Page images
PDF
EPUB

taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby reserved them."(n)

*CXCV. It appears that these provisions had not been strictly [*209] observed by the subjects of the United States, and that in 1849 complaints were made by the Canadian colonists to the British Crown, who took the opinion of the Law officers as to the true construction of the Article. This opinion was, that, "by the terms of the convention, American citizens were excluded from any right of fishing within three miles from the coast of British America, and that the prescribed distance of three miles is to be measured from the headlands, or extreme points of land, next the sea or the coast, or of the entrance of bays or indents of the coast, and that consequently no right exists on the part of American citizens to enter the bays of Nova Scotia, there to take fish, although the fishing, being within the bay, may be at a greater distance than three miles from the shore of the bay, as we are of opinion that the term 'headland' is used in the Treaty to express the part of the land we have before mentioned, including the interior of the bays and the indents of the coasts."(0)

The neglect of these provisions by the subjects of the United States still continued, and in 1852, British men-of-war were sent to protect the fisheries and seize the boats which violated the Treaty. This act of the British Government created a great excitement in the United States, though it does not appear that the legality of the construction of the Article was impugned; but the late Mr. Webster insisted on the inconvenience to the subjects of the United States, and in the want of comity shown in its sudden enforcement after many years of an opposite practice.(p) The subject is still under discussion between the Governments of the two countries.

[*210]

*CHAPTER VIII.

PORTIONS OF THE SEA.

CXCVI. Though the open sea be thus incapable of being subject to the rights of property, or jurisdiction, yet reason, practice, and authority have firmly settled that a different rule is applicable to certain portions of the sea. (a)

CXCVII. And first with respect to that portion of the sea which

(n) Annual Reg. vol. xciv. (1852) pp. 295-6. (o) Annual Reg. vol. xciv. (1852) pp. 296-7.

(p) Ib. for 1852, vol. xciv. pp. 295–300.

Morning Chronicle and Daily News, August 9-10, 1852.

(a) Günther, t. ii. s. xxviii. p. 48: "Eigenthum und Herrschaft des Meeres an den Küsten."

Heffters, 1 Buch, s. lxxvi. p. 141: "Schutzrechte über die Küstengewasser." Ortolan, Dipl. de la Mer, t. i. 1. ii. c. viii.: "Mer Territoriale."

Kent's Commentaries, vol. i. s. xxvi. p. 25.

Various claims have been

washes the coast of an independent state. made, and various opinions pronounced, at different epochs of history, as to the extent to which territorial property and jurisdiction may be extended. But the rule of law may be now considered as fairly established:-namely, that this absolute property and jurisdiction does not extend, unless by the specific provisions of a Treaty (b) or an unquestioned usage, beyond a marine league (being three miles), or the distance of a cannon-shot from the shore at low tide :-"quousque e terrâ imperari potest""quousque tormenta exploduntur,""terræ dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum vis," is the language of Bynkershoek.(c) "In the sea, out of the reach of cannon-shot," (says Lord Stowell,) "universal use is presumed." This is the limit *fixed to absolute property and jurisdiction; but the rights of Independence(d) and self-pre[*211] servation in time of peace, justify a nation in preventing her revenue laws from being evaded by foreigners beyond this exact limit; and both Great Britain and the United States of North America have provided against frauds being practised on their revenues, by prohibiting foreign goods to be transhipped within the distance of four leagues of the coast, and exercising a jurisdiction for this purpose in time of peace: and in time of war by preventing, within a similar distance, the hovering(e) of *foreign belligerent ships so near the neutral coasts as to menace and alarm vessels homeward or outward bound.

[*212]

(b) Valin, Ordonnance de la Marine, 1. v. tit. i. p. 687, De la Liberté de la Pêche, contains a full dissertation on this subject.

Klüber, s. 130, n. a.

(c) Quæstiones Juris Publici, cap. viii.

(d) The Louis, 2 Dodson's Adm. Rep. 245.

The Twee Gebroeders, 3 Rob. Adm. Rep. 339.

Jacobsen, Seerecht, 586-590.

"Si quelque vaisseau de l'une ou de l'autre partie est en engagement avec un vaisseau appartenant à quelqu'une des puissances chrétiennes a la portée du canon des châteaux de l'autre, le vaisseau qui se trouvera ainsi en action sera défendu et protégé autant que possible, jusqu'à ce qu'il soit en sûrete."-Etats-unis et Maroc (1787), Art. 10.—De Martens et de Cussy, Rec. de Traités, &c., vol. i. p. 380.

"En conséquence de ces principes, les hautes parties contractantes s'engagent réciproquement, en cas que l'une d'entre elles fût en guerre contre quelque puissance que ce soit, de n'attaquer jamais les vaisseaux de ses ennemis que hors de la portée du canon des cotes de son allié."-France et Russie, Art. 27, ibid. p. 395. (This treaty was only entered into for 12 years.)

