8Q COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



The general law of Chile as to fisheries is contained in 

 the Civil Code, where it is enacted : 



92 NO PROPERTY IN FISH. 



Article 585. Things which iu their nature are comraon property, as 

 the pritdnct of the high seas, are not subject to any dominion, and no 

 nation, corporation, or individual has any right to monopolize them. 

 The use or enjoyment of them i« determined among the citizens of any 

 one nation by the laws of that nation, but between diti'ereut nations 

 by international law. 



TERRITORIAL SEA: 1 MARINE LEAGUE. 



Article 593. The adjacent sea, to a distance of 1 marine league, 

 measured from low-water mark, is the territorial sea, and under the 

 national dominion; but police administration for the purposes of tlie 

 security of tlie State or the carrying out of fiscal Regulations, extends 

 to a distance of 4 marine leagues, measured in the same manner. 



Article 611. Sea tisbing is Iree, but in tlie territorial seas the right 

 of hshiug is enjoyed only by Chilean citizens or domiciled foreigners. 



(J.) — Argentine Republic. 



ARGENTINE LAWS ARE NOT EVEN ALLEGED (IN UNITED 

 STATES CASE) TO HAVE EXTRA-TERRITORIAL OPERA- 

 TION ON FOREIGNERS. 



United States The Argentine Republic is next referred to in the United 

 ase, p. States Case as having- "recently given jirotection to the 



fur-seals resorting, to their coasts." But it is not alleged 



that the laws have an exterritorial operation on foreigners; 



nor are the laws themselves set forth iu the United iStates 



Case or Appendix. 



(K.) — Japan. 



JAPANESE REGULATIONS REFERRED TO IN UNITED 

 STATES CASE RELATED ONLY TO ISLANDS, AND ARE 

 NO LONGER IN FORCE. 



Ibid. It is also stated that "the Japanese Government has 



taken steps toward the restoration and preservation of the 

 fur-seals at the Kurile Islands." The extract from l»egu- 

 lations of 1885 referred to by way of verification, and set 



United States forth iu the Api)eudix, relates to islands within the terri- 

 vof*'i p^r/g''^'^' ^"I'y ^* Japan, and no other law is set forth or mentioned; 

 nor is it alleged in the Case that any of the Japanese laws 

 relating to seal fisheries have an exterritorial operation. 

 Further, the Regulations of 1885 do not appear to be now 

 iu force, for the full ofiQcial Memorandum supplied on the 



British Com- 14th December, 1891, by the courtesy of the Japanese 

 port,'p"T(fo. '^ Government, iu answer to a Circular asking for " copies of 



Ibid., p. 154. any i)rinted documents or Reports referring to the fur-seal 

 fisheries, or embodying Regulations provided for these 



Ibid., p, 164. fisheries," sets iorth " the several Regulations in force at 

 the present time," among which those of 1885 are not 



Japanese Gov- 93 oiveu ; aud it states ihat there are no means of check- 



ernnient slate p n ■ 1 n • i ^i t l- 



that there are no lug " loreigu poachers " " outsidc the line 01 territo- 



fnT^' "roreffn ^i^l limit fixed by international law." 



poachers " out- 

 side territorial 

 limits. 



