1820 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



territory if not too large in proportion to the adjacent land. He 

 never treats bays on the same footing as the rest of the coast. He 

 first of all describes what a l>ay is: 



"By this Instance it seems to appear, that the Property and Do- 

 minion of the Sea might belong to him who is in possession of the 

 Lands on both Sides ; tho' it be open above, as a Gulph, or above and 

 below, as a Streight; provided it is not so great a Part of the Sea, 

 that when compared with the Lands on both Sides, it cannot be sup- 

 posed to be some Part of them." 



Then we have Vattel. Of course, at that time he had nothing to do 

 with 3-mile limits. Also, it was at that time common knowledge, the 

 whole of Europe admitted it, that what was called the doctrine of 

 the King's Chambers, was a valid claim on the part of Great Britain. 

 We claimed exclusive jurisdiction over the seas that washed our 

 shores, the four shores that were washed by the ocean. Everybody 

 knew we claimed that, and everybody admitted the claim. 



Now then Puffendorf in 1694 puts the claim I think a little clearer 

 even than Grotius. He says : 



" From which Considerations it is manifest that in these time?, when 

 Shipping is brought to its highest Perfection, it is presumed, that 

 every Maritime People, at all acquainted with Navigation, are Ijords 

 of the sea, where it toucheth their own shore, so far as it may be 

 counted a Defence, especially in Ports and other Places where there 

 is Convenience of Landing. In like manner the Gulphs and Channels, 

 or Arms of the Sea, are, according to the regular Course, supposed to 

 belong to the People with whose Lands they are encompassed." 



And then he goes on to say that if you have the same bay washing 

 the shores of two countries, why then the two countries may divide 

 their jurisdiction, which is really the principle upon which we have 

 given up the Bay of Fundy, because the United States have got one 

 corner of that under their own jurisdiction, so here you have Puffen- 

 dorf carefully assimilating bays, however large, to the coast of the 

 sea wherever it touches the shore of the country. 



That is down to 1694. So that in 1686 France and England were 

 just doing what international law allows them to do. They were not 

 undertaking any unjust act on their own part. 



Then Burlamaqui, I think, was put in by Sir Robert Finlay. I 

 need not trouble to go through him. He also distinguishes between 

 bays and the coast of a country generally. 



Then Rutherforth. I think Sir Robert Finlay did not put him in. 

 He is in 1754 : 



"Since therefore property in the ocean could not be introduced 

 either by occupancy or by division, the necessary consequence is, that 

 it is not capable of being appropriated at all. 



" The case of rivers, bays, streights, pools, or lakes is different from 

 that of the ocean. For though, as fluid bodies, they are not set out into 



