ARGUMENT OF JOHN S. EWABT. 1329 



MR. EWART: Oh, yes; they would undoubtedly; and my point is 

 that this treaty was not at all intended to declare what was non- 

 territorial, but within the limits of what it did describe, it said 

 those places were territorial. And we cannot gather that the 

 parties were agreeing that other places were non-territorial. It would 

 be impossible to conceive that they intended to do that. 



I have looked over Mr. Warren's written argument, and the 

 authorities that he cites, and I find that there is none of them earlier 

 than 1818. The earliest is G. F. de Martens, and the extract which 

 he gives from de Martens is taken not from the earlier edition of 

 1788, but from the later edition of 1821. 



In the earlier edition of de Martens there is this statement : 



" What has been said of lakes and rivers, holds good also with re- 

 spect to straits, which are not in general wider that the great rivers 

 and lakes. So also those parts of the sea which are near land may be 

 looked on as lawfully acquired, and maintained as the property and 

 under the dominion of the nation who is master of the coast. 



"A custom, generally acknowledged, extends the authority of the 

 possessor of the coast to a cannon shot from the shore; that is to 

 say, three leagues from the shore, and this distance is the least that 

 a nation ought now to claim as the extent of its dominion on the seas." 



I was inclined to think at first there must be some mistake about 

 that " cannon shot or 3 leagues," but de Martens did use 

 802 the expression in that way, and it is undoubted that that is 

 what he intended, for in other editions he uses the same lan- 

 guage. 



In the edition from which Mr. Warren quotes 



THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of the edition from which you 

 were quoting? 



MR. EWART: I was quoting from the edition of 1789, translated 

 into English by William Cobbett in 1802. 



Mr. Warren's extract is from the edition of 1821, and the phrase- 

 ology there is as follows : 



' What has been said about rivers and lakes [that they are the 

 property of the state] is equally applicable to straits and gulfs; 

 above all to those which do not exceed the ordinary width of rivers 

 or the double range of cannon. 



"Likewise, a nation may assume an exclusive right over those 

 neighboring portions of the sea (mare proximum) susceptible of 

 control from the shore. Different opinions have been expressed upon 

 the distance to which the rights of the master 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 owner of the shore, at least as far 

 as the range of a cannon placed on the shore." 



He says all nations agree upon the minimum ; that that at least is 

 true. But he does not pretend that there is any agreement as to 



