tsmmm 



wm 



Mr. Thnm.<()ii. — With ;;:rpat rosnoct for Mr. Daiiii, I am ineetiiisjf the propoKifion ns I 

 find it in his iiriuiiieiit. not us he I'hoosos to cut it down. It is thus stntrd : — 



• That till' cliM')i-siM llslu'i'iiiaii, ]mrsiiiiii,' tli(> Irci'-swiiiiniin;,' lish ot llu> ciccan witli lii< iicl nr lii:' 

 loailcil line, inn loin'liiiii,' sIkuvs di- tiawlinir tlu' liiillniii ol' llii' sim, is iin tii'spiisstT, lIioiiLjli In' :i]i|M(iacli 

 witliiii tliivf iiiilt's ol a I'lMst, hv any cstal'li^ln'il. i' 'liiii/cd law iit' all nations," 



I tliinli the onus prnlxiiuli lies on Mr. Dana, and those who support sucii a proposition, 

 of showinu; that tliorc is a >;pi'cial exception to be niiide in favour of iisheriuen of all nations 

 hy whicii they can enter, witliout permission, the territorial waters of another nation — a 

 foreign nation — and he no trespassers. I have shown that the waters are territorial ; that 

 is all I have to do. Tiie moment I show tliat tiie waters are territorial, then for all 

 purposes they arc as much part of the State as are the lands owned hy the State, with the 

 exception that ves-els proseeutinu; iiinocent voyaj^es may sail over them without connnitting 

 any trcsj)ass ; tliey may pass to and fro to their respective ports, hut foreigners can [)ursue 

 no husiness within those waters any more than they can pursue business on land. 



^f|■. Dinni.-dm nations inclose them? 



Mr. Tlioiiisnii.- In answer to that <piestion, 1 say that nations cannot inclose tiicm. 

 Other nations iiavc the right of way oviT them, and the right in case of tempest to enter 

 the ports. Humanity dictates that. But no business can be pursued by the citizens of 

 one nation within the territorial waters of another, whether that business he carried on by 

 ilshernien or l)y any other class of persons. That |)roposition is sustained by the authority 

 1 have read t'rom I'hillimore. I will show, however, that Sir Robert I'hillimore does not 

 stand alone, and tiiat it is not the law of Kngland only, but the law of the United States as 

 well. I call yfiur iitlentioii to Whe.,toi ou International Law. page .320. This language 

 is used : 



■ 'J'lir iiinvilinn^ ti'viitorv of cxcrv -lair ixicnds to tin- poi'ts. liai'boui's, liays. nioallis ol' lix-cvs, ami 

 aiijin'i'ni parts ni' ihc si'a iiicloscil Iiy lieaiiJaiKis, lieloniiin^ to llie same slate. 'I'Ik' ^'eni'ial iisji^c 

 of nations sii|u-iailiis to iliis extent of leirilovial Jiirisiliilion a ilistmice of a laai'ine leauiie, oi' as fur as 

 a rannoMslioi will ivaeh from the .sliore alonu all the coasts of the slate. Williiii these limits i'- 

 right of )iro|iertv am! territorial jiirisdielion an' alisoliile, ami e.\eliii|e iliose of every other iialion." 



Mark the emphatic language of this great writer on International Law :- - 



'■ W'lHiiii lldsf liiiiil-- /''.• riiililsiif /ir'ipirli' "iff irrri/'irinl hiri'''lii'h'iin 'in nl'^nh'/f. ' 



He declares that no right to interfcit' with these limits in any way is possessed bv 

 other people or hy other classes of people. If fishermen had tlu^ right to approach within 

 these limits of territorial jurisdiction which extend to the distance of three marine miles 

 from the coast, no English-speaking writer on International Law would use the term here 

 employed, and say that every nation whose coasts are surrounded by these territorial waters 

 has such an absolute ri-ht. Under such circumstances, the author would iiavc used the 

 term " qualified right ; '" and sup|)osing that fishermen were the only class to be allowed 

 within these waters, he woidd say at once that " these nations have this right against all the 

 world, frri'iit Jisliernieii. wlio undoubtedly have the right to fish within those waters if they 

 do not touch tlie land with the lead of their fishing lines or with the keels ot their vessels ; " 

 but no one has so written, and this very ticcurate author, who is cpioted with ai)prol)ation 

 by Englisli and Continental writers on International Law, states that — 



" Within these limit- it.- 

 thnse of L'Verv other iialioii ' 



ri'^hts of proiierlv and territorial jurisilirtion are absohttc.'. ami exehiile 



! 



This language, I repeat, is emphatic, and I am glad that it is the language of an 

 American writer, because I presume that it will in consequence have greater weiglit with 

 Mr. Dana. 



}fr. Drinii. — I would like to ask my learned friend whether he would himself be willing 

 to ado])! that language and say that these rights of property are absolute. 



Mr. Thomson. — Yes ; I have seen no decision which in any way <pialifies that, unless 

 it can be said that the case of the Queen r. Keyn (which is quoted against us in the Ame- 

 rican IJrief, and reviewed at some length in the British Brief in reply) (piidifies it. To that 

 case it will beeonte my duly to reier by-and-bye. 



Mv. NVIieitton further states that " the general usage of nations superadds to this 

 extent of territorial jinisdictioii a distance of a marine league, or as far as a camion shot 

 will reiieh from the shore ^ilong all the eoiists of the State." 



Now. I say that the i.ropositions ot International Law thus laid down by this ver\ 

 emiiieiit .Amcrieaii writer aie • mirelv at vaiiance with tlie doctrine laid down hv Mr. DaiKi. 



"L 



