ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WARREN. 1125 



only over navigable rivers, bays, and estuaries, which may be fairly 

 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.' " 



I would now like to read the paragraphs immediately preceding 

 these, which are not made use of in the British Argument before this 

 Tribunal. I read from vol. IX of the Fur Seal Proceedings at 

 p. 146 : 



" This somewhat indefinite area of a greater or less jurisdiction 

 over the marginal sea, which has thus come to be recognized and 

 conceded, though accorded for the purposes of national self-protec- 

 tion, is by no means its boundary. It illustrates the right of which 

 it is an example, but does not exhaust it. It is but one application of 

 the principle out of many. The necessity which gave rise to it justi- 

 fies likewise the larger power, and further means of defence, which 

 may from time to time be required. No nation, in whatever statute 

 or treaty it may have assented to the three mile or cannon shot limit 

 of municipal jurisdiction, has ever agreed to surrender its right of 

 self defense outside of that boundary, or to substitute for that right 

 the contracted and qualified power which is only one of the results 

 of it, and which must often prove inadequate or inapplicable. On the 

 contrary, as will be seen hereafter, many nations have been compelled 

 to assert, and have successfully asserted, much wider and larger 

 powers in the defence of their manifold interests." 



The foregoing shows the contention of the United States in the 

 Fur Seal Arbitration. If this position had been accepted by the 

 Tribunal the United States would have been given the legal right 

 to protect the seals having their breeding-grounds upon the Pribilof 

 Islands, and the sealing industry necessarily springing therefrom. 

 However, it should be borne in mind, Mr. President, by this 

 678 Tribunal, that the contention of the United States was re- 

 jected by the Fur Seal Arbitration Tribunal, and the rights of 

 protection were confined to the jurisdictional limits of 3 marine 

 miles recognised in the treaty submitting the controversy to 

 arbitration. 



I shall not take the time to again read the fifth question submitted 

 to the Behring Sea Tribunal. The Tribunal will recall that the nature 

 of it was as to whether or not the United States had any particular 

 property right in these seals as national property. 



I now turn to the award of the Behring Sea Tribunal, and will 

 read from vol. I of the American reprint, pp. 77 and 78, this ex- 

 tract : 



" Russia never asserted in fact or exercised any exclusive jurisdiction 

 in Bering's Sea or any exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein 

 beyond the ordinary limit of territorial waters." 