"Aucune des deux parties ne souffrira que le vaisseau ou effets appartenants aux sujets ou citoyens de l'autre, soient pris à une portée de canon de la cote, ni dans aucune des baies, rivières ou ports de leurs territoires, par des vaisseaux de guerre ou autres, ayant lettres de marque de prince, république ou état, quels qu'ils puissent être. Mais dans le cas où cela arriverait, la partie dont les droits territoriaux auraient été ainsi violés, fera tous les efforts dont elle est capable pour obtenir de l'offenseur pleine et entière satisfaction, pour le vaisseau ou les vaisseaux ainsi pris, soit que ce soient des vaisseaux de guerre ou des navires marchands."-Etats-Unis d'Amérique et Grande Brétagne, Art. 25.-De Martens et De Cussy, Rec. de Traités, vol. ii. p. 92.

(e) 9 Geo. III. c. 35, prohibited foreign goods from being transhipped within four leagues of the coast without payment of duties. The American Act of Congress, 1799, March 2, ss. 25, 26, 27, 99, contains the same prohibition, and their Supreme Court has declared this regulation to be founded upon International Law.-Church v. Hubbards, 2 Cranch's (American) Reports, p. 187.—The Le Louis, 2 Dodson's Adm. Rep. 245-6.

CXCVIII. The rule of the marine league being the boundary of the territorial jurisdiction is of course liable to be affected by Treaty. The Emperor of China has conceded jurisdiction to the Crown of England over British subjects in China, and the Crown, by an order in Council assented to by the Chinese Government, has jurisdiction over British subjects "being within the diminions of the Emperor of China, or being within any ship or vessel at a distance of not more than one hundred miles from the coast of China.(ƒ)

CXCIX. Besides the rights of property and jurisdiction within the limit of cannon-shot from the shore, there are certain portions of the sea which, though they exceed this verge, may, under special circumstances, be prescribed for. Maritime territorial rights extend, as a general rule, over arms of the sea, bays, gulfs, estuaries which are inclosed, but not entirely surrounded by lands belonging to one and the same state. With respect to bays and gulfs so inclosed, there seems to be no reason or authority for a limitation suggested by Martens, (g) "surtout en tant que ceux-ci ne passent pas la largeur ordinaire des rivières, ou la double portée du canon," or for the limitation of Grotius(h) which is of the vaguest character,-"mare occupari potuisse ab eo qui terras ad latus. utrumque possideat, etiamsi aut supra pateat ut sinus, aut supra et infra ut fretum, dummodo non ita magna sit pars maris ut non cum terris comparata portio earum videri possit." The real question, as Günther truly remarks, is, whether it be within the physical competence of the nation, possessing the circumjacent lands, to exclude other nations from the whole portion of the sea so surrounded: or, as Martens declares in his earliest, and in *some respects best, treatise on International Law, [*213] "Partes maris territorio ita naturâ vel arte inclusæ ut exteri aditu impediri possint, gentis ejus sunt, cujus est territorium circumjacens."(i) To the same effect is the language of Vattel: "Tout ce que nous avons dit des parties de la mer voisines des côtes, se dit plus particulièrement et à plus forte raison des rades, des baies et des détroits, comme plus capables encore d'être occupés, et plus importants à la sûreté du pays. Mais je parle des baies et détroits de peu d'étendue, et non de ces grands espaces de mer auxquels on donne quelquefois ces noms, tels que la baie de Hudson, le détroit de Magellan, sur lesquels l'empire ne saurait s'étendre, et moins encore la propriété. Une baie dont on peut défendre l'entrée, peut être occupée et soumise aux lois du souverain; il importe qu'elle le soit, puisque le pays pourrait être beaucoup plus aisément insulté en cet endroit que sur des côtes ouvertes aux vents et à l'impétuosité des flots."(k)

Thus Great Britain has immemorially claimed and exercised exclusive property and jurisdiction over the bays or portions of sea cut off by lines. drawn from one promontory to another, and called the King's Chambers. And there is the high authority of Sir Leoline Jenkins,() that the

(ƒ) Papers presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, (g) Lib. ii. c. i. s. 40. (h) Lib. ii. c. iii. s. 8.

1853.

(2) Primæ Line Juris Gentium, 1. iv. c. iv. s. 110. (k) Vattel, Le Droit, &c., t. i. 1. i. c. xxiii. s. 291.

(7) Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, vol. ii. pp. 727, 732, 755, 780.

vessels, even of the enemies of Great Britain, captured by foreign cruisers within these Chambers, would be restored by the High Court of Admiralty. Nor can there be any doubt that the portion of the sea which flows between the Isle of Wight and the main land belongs as completely as the soil of the adjacent shores to Great Britain. The revenue laws of the United States of America contain similar provisions.

