1802 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



no foundation in international law. I say again, that I understand the 

 expression to mean all civilized nations. 



I undertake to prove the contrary of that proposition to be true, not 

 only by international law writers in England, but also by the writers in 

 the United States. Taking up the English writers, I call your attention 

 to 1 Phillirnore, page 180, edition of 1854, at which he says : 



Besides the rights of property and jurisdiction within the limit of cannon-shot from the 

 shore, there are certain portions of the sea which, though they exceed this verge, may, under 

 special circumstances, be prescribe-3 for. 



The writer there assumed that in regard to the three-mile line there 

 was no doubt about it. Sir Eobert Philliniore further wrote : 



Maritime territorial rights extend, as a general rule, over arms of the sea, bays, gulfs, es- 

 tuaries, which are inclosed, but not entirely surrounded by land, belonging to one and the 

 same state. 



^sotonly does Sir liobert Philliuiore lay down the law that round the 

 coast of any maritime nation, to the extent of three miles, its territorial 

 waters flow, but he goes further, and says that in the case of estuaries 

 and bays, inclosed within headlands, such estuaries and bays belong to 

 the state. That would have been an authority, had the headland question, 

 per *?, come up for argument. I state it, however, for another purpose. 

 That is an authority which at all events shows the views of one of the 

 greatest English writers on international law upon the subject under 

 discussion. 



Mr. DANA. Is there anything said about fisheries? 



Mr. THOMSON. I have read the passage, and will hand you the book, 

 if you desire it. 



Mr. DANA. The question is, whether among the rights is there one 

 to exclude fishermen. 



Mr. THOMSON. With great respect for Mr. Dana, I am meeting the 

 proposition as I find it in his argument not, as he chooses to cut it down. 

 Jt is thus stated : 



That the deep-sea fisherman, pursuing the free-swimming fish of the ocean with his net or 

 his leaded line, not touching shores or trawliug the bottom of the sea, is no trepasser, though 

 lie approach within three miles of a coast, by any established, recognized law of all nations. 



I think the onus prolandi lies on Mr. Dana and those who support 

 such a proposition of showing that there is a special exception to be made 

 in favor of fishermen of all nations by which they can enter, without 

 permission, the territorial waters of another nation a foreign nation 

 and be no trepassers. I have shown that the waters are territorial ; that 

 is all I have to do. The moment 1 show that the waters are territorial, 

 then for all purposes they are as much part of the State as are the lauds 

 owned by the State, with the exception that vessels prosecuting innocent 

 voyages may sail over them without committing any trespass ; they may 

 pass to and fro to their respective ports, but foreigners can pursue no 

 business within those waters any more than they can pursue business 

 on land. 



Mr. DANA. Can nations inclose them ! 



Mr. THOMSON. In answer to that question, I say that nations cannot 

 enclose them. Other nations have the right of way over them, and the 

 right in case, of tempest to enter the ports. Humanity dictates that. 

 Bat no business can be pursued by the citizens of one nation within the 

 territorial waters of another, whether that business be carried on by fish- 

 ermen or by any other class of persons. That proposition is sustained 

 by the authority I have read from Philliniore. I will show, however, 

 that Sir Robert Phillimore does not stand alone, and that it is not the 

 law of England only, but the law of the United States as well. I call 



