ARGUMENT OF CHARLES B. WARREN. 1225 



This view is well illustrated by the statute of Massachusetts, which 

 I have read to the Tribunal during the course of this argument, 

 which merely, according to the decision in the case of Manchester v. 

 Massachusetts, incorporated into the statute law of Massachusetts 

 the rule of the common law. 



Sir Robert Finlay emphasised upon several occasions, and espe- 

 cially at that point in his argument reported on p. 251, the fact that 

 the principle of defence was applicable as to the extent to 

 738 which merely an outside marginal belt might be considered 

 territorial, but he added that bays stood by themselves, and 

 were subject to different principles. 



It is submitted that neither reason nor the authorities bear out 

 the statement of the learned counsel. I submit that this so-called 

 marginal strip, which it is sought to distinguish from bays, consti- 

 tutes, together with territorial bays belonging to any State, whether 

 lying entirely within the 3-mile limit, or acquired by virtue of asser- 

 tion of jurisdiction and acquiescence therein by other nations, the 

 maritime jurisdiction of the State. 



I have already cited the authorities sustaining this statement. 



I will therefore content myself with an examination of one of the 

 authorities cited by the learned counsel in his argument. 



I read from the work of G. F. de Martens, section 40 : 



" Different opinions have been expressed upon the distance to 

 which the rights of the masters of the shore extend. All nations 

 of Europe to-day agree that the rule is that straits, gulfs, and the 

 adjacent sea belong to the master of the shore, at least as far as the 

 range of a cannon placed on the shore." 



De Martens then adds, in his edition of 1821, that a number of 

 treaties have established a more extended limit. 



No distinction in principle is apparently made by De Martens 

 between adjacent seas and gulfs or bays. 



Counsel cited an extract from Burlamaqui, to be found in the 

 report of his oral argument, at p. 252, to establish apparently that 

 a great extent of sea might be appropriated by a State : 



"With respect to these portions of the sea which are adjacent to 

 the land, they are considered as belonging to the sovereign of the 

 country whose coasts they wash, and the gulfs and bays belong to the 

 people by the land of which they are enclosed. For since it is as 

 easy for these people to take possession of and to guard these por- 

 tions of the sea as any territory why should they not belong to them, 

 and why can they not prevent others from navigating or fishing 

 there and making use of it for themselves ? " 



Counsel did not read in connection with this section the following 

 section : 



" It is rather difficult to fix precisely the extent of sea which is thus 

 considered as belonging to the sovereign of the lands which it washes. 



