212 THE ARGUMENT OP THE UNITED STATES. 



Other publicists, jurists and authorities for this doctrine arc: 

 Neyron, Azuni, Heffter, Sir Travers Twiss, Fiore, Gessner, Funck- 

 Brentano & Sorel, Hall, Ferguson, Rivier, Despagnet, Liszt, Nys, 

 Oppenheim, Supreme Court of Massachusetts, Supreme Court of 

 the United States. 



The position of Great Britain in the Fur Seal Arbitration in 1893 

 and before the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal in 1903 is inconsistent 

 with its present position." 



It being determined that, in the absence of any assertion of juris- 

 diction based upon long-continued usage with the acquiescence of 

 other powers, or some agreement by treaty extending the territorial 

 jurisdiction of the adjacent state, the power to defend was the sole 

 test of a territorial bay, there remains only to be determined what 

 distance was the limit of defense in 1818. 



It is a matter of common knoAvledge that the limit of cannon range 

 in 1818 was approximately three marine miles and cannon-shot and 

 three marine miles came to be identified as the rule of measurement. 



Azuni, writing in 1795 (citing from the American edition of 1806 

 of his work, The Maritime Law, p. 205), stated: 



It would be reasonable then, in my opinion, without inquiring 

 whether the nation in possession of the territory has a castle or bat- 

 tery erected in the open sea, to determine definitively that the terri- 

 torial sea shall extend no farther than three miles from the land, 

 which is, without dispute, the greatest distance to which the force of 

 gunpowder can carry a ball or bomb. 



Neyron : Principes du Droit des Gens Europeen Conventionnel et Coutumier, 

 published at Brunswick, 1783, p. 239; G. F. de Martens: Precis du Droit des 

 Gens Moderne de VEurope, published in 1785. French edition of Pinheiro- 

 Ferreira, 1864, sections 40-42, 153; Azuni: The Maritime Law of Europe, part 1, 

 ch. 2, art. 3, sec. 17, published in 1796, American edition (1806), vol. 1, pp. 

 221-2; part 1, ch. 2, art. 2, sec. 15, p. 205; part 1, ch. 3, art. 1, sec. 5, p. 225; 

 Heffter: Le Droit International de I'Enropc, published in 1844, French edition 

 1883, sees. 75-76, p. 171 et seq. ; Sir Travers Twiss : Law of Nations, published 

 in 1861, edition of 1884, p. 292 et seq., p. 295 ; Fiore : Nouveau Droit International 

 Public, published in Italian, 1865, French translation by Antoine of second edi- 

 tion, 1885, sees. 801-3, 808-9 ; Gessner : Le Droit des Neutres sur Her, published 

 in 1865, p. 16 et seq. ; Funck-Brentano and Sorel : Precis du Droit des Gens, 

 published in 1877, edition of 1900, p. 375; Hall: International Law, published 

 in 1880, fifth edition 1904, p. 150 et seq. ; Ferguson : Manual of International 

 Law, published in 1884, vol. 1, p. 397; Pradier-Fodere : Traitt de Droit Inter- 

 national Public, published in 1885, vol. 2, sec. 661; Rivier: Principes du Droit 

 des Gens, published in 1896, vol. 1, p. 153; Despagnet: Cours de Droit In- 

 ternational Public, published in 1894, second edition, 1899, sees. 413, 415; Liszt: 

 Das Volkerrecht, published in 1898, edition of 1907, p. 91; Westlake: Inter- 

 national Law, published in 1904, vol. 1, p. 184 et seq.; Nys: Le Droit Inter- 

 national, published in 1904, vol. 1, p. 446; Oppenheirn : International Law, vol. 1, 

 pp. 246, 241, 247, 333 ; Manchester vs. Massachusetts, Supreme Court of the 

 United States, vol. 139, U. S. Reports, p. 240 ; Commonwealth vs. Massachusetts, 

 Supreme Court of Massachusetts Reports, vol. 152, p. 230. 



6 British Case, Fur Seal Arbitration ; British Counter Case, Alaskan Boundary 

 Tribunal. 



