, the doctrine is laid down as follows in Phillimore's Inter- 

 national Law: 



" With respect to merchant and private vessels, the rule of law is 

 that except under the provisions of express stipulation such vessels 

 have no exemption from the territorial jurisdiction of the harbour or 

 port, or, so to speak, territorial waters in which they lie." 



And this is supported by the late Chief Justice Marshall of the 

 United States as follows: 



" When private individuals of one nation spread themselves 

 through another, as business or caprice may direct, mingling indis- 

 criminately with the inhabitants of that other, and when merchant 

 vessels enter for the purpose of trade, it would be obviously incon- 

 venient and dangerous to society and would subject the laws to con- 

 tinued infraction and the Government to degradation, if such indi- 

 viduals or merchant ships did not all temporarily submit to local 

 regulations and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country, 

 nor can a foreign sovereign have any motive in wishing such exemp- 

 tion. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not em- 

 ployed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Conse- 

 quently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this 

 description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are 

 found, and not one motive for acquiring it. The implied license 

 therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant 

 such an exemption. One sovereign, being in no respect amenable to 

 another, is bound by obligations of the highest character not to de- 

 grade the dignity of his nation by placing himself or its sovereign 

 within the jurisdiction of another. A foreign sovereign is not under- 

 stood as intending to subject himself to a jurisdiction incompatible 

 with his dignity and the dignity of the nation." 



English law is the same, as in the celebrated case of the " Fran- 

 conia," the judges concurring with Mr. Justice Lindley when he said: 



" It is conceded that even in time of peace the territoriality of a 

 foreign merchant ship within 3 miles of the coast of any State does 

 not exempt that ship or its crew from the operation of those laws 

 which relate to its revenue and its fisheries." 



And Sir Travers Twiss states the law thus : 



" Treaty engagements in such matters as fisheries in common do 

 not give any other right than that which is expressed in the specific 

 terms." 



Again, the United States Government, as far back as 1856, recog- 

 nised not only the right, but the desirability, of the enforcement of 

 the laws of Newfoundland upon United States citizens entering the 

 territorial waters of the Colony to, engage in fishing. On the 28th 

 March, 185G, the following instruction to the masters of American 

 fishing vessels was issued from the State Department, Washington, 

 namely : 



