218 THE ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



clearly shown by the note of August 19, 1848, from James Buchanan, 

 then Secretary of State, to Mr. Crampton, the British minister at 

 Washington : 



In answer, I have to state, that the stipulation in the treaty can 

 only affect the rights of Mexico and the United States. It is for their 

 mutual convenience it has been deemed proper to enter into such an 

 arrangement, third parties can have no just cause of complaint. The 

 Government of the United States never intended by this stipulation 

 to question the rights which Great Britain or any other Power may 

 possess under the law of nations. 



PUBLICISTS AND JURISTS. 



The British Case cites Taylor's International Public Law, Wheat- 

 on's Elements of International Law, and Kent's Commentaries in 

 support of its contention, that the usage of nations is inconsistent 

 with the position of the United States in this arbitration. The United 

 States maintains that the opinions of these publicists are not in oppo- 

 sition to its position. 



The citation from Taylor is from page 278, but at page 296 of the 

 same work he states : 



While the people of all nations have an equal right to fish in the 

 high seas and on the banks and shoal places in them, the state that 

 owns the shore has the exclusive right of fishing within the three 

 mile marine belt, following the sinuosities and indentations of the 

 coast. 



In the extract cited from Wheaton in the British Case, 6 the 

 author did not define what he intended by the words " enclosed by 

 headlands." However, the authorities which Wheaton cited base the 

 right of the state to jurisdiction over enclosed parts of the sea upon 

 the power to defend possession from the shore at the entrances to 

 such waters. 



Wheaton cited Azuni, who, in his work on The Maritime Law of 

 Europe, published in 1796, Part I, Cap. 2, Article III, Section 17 

 (American edition, 1806, pages 221-2) approved of the doctrine of 

 Galiani and specified what is meant by " enclosed." 



But not being able to surround nor strictly to defend the open sea, 

 since no solid work can be erected on that element, it is impossible to 



fuard it and consequently it is by nature incapable of being occupied, 

 rom opposite reasons he [referring to Galiani] concludes that when 

 the shores of a sea belong to a single nation and enclose an expanse of 

 water, large or small, which has no communication with the rest of 



U. S. Counter Case, Appendix, 624. * British Case, 116-117. 



