Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Mexican Gov

schooner alleged, she was nine miles from land.
ernment, on the other hand, stated that the schooner was only two
and a-half miles from the coast; that she had been farther out to sea,
but had tacked and come inshore in order to meet a boat carrying
a fugitive whom she was assisting to escape. (For. Rel. 1890, 620-
623, 629–631. See, also, For. Rel. 1889, 611-614.)

"I have received your No. 108 of the 29th of January ultimo, with its accompanying copy and translation of the note addressed to you on the 24th of that month by the minister of state, giving the results of the investigation ordered by the Spanish Government of the circumstances under which the American vessels Ethel A. Merritt, Eunice P. Newcomb, George Washington, and Hattie Haskell were fired upon and visited by Spanish gunboats, near the island of Cuba, in May, June, and July of last year. . .

"The wide contradiction between the several statements does not suffice to bring the position of three of the vessels at the time within the customary nautical league. This Government must adhere to the three-mile rule as the jurisdictional limit, and the cases of visitation without that line seem not to be excused or excusable under that rule. "This Government frankly and fully accepts the disclaimer of the Government of His Majesty that any intention of discourtesy existed in these proceedings. It insists, however, on the importance of a clear understanding of the jurisdictional limit. It insists likewise, on the distinction between the verification (according to the usual procedure of revenue cruisers), within a reasonable range of approach, of vessels seeking Spanish ports in the due pursuit of trade therewith, and the arrest by armed force, without the jurisdictional three-mile limit, of vessels not bound to Spanish ports. The considerations on these heads, advanced in my instruction to you of August 11, seem not to have attracted from His Majesty's Government the attention due to their precise bearing on at least three of the cases in hand under the express admissions of Mr. Elduayèn's note."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fairchild, min. to Spain, No. 111, March 3, 1881, For. Rel. 1881, 1051.

(7) PROPOS.D EXTENSION OF TERRITORIAL ZONE.

$152.

"Spain claims a maritime jurisdiction of six miles around the island of Cuba. In pressing this claim upon the consideration of the United States, Spain has used the argument that the modern improvement in gunnery renders the ancient limit of a marine league inadequate to the security of neutral states.

"When it was understood at Paris that an engagement was likely to come off before Cherbourg between the United States ship of war

Kearsarge and the pirate Alabama, the French Government remon strated with both parties against firing within the actual reach of the shore by cannon balls fired from their vessels, on the ground that the effect of a collision near the coast would be painful to France.

"For these reasons I think that the subject may now be profitably discussed, but there are some preliminary considerations which it is deemed important to submit to Her Majesty's Government :

"First. That the United States, being a belligerent now, when the other maritime states are at peace, are entitled to all the advantages of the existing construction of maritime law, and cannot, without serious inconvenience, forego them.

"Secondly. That the United States, adhering in war, no less than when they were in the enjoyment of peace, to their traditional liberality towards neutral rights, are not unwilling to come to an understanding upon the novel question which has thus been raised in consequence of the improvement in gunnery.

"But, thirdly, it is manifestly proper and important that any such new construction of the maritime law as Great Britain suggests should be reduced to the form of a precise proposition, and then that it should receive, in some manner, by treaty or otherwise, reciprocal and obligatory acknowledgments from the principal maritime powers.

"Upon a careful examination of the note you have addressed to me, the suggestions of Her Majesty's Government seem to be expressed in too general terms to be made the basis of discussion. Suppose, by way of illustration, that the utmost range of cannon now is five miles, are Her Majesty's Government understood to propose that the marine boundary of neutral jurisdiction, which is now three miles from the coast, shall be extended two miles beyond the present limit? Again, if cannon shot are to be fired so as to fall not only not upon neutral land, but also not upon neutral waters, then, supposing the range of cannot shot to be five miles, are Her Majesty's Government to be understood as proposing that cannon shot shall not be fired within a distance of eight miles from the neutral territory?

Finally, shall measured distances be excluded altogether from the statement, and the proposition to be agreed upon be left to extend with the increased range of gunnery, or shall there be a pronounced limit of jurisdiction, whether five miles, eight miles, or any other measured limit?"

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Burnley, British chargé, Sept. 16, 1864,
Dip. Cor. 1864, II. 708-709.

Field, in his Int. Code, 2nd ed. § 28, observes that, "inasmuch as cannon
shot can now be sent more than two leagues, it seems desirable to
extend the territorial limits accordingly."

Perels, Das Internationale öffentliche Seerecht der Gegenwart, § 13, says: "The extension of the line depends on the range of cannon shot at

the particular period. It is, however, at such period the same for
all coasts."

See, also, Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens, I. 145; Bluntschli, § 302;
Heffter, § 75; Hall, Int. Law (4th ed.), 160.