CC. Mr. Chancellor Kent states the claims of the United States upon this matter in the following language:

"Considering the great extent of the line of the American coasts, we *have a right to claim, for fiscal and defensive regulations, a liberal extension of maritime jurisdiction; and it would not be [*214] unreasonable, as I apprehend, to assume, for domestic purposes connected with our safety and welfare, the control of the waters on our coasts, though included within lines stretching from quite distant headlands, as, for instance, from Cape Ann to Cape Cod, and from Nantucket to Montauck Point, and from that point to the Capes of the Delaware, and from the South Cape of Florida to the Mississippi. It is certain that our Government would be disposed to view with some uneasiness and sensibility, in the case of war between other maritime powers, the use of the waters of our coast, far beyond the reach of cannon-shot, as cruising ground for belligerent purposes. In 1793 our Government thought they were entitled, in reason, to as broad a margin of protected navigation as any nation whatever, though at that time they did not positively insist beyond the distance of a marine league from the seashores; and, in 1806, our Government though it would not be unreasonable, considering the extent of the United States, the shoalness of their coast, and the natural indication furnished by the well-defined path of the Gulf Stream, to expect an immunity from belligerent warfare, for the space between the limit and the American shore. It ought, at least, to be insisted, that the extent of the neutral immunity should correspond with the claims maintained by Great Britain around her own territory, and that no belligerent right should be exercised within the chambers formed by headlands, or anywhere at sea within the distance of four leagues, or from a right line from one headland to another.' In the case of the Little Belt, which was cruising many miles from the shore between Cape Henry and Cape Hatteras, our Government laid stress on the circumstance that she was hovering on our coasts;' and it was contended on the part of the United States, that they had a right to know the national character of armed ships in such a situation, and that it was a right *immediately connected with our tranquillity and peace. It was [*215] further observed, that all nations exercised the right, and none with more rigour, or at a greater distance from the coast, than Great Britain, and none on more justifiable grounds than the United States. There can be but little doubt that, as the United States advance in commerce and naval strength, our Government will be disposed more and more to feel and acknowledge the justice and policy of the British claim to supremacy over the narrow seas adjacent to the British Isles, because we shall stand in need of similar accommodation and means of security."(m)

(m) Commentaries, vol. i. pp. 29, 30.

CCI. In 1822 Russia laid claim to a sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean north of the 51st degree of latitude; but the Government of the United States of America resisted this claim as contrary to the principles of International Law.(n)

CCII. The portion of sea actually occupied by a fleet riding at anchor is within the dominion of the nation to which the fleet belongs, so long as it remains there; that is, for all purposes of jurisdiction over persons within the limits of the space so occupied. The like principle is applicable to the portion of territory occupied by an army,-a fleet being considered as a maritime army.(o)

*This proposition is of course not to be considered without [*216] reference to the place of anchorage: a French fleet permitted to anchor in the Downs, or an English fleet at Cherbourg, would only have jurisdiction over the subjects of the respective countries which happened to be within the limits of their temporary occupation of the water. Both in the case of the fleet and the army, there is, according to the theory of the law, a continuation or prorogation of the territory to which they belong.(p)

CCIII. The undoubted proposition, that the sea is open to the navigation of all nations, does not carry with it the further proposition, that it is competent to every individual to navigate his ship without any authority from his government.

Every ship is bound to carry a flag, and to have on board ship's papers (lettres de mer) indicating to what nation they belong, whence they have sailed, and whither they are bound, under pain of being treated as a pirate.(g)

CCIV. With respect to seas entirely inclosed by the land, so as to constitute a salt water-lake (Maria clausa; mers fermées, enclosées ; Binnenmeere, geschlossene innere Meere,) the general presumption of law is, that they belong to the surrounding territory or territories in as full

(n) Commentaries, vol. i. p. 28.

Mr. Adams' Letter to the Russian Minister, March 30th, 1822.

(0) "Videtur autem imperium in maris portionem eâdem ratione acquiri ut imperia alia, id est, ut supra diximus, ratione personarum et ratione imperii. Ratione personarum, ut si classis qui est maritimus exercitus, aliquo in loco maris se habeat: ratione territorii, quatenus ex terrâ cogi possunt qui in proximâmar is parte versantur, nec minus quam si in ipsâ terra reperentur."-Grotius, 1. ii. c. 3,

xiii. 2.

"Addo, classem quæ stat in anchoris, eam maris partem cui incubat, videri occupasse, eatenus nempe, quatenus et quamdiu occupat. Si occupaverit transit in imperium et dominium occupantis secundum ea quæ disputavi."-Cap. iii. s. 4. Bynk. De Dominio Maris.

Heffters, 136.

Wheaton's Hist. 723.

(p) Vide post, further observations on the question of jurisdiction.

(2) "Quand on dit que la mer est libre, on ne s'entend parler que des nations, car elle ne l'est point pour des particuliers; ils ne peuvent en jouir que sous la sauvegarde de leur Gouvernement, et c'est pour établir cette sauvegarde qu'on a institué les pavillons et les lettres de mer; la sûreté a exigé cette restriction du droit naturel; et tout bâtiment naviguant sans pavillon et sans lettres de mer est traité comme un forban."—Garden Traité de Diplomatie, i. 406.

Ortolan, Dipl. de la Mer, t. i. 1. ii. c. ix.-The Le Louis, 2 Dodson's Adm. Rep.

« PreviousContinue »