1698 NOBTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



longing to the commonalty, or to the public ; and they were incapable 

 of having servitudes imposed upon them at all. 



Of course, as I have said, the usufructuary of an estate could take 

 fish ; but there is, I venture to submit, no case of a right to fish being 

 treated in Roman law as a prsedial servitude; because there is no 

 prcpdium dominant. It may be that the owner of one property has 

 a right to fish in the property of his neighbour; but that is a right 

 to him, the owner. It is not a right necessary for the needs of his 

 property. The other rights, the rights of way, the rights of 

 1027 drawing water, or of allowing water to run, are rights neces- 

 sary for the adjoining property. That is why they attach to 

 the pradium dominans, and you must, for the enjoyment of such a 

 right, have a prcedium dominans. Then you have your prsedial 

 servitude. But fishing is not necessary to the adjoining property. 

 The owner of the adjoining property can enjoy his land perfectly 

 well without fishing on the land of his neighbour. It is a personal 

 benefit, or a personal amusement ; but it is not a right which attaches 

 to a praedium, at all. It may be that the right is given to the owner 

 of the property living in a particular place, as for instance, the right 

 may be given to the owner of an adjoining property called the 

 United States, but it is not given to him in respect of his territory. 

 It is not given to him because it is necessary for the full enjoyment 

 of his territory. The owner of the property, or the inhabitant of 

 the place can get on quite well without fishing, and enjoy his 

 property to the full without having any right to fish in the lake of 

 his neighbour. So that, when one takes this claim, put forward here 

 as if it really needed no demonstration at all, one sees that at the 

 very beginning of things, even if the law of servitudes had the 

 ancient foundations which it is claimed to possess, and were well 

 known and universally accepted, it does not apply to fishing rights. 

 It can only apply to matters which directly affect the territory of 

 each. Even if you get it into international law, even if you do apply 

 it in that inappropriate sphere, it still must be confined, as it was 

 confined in private property, strictly to territorial needs, to the needs 

 of the land. Mr. Turner was asked several times: "What is your 

 pra'dium dominans f" Now, that troubled him; and small blame to 

 him. It was very difficult for him to find out what was his pi'cedium 

 dominans. He was asked by the President what his prcedium do- 

 minans was, and in reply, first of all, he said (p. 1826 [p. 299 

 gupra] ) : 



" I consider the territory of the United States to be the prcBdium 

 dominans" 



That got him into difficulties. The President said : 



" Tn 1783 there were thirteen States in the Union. Was it then 

 creuU-d for the benefit of these thirteen States in 1783? " 



