1082 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



the land, or on the shore, or on a castle, or in a city, or the distance 

 that a person '-an see with the naked eye, or a person having a very 

 sharp eyesight; certainly not so far as those sharp sighted ones, as 

 the ancient tells us, who could see Carthage from Sicily. 



" At the beginning of our century Gerard de Rayneval defended 

 this limit (cf. Godey a.a. O., p. 18). But nobody has followed him 

 either in theory or practice. It was left to Godey to discover that 

 this limit is the safest and the most permanent. He does away with 

 all arguments showing how different the horizon is according to the 

 position of the person, by the proposition that we view the sea from 

 a point 10 m. above the surface. From such a point he says one can 

 see to a distance of 6 sea miles. According to him optical instru- 

 ments would not extend the sight but would bring the picture only 

 nearer to the eye. But why should the spectator not ascend a tower 

 of 20 m. ; he could probably see to a distance of 10 miles. Godey's 

 idea lacks logical foundation and we need not consider it anv 

 further." 



I will take up now the early decisions of the Courts of the United 

 States on this question, concerning which Mr. Jefferson expressed 

 an opinion, and, I venture to say, that if the Tribunal should find 

 that Mr. Jefferson made a mistake in stating what the laws of the 

 various States were, or made a misstatement of the decisions of the 

 Courts of the United States, his statement would not be binding upon 

 the United States. 



I read first from the case of The Commonwealth v. Peters, reported 

 in 12 Metcalf's Reports, p. 387. This is a report of a decision of the 

 Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts. 



The extracts which I shall read show what was involved. The 

 opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Shaw, who stated on p. 390 : 



" The defendant was indicted, in the Municipal Court, for an ag- 

 gravated assault and battery, committed on board an American mer- 

 chant vessel, lying at anchor in the harbor of Boston, having then re- 

 cently returned from a foreign voyage, and anchored in the channel, 

 preparatory to hauling in, to unlade at a wharf. The place is suffi- 

 ciently described, for the purpose of this inquiry, by saying that the 

 vessel was lying within and far up the inner harbor, but anchored in 

 the channel, in deep water, at a place never left by the tide, and of 

 course below low water mark. The question is, whether the Munici- 

 pal Court had jurisdiction of an offence so committed. The Court 

 had jurisdiction of all crimes and offences, arising and dccurring 

 within the county cognizable by the courts of the State." 



And, turning to p. 392, the opinion continues : 



" It has already been stated that the place where the offence is 



alleged to have been committed was quite within the inner har- 



652 bor of Boston, entirely land-locked, but in deep water, below 



the line of low water mark. All creeks, havens, coves, and 



inlets lying within projecting headlands and islands, and all bays 



and arms of the sea lying within and between lands not so wide but 



that persons and objects on the one side can be discerned by the 



naked eye by persons on the opposite side, are taken to be within the 



body of the county. The place, where the vessel in question was at 



