INTRODUCTION cxxxv 



of the bay rendered it territorial if its entrance be six miles or less in 

 width. The two countries were apparently in accord before the con- 

 clusion of the Convention of 1818, as appears from the decisions of the 

 great Lord StoweU and the hardly less celebrated Justice Story. 



Thus, in the case of the Twee Gebroeders, decided in 1800 (3 Rob. 

 Reports, 162), Lord StoweU, then Sir William Scott, had to decide 

 whether a body of water from which a capture had been made was 

 within "the limits of the Prussian territory." 



"On this point," he said, "I am incUned to think, on an inspection 

 of the charts, and on hearing what has been urged, that she was lying 

 within the limits to which neutral Lnamunity is usually conceded. . . . 

 She was lying in the eastern branch of the Eemes, within what may, I 

 think, be considered as a distance of three miles, at most, from East 

 Friesland." '■ 



Lord StoweU, holding that the preparation made within the three 

 mile Umit to capture a vessel without the three-mile limit was a viola- 

 tion of neutral jurisdiction, ordered the release of the vessel. 



In the case of the Anna, decided in 1805 (5 Rob. Reports, 373), the 

 same learned judge said: 



"The capture was made, it seems, at the mouth of the River Mississippi, and as 

 it is contended in the claim, within the boundaries of the United States. We all 

 know that the rule of law on this subject is, ' terrae dominium finitur, uhifinilur armorum 

 vis' and since the introduction of fire-arms, that distance has usually been recognized 

 to be about three miles from the shore." " 



The language of the American jurist Story is to the same efiect. In 

 1812, in deciding the case of the Ann, he said: 



"All the writers upon public law agree that every nation has exclusive jurisdiction 

 of the distance of a cannon shot, or marine league, over the waters adjacent to its shores 

 (Bynk. Qu. Pub. Juris. 61; i Azuni. 204, s. 15; 2d. 185, s. 4); and this doctrine has 

 been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States (2 Cranch, 187, 231). 

 Indeed such waters are considered as a part of the territory of the sovereign." ' 



These decisions are based upon the law of nations as understood by 

 these distinguished judges. The common law, the law of England and 

 the United States, seems to agree with the law of nations in this respect. 

 Thus, in the case of the United States v. Crush, Mr. Justice Story, sit- 

 tmg as Circuit Justice, said: 



"The general rule, as it is often laid down in the books, is, that such parts of rivers, 

 arms, and creeks of the sea are deemed to be within the bodies of counties, where 

 persons can see from one side to the other. Lord Hale uses more guarded language, 



' 3 Rob. Reports, 162, at p. 163. ' S Rob. Reports, 373, at p. 3850. 



• Gallison's Reports, 62. 



