COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 71 



LAWS OF NATURAL HISTORY IRRELEVANT. 



The laws of natural history are not material to the ques- 

 tion of jurisdiction. These laws would be more c^epp'^ 230* 299" 



81 material to the question of property if the question 

 whether seals are ferce naturw were seriously in dis- 

 pute, but in all probability no such contention will arise. 

 The extraordinary allegation that seals may in any legiti- 

 mate sense be regarded as domestic animals will be dis- 

 cussed in a subsequent Chapter. The "common interests terestT^f^miu- 

 of mankind" now in question* are only such as interna- kind" no^v'in 

 tional law recognizes. Tif aT t^^l 



What then are the principles of international law appli- t\onaiiaw recog- 

 cable to the question*? Some hint of them is contained in 

 the passage just examined (Contention 2), where " the ordi- 

 nary 3-mile limit" is twice mentioned. Without staying 

 to cite authorities showing that the 3-mile zone is now com- 

 monly regarded by other nations besides the United States 

 as the limit, for most purposes, of territorial jurisdiction, 

 the following authorities may be cited as showing that fish: 

 ing is one of those purposes: 



AUTHORITIES SHOW THAT THE ORDINARY 3-MILE LIMIT 



APPLIES TO FISHING. 



Mr, Wheatou, in speaking of "those portions of the sea 

 which wash the coasts of any particular State, within the 

 distance of a marine league, or as far as a cannon-shot will 

 reach from the shore," says : 



TLe physical power of exercising an exchisive property and juris- Wheaton'a 

 diction, and of excluding the action of other nations within these "J^ntemational 

 limits, exists to a certain degree; but the moral power may perhaps ^y^'\ ^'^^^-.^n 

 seem to extend no further than to exclude the action of other nations ®' ^ ^ ^^' 

 to the injury of the State by which this right is claimed. It is upon 

 this ground that is founded the acknowledged immunity of a neutral 

 State from the exercise of acts of hostility by one l)elligereut Power 

 against another within those limits. This claim has, however, been 

 sometimes extended to exclude other nations from the innocent use of 

 the waters washing the shores of a particular State in peace and in 

 war, as, for example, /oc ilie purpose of participnting in the fishery, which 

 is generally appropriated to the subjects of the State within that dis- 

 tance of the coasts. This exclusive claim is sanctioned both by usage 

 and Convention, and must ie considered as forming apart of the positive 

 law of nations. 



Sir John Nicholl says : 



As between nation and nation, the territorial right may, by a sort r. t forty-nino 

 of tacit understanding, be extended to 3 miles; but that rests upon casks of brandy, 

 different principles, viz., that their own subjects shall not he disturbed in ^ ^oM'm ^^'^' 

 their fishing, and particularly in their coasting trade and communica- ^^' ' " 

 tions between place and place during war; they would l)e exposed to 

 danger if hostilities were allowed to be carried on between belliger- 

 ents nearer to the shore than 3 miles. 



82 Mr. Sheldon Amos says : 



For some limited purposes, a special right of jurisdiction and even Mann ^J^Sl^ 

 (for a few definite purposes) of dominion, is conceded to a State in tions "^ h\ Shel- 

 respect of the part of the ocean immediately adjoining its own coast jon Amos, pp. 

 line. The purposes for which this jurisdiction and dominion have 119, 120. 

 been recognized are: — (1) the regulation of fisheries ; (2) the prevention 

 of frauds on customs laws ; (3) the exaction of harbour and lighthouse 

 dues; and (4) the protection of the territory from violation in time of 



