Tf 



1S2 



Tli« cntniiu'c lo this l)iiy is niiirk(Ml or asccrtniiied by :i line dniwii from liciid- 

 land to hcnilland, wluitcver he lliu dcptii of tlio hay, und thoiigli the line drawn irotu 

 headland to iiemlland cxreod six iiiariiio miles. 



The United Stales rciioiinced tiie right to take lish in such bays. The Treaty 

 of Washington, 187 i. Iiecs thcin t'roni sueh renunciation. Tiie restriction or 

 exclusion is alloj',i"ther ri'inoved. The ease of the Queen i\ Kcyu (L.R. 2 Kx. Div. 

 03), so much relied on in the Answer and IJrief of the United States, affords no 

 support whatever to (he position there taken. The question involved in that case 

 was whether or not a foreigner eonimanding a foreign vessel could legally be 

 convicted of manslaughter committed whilst sailing by the ttxlernul coast of 

 England, within three miles from the shore, in the prosecution of a voyage from one 

 foreign port to another. 



The Court, by a majority of seven Judges to six. held the conviction bad, on 

 the ground that the jurisdiction of the Common Law Courts only extended to 

 ofTenccs committed within the realm, and that at Common Law such realm did not 

 extend on the external coasts beyond low-water mark. None of the Judges, how- 

 ever, doubteil tliat Parliament had fidl power to extend the laws of tlie realm to a 

 zone of throe miles around the outer coast if it saw fit so to do. The Lord Chief 

 Justice of England, by whose casting judgment the conviction was quashed, not 

 only guarded himself expressly against being understood as throwing any doubt 

 whatever iq)on the jurisdiction of the Courts over inland or territorial waters, but 

 emphatically aliirmcd such jurisdiction. 



" Hilt," sav.-' Ill', (\). IG2) "only sn iiiiuli ol' iIk; l.^iul uf tlio mitcv coast n.s was uiu'ovcicd liy tlic 

 son, \Vll^^ liflil ID 111- within tin; bmly ol'llic ailjnliiiii;; nuiiiiy. If imoil'i'iiw! was cniinnitti'd in a liay, j,'iilf, 

 or estuary, inli rftimri /c/vw, tiic (,'niiiiium Law wailil Ural witli it bi'i'iiusf tin' parts nl' tin' sea sn ciri'iiiii- 

 rttaia'i'il Wire lic'lil ti> Iph within the liiidy 111' tilt' luljiKiinit cnunty or countii'S ; hut iiloiii; thu cmist mi 

 llii; external se,! the jurisilictiuii nf the ( 'oniiuon i,aw exteiideil no riii'liier than to low water murk," 



Again, at page 197, he thus expresses himself: — 



" To eiiine hack to the suiijecl nf tlie r.'iilni, I caiiuol jielj) thiakiiii; tlial sunie coul'iisiun nrise.-i from 

 the toiiu ' realm,' heiii;,' used in mure than nne ;-eii:3e, iSoinetimes it is used, us in the Statute of 

 Kichurd 11, to mean the land of Knj,'liiud ami Ihr iuln-iutl xni ii'itliin it, sonietiine.s as mcaiiiuL; wliiite\er 

 the :iovereii,'nty iif the Oown iif I'.ii'jliind evtendcd or was .suiiposed to extend over. AVhen it is used 

 a.s synonyiiiiMH with icrvitory, I take the true meaning;' of the term ' rialii of Kiif/land ' to lie tlic 

 terrilury to and over which the Ciininion l,;,\>- of Kic^'laiid extend.s. In other words, nil that is within 

 the body of any county, to the exchisioii nf the hi;,'li seas, which eiimc nndcr a dillerent jmisdiction 

 iiidy because they are nor within any of lliose territorial divisions intu which, amonjist other thin<,'s 

 fortlu! adiuinistriition of the hiw, the kiii'idnm is ]iarcelled out. At all events I am ]irciiareil to abidi' 

 by the distinction taken in the .'statute" of liiclmrd J]., lietween the realm uud tlie ,sca.' 



This clearly shows that as far hack as the time of Richard IF, beyond which 

 legal memory is not permitted to run, the realm of f^ngland was known and under- 

 stood to include within its bounds those inland waters which were enclosed from 

 the high seas between headlands. 



The Answer of tiie United States (page 5) quotes with approbation the strong 

 condemnatory langtiage of the Lord Chief Justice, and holds it out to the ('ommis- 

 sioners and the world as applicable to the contention of Great Britain in this matter. 

 If the language was really so applied, it might be considered as damaging to the 

 case of Great Britain, but if it has no reference to any question now before the 

 Commission, then it is submitted tiiat its presence in the Answer is calculated to 

 mislead. In the couise of his judgment, Sir Alexander Cockburn, referring to 

 claims made by England centuries ago, not merely to exclusive dominion over the 

 four seas, but to the right to preserve the peace of the King in all seas, and even to 

 treat as pirates the crevvs of those foreign vessels which refused to strike their 

 colours to a King's ship on any sea, proceeds as follows (pages 174, 175) : — 



" Venice, in liki^ manner laid daini to the Adriatic, (ienoato the I.iu'urian .^ca, l)enmiirk to a portion 

 of the North Sec. The I'lirlULruesc claimed to liar the ocean route to India and the Inilian .seas to the 

 re.st of the vi'rld, while S]iaiti made the like as.sortion with reference to the West. All these vain 

 and extriiva;.'ant ]iretensions have Ioiilt since jLriven way to the influence of rea.son and common 

 sense.' 



The remainder of the passage quoted in the Answer is to be found at page 196 of 

 the Report, where, referring to the jurisdiction of the Admiral, which extended over 

 the whole ocean as regards British ship.s, and to the reasoning of some older 



