A wider limit sometimes claimed for

special

purposes.

is doubtful whether any state would attempt to hold its position against a protest from another state. The claims are based on the jurisdiction over fisheries, the enforcement of revenue laws, and the maintenance of neutrality. Such claims as the former English claims to the "King's Chambers," announced in 1604 to be bounded by a "straight line drawn from one point to another about the realm of England,” as from the Lizard to Land's End, would not now receive serious support; and since the rejection of the claims of the United States by the Bering Sea Tribunal, it can be safely stated that the expansion of territorial jurisdiction upon the open sea will only come through the consensus of states. The desirability of some new regulations upon marine jurisdiction was well shown in the discussions of the Institute of International Law at its meeting in Paris in 1894.1

Within the three-mile limit the jurisdiction extends to commercial regulations, rules for pilotage and anchorage, sanitary and quarantine regulations, control of fisheries, revenue, general police, and in time of war to the enforcement of neutrality.

55. Jurisdiction over Fisheries

The existence of fisheries has given rise to some special claims to extension of maritime jurisdiction.

Fishing on the

high sea a right belonging to

(a) As a general rule, the right of fishing on the high sea belongs to all states alike, but each must respect the rights of others. In order that these rights might be defined, it has in many cases been necessary to resort to conventions. One of the excellent examples of this kind is seen in the convention in regard to the North Sea Fisheries, May 6, 1882, to which Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain.

all states alike.

1 Annuaire XIII, 329.

and Holland are parties. The cruisers of any of these states may present the case of the fishing vessel violating the regulations of the convention in the country to which the vessel belongs, but the trial and penalty belong to the country of the vessel.1

(b) Special privileges granted by one state to another, or secured by custom, become servitudes, as in the case of the Canadian fisheries, and must depend upon the interpretation of the treaties by which they were granted.

Special privileges in fishing, as in the case

of the Canadian fisheries.

By the Treaty of 1783 the United States has the right of fishing on certain parts of the coast of the British Dominion in North America.

Great Britain claimed that these rights were annulled by the Treaty of Ghent, 1814, which put an end to the War of 1812 as that treaty was silent upon the subject. The United States declared, "they were not annulled by the war as they were enjoyed by the colonists before the separation from England in 1783, and so existed perpetually independent of treaty."

This claim was adjusted by the Treaty of 1818, which gave to the United States permission to take fish on certain parts of the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, to dry and cure fish in certain inlets, and to enter other inlets for shelter, repairs, and supplies.

Disputes arising under this treaty were settled by the Treaty of 1854, which gave to Canadian fishermen certain rights of fishing along the eastern coast of the United States north of the thirty-sixth parallel of latitude.

The United States took action to terminate this treaty in accord with its terms in 1866. The conditions of the Treaty of 1818 revived.

The Treaty of Washington, 1871, practically reëstablishes

1 1 Lawrence, pp. 138, 182.

the provisions of the Treaty of 1854, specifying that the difference in value between the rights granted by each state to the other should be determined by a commission. This commission awarded $5,500,000 to Great Britain in 1877.1

In accord with the provisions of the Treaty of 1871, it was terminated by the United States in 1886, the provisions of the Treaty of 1818 again coming in force.

A law of March 3, 1897,2 provides that the President may in certain contingencies deny vessels of the British Dominions of North America entry into the waters of the United States, and may also prohibit the importation of fish and other goods.3

These fisheries continued to be the subject of international negotiations, and modi vivendi were from time to time agreed upon between the United States and Great Britain, till at length under the provisions of the Arbitration Treaty of April 4, 1908, between the two states, the dispute was referred to the Hague tribunal for adjudication in accordance with a special agreement of January 27, 1909.4

(c) Another question which has given rise to much discussion is that of the seal-fishing in Bering Sea.

The disputed question of seal-fishing in Bering Sea.

In 1821 Russia claimed that the Pacific north of latitude 51° was mare clausum. The United States and Great Britain denied this claim. By conventions, 1824 and 1825, Russia conceded to these nations rights of navigation, fishing, etc. After the United States in 1867 acquired Russian America, seal-fishing assumed importance. As the Canadian fishermen were not restrained by the laws binding the United States fishermen, it was feared that the seal would become extinct. In 1886 three Canadian schooners were by decree of the district court of Sitka confiscated for the violation of the laws of the United

1See Cushing's "Treaty of Washington." 224 U. S. Sts. at Large, 475. 31 Moore, 767-874. 3 A. J. I. L. Doc., 168.

States in regard to seal-fishing, the judge charging the jury that the territorial waters of Alaska embraced the area bounded by the limits named in the treaty of cession to the United States of 1867 as those "within which the territories and dominion conveyed are contained." 1 This act with others of similar character led to a formal protest by Great Britain.

The questions in dispute were referred to a court of arbitration which decided against the claims of the United States, denying that the sea referred to as the Bering Sea was mare clausum, and denying that the United States acquired jurisdiction by prescriptive right from Russia in 1867. It was also decided that the United States had no right of property in the seals in the open sea, and that the destruction of these animals was contrary to the laws of nature. The United States and Great Britain, however, entered into an agreement in regard to the protection and taking of the seals by their subjects. Other nations were also to be asked to become parties to the agreement.2

the

It may be regarded as finally established that fishing in open sea is free to all, though of course states may by conventions establish regulations which shall be binding upon their subjects.

56. Jurisdiction over Vessels

At the present time every vessel must be under the jurisdiction of some state.

(a) Vessels are divided into two general classes.

Public and

private vessels.

(1) Public vessels, which include ships of war, government vessels engaged in public service, and vessels employed in the service of the state and in command of government officers.

1Treaties of U. S., 940.

1Proceedings Fur Seal Arbitration, 1893; also 27 U. S. Sts. at Large, 947.

(2) Private vessels, owned by individuals and under regulations varying in different states.

(b) The nationality of a public vessel is determined by its flag. In an extreme case the word of the commander is held to be sufficient proof.

Nationality of a vessel determined by its

In case of a private vessel the flag is a common evidence, but in case of doubt the vessel must show to proper authorities its papers which certify its nationality.

flag or papers.

(c) The general exercise of jurisdiction over vessels presents four different aspects as follows:

General
exercise

(1) Upon the high seas and within its own waters the jurisdiction of a state over of jurisdiction its public and private vessels is exclusive for all cases.

over vessels.

(2) Over public vessels in foreign waters, the jurisdiction of the state to which a public vessel belongs is exclusive for all matters of internal economy. The ves sels are subject to port regulations in matters of anchorage, public safety, etc. As Dana says in his note to Wheaton: "It may be considered as established law, now that the public vessels of a foreign state coming within the jurisdiction of a friendly state, are exempt from al forms of process in private suits." 1 In general practic the waters of all states are open to the vessels of wa of all other states with which they are at peace. Thi is a matter of courtesy and not of right, and is in fac sometimes denied, as by the provision of the Treaty o Berlin, 1878: "The port of Antivari and all the water of Montenegro shall remain closed to the ships of wa of all nations." 2 Various regulations may require, with out offense, notice of arrival, probable duration of stay rank of commander, etc.

1 Note 63, § 105.

'IV Hertslet, 2783.