cxviii INTRODUCTION 



Again, in 1818, the American negotiators proposed, in practically 

 identical terms, to insert the rejected provision of 1806 in the Convention 

 of 1818, as appears from a paper submitted by the American plenipo- 

 tentiaries at the conference of September 17, 1818. 



This "very interesting" proposal, as Senator Root aptly termed it in 

 his argument, is in the following language: 



" {d) In all cases where one of the high contracting parties shall be at war, the 

 armed vessels belonging to such party shall not station themselves, nor rove or hover, 

 nor stop, search, or disturb the vessels of the other party, or the unarmed vessels of 

 other nations, within the chambers formed by head-lands, or within five marine miles 

 from the shore belonging to the other party, or from a right line from one head-land to 

 another." ' 



The proposition was again rejected, a fact which justifies Mr. Root's 

 comment that 



" Great Britain not merely refrained from asserting jurisdiction over bays generally, 

 however large, however small, vmless they came within the territorial zone measured 

 from the shore; but she refused, both in the negotiations of 1806 and in the negoti- 

 ations of 1818, to accept the proposal of the Americans which would include cham- 

 bers between headlands within the limits of the maritime jurisdiction of Great 

 Britain."' 



the general limit of maritime jurisdiction and that distance is for the sake of convenience prac- 

 tically construed into three miles or a league. AH independent nations possess such jurisdic- 

 tion on their coasts; and the right to it is not only generally contained in the acknowledgment 

 of the independence of the United States, but seems to have been specifically alluded to in the 

 2Sth article of the treaty of i7g4. Particular circumstances resulting from immemorial usage, 

 geographical position or stipulations of treaty have sometimes led to an extension of jurisdic- 

 tion, and may therefore when applicable, be urged as a justification of such a pretension." . . . 



" The space between headlands is more generally laid down, and admitted by Grotius him- 

 self, as subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the power to whom the land belongs. But neither 

 in theory nor in practice do we find the distance between the headlands to which such a rule 

 must exclusively apply accurately defined." . . . 



"If your Lordship should deem it expedient on other grounds to concede any extension of 

 jurisdiction to the United States beyond that which their independence necessarily implies, the 

 American commissioners have more than once assured us that they are ready in the article 

 itself to acknowledge it as an exception to the general rule arising from the particular circum- 

 stances of their situation and peculiar nature of their coast. We shall also observe that their 

 utmost expectation after our conversations on the subject, is two marine leagues." . . . 



"We might on the other hand derive some little advantage from the clauu it would justify 

 of an extended jurisdiction and consequent protection of revenue and commerce on the coasts 

 of our colonial possessions." . . . (Letter dated November 14, 1806, from Lord Holland and 

 Lord Auckland, British Commissioners, to Lord Howick, Appendix, British Case, pp. 61, 62.) 



The British Government was, however, very unwilling to grant the requested extension 

 of maritime jurisdiction. 



"This Government [Great Britain] contended that three miles was the greatest extent 

 to which the pretension could be carried by the law of nations, and resisted, at the instance of 

 the Admiralty and the law officers of the Crown, in Doctors' Commons, the concession, which 

 was supposed to be ntade by this arrangement (Article 12] with great earnestness. The Minis- 

 try seemed to view our claim in the light of a dangerous innovation whose admission, especially 

 at the present time might be deemed an act unworthy of the Government." (Messrs. Monroe 

 and Pinkney's note, dated January 3, 1807, to Mr. Madison, Appendix, British Case, p. 62.) 



' Oral Argument, Vol. II, p. 1311. 2 Oral Argument, Vol. II, p. 1311. 



