ARGUMENT OF MR. ROOT 99 



in these seas. ... It is in vain, therefore, that the ancient assertion of sover- 

 eignty over the narrow seas is invoked to give countenance to the rule now 

 sought to be established, of jurisdiction over the three-mile zone. ... To 

 invoke as its foundation, or in its support, an assertion of sovereignty which, 

 for all practical purposes, is, and always has been, idle and unfounded, and 

 the invaUdity of which renders it necessary to have recourse to the new doc- 

 trine, involves an inconsistency, on which it would be superfluous to dwell." 



That is to say, these vague and unfounded claims disappeared 

 entirely, and there was nothing of them left as the basis for any 

 claim of ownership or sovereignty or jurisdiction over any portion 

 of the sea beyond the line that adjoins the land. The sea became, 

 in general, as free internationally as it was under the Roman law. 

 But the new principle of freedom, when it approached the shore, 

 met with another principle — the principle of protection; not a 

 residuum of the old claim, but a new independent basis and reason 

 for modification, near the shore, of the principle of freedom. The 

 sovereign of the land washed by the sea asserted a new right to 

 protect his subjects and citizens against attack, against invasion, 

 against interference and injury; to protect them against attack 

 threatening their peace, to protect their revenues, to protect their 

 health, to protect their industries. That is the basis and the sole 

 basis on which is estabhshed the territorial zone that is recognized 

 in the international law of to-day. War-ships may not pass with- 

 out consent into this zone, because they threaten. Merchant-ships 

 may pass and repass, because they do not threaten. But merchant- 

 ships may not enter into the coast trade from port to port without 

 consent, because they interfere with the industry of the people, 

 the natural right of the people to carry on the intercourse between 

 their own ports. Fishing ships may not come to engage in fishing, 

 because they interfere with the natural industry of the people on 

 the coast, the natural, immemorial right of the dwellers on the sea. 

 Back in the remotest times, in all times, whatever be the rule of 

 freedom of the sea, however free it may be, it is deeply embedded 

 in human nature that the men who dwell by the shore of the sea 

 consider that they have a natural right to win their support from 

 the waters. at their doors; and they look with natural resentment at 

 one coming from a distance to interfere with that right; and that 

 immemorial, natural right of the coastal population to secure 



