Ti 



li i ^!' 



•J 



i ' 



'i 



I 



in relation to the tislicry off the const of Ncwt'onudlaml, and those between this country and France in 

 rt'lntion to the tisliory nn thoir resjiective shores ; nnd local laws have lieen passed to i;ive cft'ect to 

 tlioso enjiagenicnts. 



" Itut in nil tlicso Treaties, this ilistimce is ndojited, not as ii matter of exislin},' right estahlished 

 liy the general law (if iiiitioiis, but as matter of mutual concession and convention. Insteail of uiiliolding 

 the diM'triiie contended for, tlic fact of these Treaties having been entered into has nither the opi)osite 

 tendency ; for it is olivious that, if tlie territorial riglit of ii nation liorderiiig on the wii to this portion 

 of the adjacent waters had hei'ii estalilisheil liy the conmion aswiii of nations, these Treaty armngeiuents 

 Would have been wholly superfluous. Kach nation vvoidd liave lieen liound. inde)ieiidenlly of Tivaty 

 engagement, to resjiect the neutrality of the otlier in the.'^e waters, a.s nnu'h as in its inland watei's. TiiH 

 foreigner invading the rights of the lond tishernien would have been amenable, consistently witli inter- 

 national law, to local legislation ])rohibiting sucii infringement, without any stipidation to that etfect 

 by Treaty. For what object, then, have Treaties lieen re-iorted to ! Manifestly in order to obviate all 

 <|uestions as to concuiTi'nt or conllictiug riglits arising under the law of nation.s. Possibly, after these 

 jirecedents and all that has been written on tins subject, it may mil be too mucli lo say that, indejwn- 

 dcntly of Treaty, the three-mile litdt of sea ndght at this davbe taken as belonging, for these purimses, 

 to the loi'al State. 



" So nnich for Treaties. Then how stands tlie matter as to u.sage, to which reference is so fn'- 

 ([uently made by the jiublicists, in sujiport of their doctrine ? When the matter is looked into, tlie 

 only usage fouml to exist is such as is connected with laivigatiini, or with revenue, local lisheries, or 

 neutrality; and it is to these ahme that the usage relied on is eoutined." 



" It may well be, J say again, tlait, after all that has been said and done in this ivspeet, after the 

 instances winch have liecn mculioncd of the adojition of the three-mile distance, and the it'peatetl 

 assertion of this doctrine by the writei-s on jmblic law, a nation which siiouM now deal with this 

 portion of ihc sea as its own, so as to make foreigners within it .■-ubjecl to its law, for the prevention 

 and ])uuishment of otfeiices, wouM not 1h' considered as infringing tlie rights of other nations. Hut 1 

 appivhend tiuit, as the ability so lo deal with these waters wo\dtl result, not Iroui any original or 

 inhewnt ridit, but from the ac(|uiesci'iice of other States, sonu' outward iiinnifcstatiou of the national 

 will, in the sliajie of open jiracticc or nnnnci]ial legislation, so as to amotnit, at least constructively, to 

 an occupalion of iliat winch was before una|ipro])riated, would lie iiecessHrv to render tlie foi-eigiun' not 

 jireviously amenalile to our ;_'eiicral law, sidiject to its control." 



"And this brings me to the second liraiuh of the aigument ; namely, that the Juri.sdiction having 

 been a.s.serted as to the narrow seas at the linu' the statute ](a.ssed, it unist !«• taken to have lieen 

 trau.sfeiTed by the statute. The answer to such a contention is, that, no rcfereiu'c being nuide in the 

 statute to this luiw-expioded claim of soverei;_'nty, we nnist ri'ad the statiite as having transferred — as, 

 iluleed, it could alone transfer — such jurisdiction only os actually existed, .lurists are now agi-ee<l that 

 the claim to exchisive dominion over tla- nariiiw .seas, and cousec|uent jurisdiction over foreignere for 

 olfcnccs committed thereon, was extiavagant and unfounded, and the (hictrine of the three-mile juris- 

 diction has taken tlm jilace of all such ]iivtension.s. in truth, though largely asserted in theory, the 

 jurisdiction was never practically exerci.sed iu resjiect of foreigners." 



" Hitherto, legislation, .so far as relates to foreignei-s in foreign ships in this part of the sen, has 

 lieen cimlined to the maintenance of neutral ri;,'hts and obligations, the prevention of breaches of the 

 revenue and tislicry laws, and, \ualer particidar circumstances, to cases of collision. In the two first, 

 the legislation is altogether invspective of the three-mile distance, lieing founded on a totally differttnt 

 princi]ile; namely, the right of a State to take all necessary measures for the protection of its territory 

 and rights, and the jirevention of any breach of its reveinie laws," 



Such are the general principles of English law to-day as laid down by the 

 Chief Justice of England. The jurisdiction of a State or country over its 

 adjoining waters is limited to three miles from low-water mark along its son-coast, 

 and the same rule applies equally to bays and gulfs whose width exceeds six miles 

 from headland to headland. Property in and dominion over the sea can only exist 

 as to those portions capable of permanent possession ; that is, of a possession from 

 the land, which possession can only be maintained by artillery. At one mile 

 beyond the reach of coast-guns, there is no more possession than in mid-ocean. 

 This is the rule laid down by almost all the writers on international law, a few 

 few extracts from whom we proceed to quote :— 



■• At present," .says Vattel, '■ Law of Nations," book I, ch. xxiii, j^tj 280, 2K1, " the whole space of 

 the sea within cannon-shot of the eoa.st is considered as nuiking a part of the tenit<iry ; and, for that 

 li'as'iu. a vessel taken under the guns of a neutral fortress is not a good |iri/.e." 



" .Ml w(^ have said of tlie parts of tlie sea near the coast may be .saiil iiioie parliciiliirly and with 

 iiiucli u'rt'ater reaJion, of the roads, bays, and straits, as still more cajiable o!' beiiij,' occupied, anil of 

 ,!,;rentei importance to the .safety of the country. IJiit I speak of the liays a\\i\ straits of small extent, 

 and lint of tiiose threat parts of tlii' sea to w liiidi lliese names ale .soiiietiiues given,— as Hudson's Hay 

 and the Stniits of Magellan, — o\ei which tlii' empire cannot extend, and still less a ii;,'lit of jmijM-'rty. 

 A buy whose cntnince may be defeiideil maybe |iossessed and rendered subject lo the laws of the 

 Soveiei;.'!! ; and it is of iiiipoitaiice tliat it -lionlil be so, r.ince tlh' couutiy may 1m' much more easily 

 insulted in such a place than on tlie coii.st, open to the winds and the ini|ietuosity of the waves.' 