At its meeting in Paris in 1894 the Institut de Droit International discussed the subject of territorial waters, and particularly the question whether the jurisdictional limits should be extended. It was generally agreed that such an extension should be made, but there were differences of opinion as to how far it should be carried and as to the principles on which it should be based. It was finally resolved that territorial waters should extend six marine miles (60 to the degree of latitude) from low-water mark for all purposes, and that in time of war the bordering neutral state might fix, either by a declaration of neutrality or by special notification, a neutral zone beyond the six miles as far as the range of cannon shot for all purposes of neutrality. It was also resolved that in bays the territorial zone should follow the sinuosities of the coast, except that it should be measured from a straight line across the bay at the place nearest the entrance where the distance from shore to shore first became contracted to twelve marine miles, unless usage had established a more extensive jurisdiction.

Institut de Droit International, Annuaire (1894–95), XIII. 329; Hall,
Int. law (4th ed.), 161.

"In conformity with your recent oral request, I have now the honor to make further response to your unofficial note of November 5th last, which was acknowledged on the 9th of the same month, by informing you that careful consideration would be given to the important inquiry therein made as to the views of the United States Government touching the expediency of settling by treaty among the interested powers the question of the extent of territorial jurisdiction over maritime waters.

"This Government would not be indisposed, should a sufficient number of maritime powers concur in the proposition, to take part in an endeavor to reach an accord having the force and effect of international law as well as of conventional regulation, by which the territorial jurisdiction of a State, bounded by the high seas, should henceforth extend six nautical miles from low-water mark, and at the same time providing that this six-mile limit shall also be that of the neutral maritime zone.

"I am unable, however, to express the views of this Government upon the subject more precisely at the present time, in view of the important consideration to be given to the question of the effect of such a modification of existing international and conventional law upon the jurisdictional boundaries of adjacent States and the applica

tion of existing treaties in respect to the doctrine of headlands and bays.

"I need scarcely observe to you that an extension of the headland doctrine, by making territorial all bays situated within promontories twelve miles apart instead of six, would affect bodies of water now deemed to be high seas and whose use is the subject of existing conventional stipulations."

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. de Weckherlin, Dutch min., Feb. 15, 1896,
MS. notes to the Netherlands, VIII. 359.

The inquiry of the Dutch minister referred to the discussion of the ques-
tion of territorial waters by the Institute of International Law in
1894. (Mr. Olney to Mr. de Weckherlin, Nov. 9, 1895, MS. notes to
the Neth., VIII. 355.)

See, also, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dupuy de Lome, Spanish min.,
May 4, 1896, MS. notes to Spain, XI. 163.

8. BAYS.

$153.

"The essential facts are, That the river Delaware takes its rise within the limits of the United States;

Delaware Bay. "That, in the whole of its descent to the Atlantic Ocean, it is covered on each side by the territory of the United States; "That, from tide water, to the distance of about sixty miles from the Atlantic Ocean, it is called the river Delaware;

"That, at this distance from the sea, it widens and assumes the name of the Bay of Delaware, which it retains to the mouth;

"That its mouth is formed by the capes Henlopen and May; the former belonging to the State of Delaware, in property and jurisdiction, the latter to the State of New Jersey;

"That the Delaware does not lead from the sea to the dominions of any foreign nation;

"That, from the establishment of the British provinces on the banks of the Delaware to the American Revolution, it was deemed the peculiar navigation of the British Empire;

"That, by the treaty of Paris, on the third day of September, 1783, his Britannic Majesty relinquished, with the privity of France, the sovereignty of those provinces, as well as of the other provinces and colonies;

"And that the Grange was arrested in the Delaware, within the capes, before she had reached the sea, after her departure from the port of Philadelphia.

"It is a principle, firm in reason, supported by the civilians, and tacitly approved in the document transmitted by the French minister, that, to attack an enemy in a neutral territory, is absolutely unlawfui.

"Hence the inquiry is reduced to this simple form, whether the place of seizure was in the territory of the United States?

"From a question originating under the foregoing circumstances, is obviously and properly excluded every consideration of a dominion over the sea. The solidity of our neutral right does not depend, in this case, on any of the various distances claimed on that element by different nations possessing the neighboring shore; but if it did, the field would probably be found more extensive, and more favorable to our demand, than is supposed by the document above referred to. For the necessary or natural law of nations, unchanged as it is, in this instance, by any compact or other obligation of the United States, will, perhaps, when combined with the treaty of Paris in 1783, justify us in attaching to our coasts an extent into the sea beyond the reach of cannon shot.

"In like manner is excluded every consideration, how far the spot of seizure was capable of being defended by the United States. For. although it will not be conceded that this could not be done, yet will it rather appear, that the mutual rights of the States of New Jersey and Delaware, up to the middle of the river, supersede the necessity of such an investigation.

66

"No; the corner stone of our claim is, that the United States are proprietors of the lands on both sides of the Delaware, from its head to its entrance into the sea.

"The high ocean, in general, it is true, is unsusceptible of becoming property. It is a gift of nature, manifestly destined for the use of all mankind; inexhaustible in its benefits; not admitting metes and bounds. But rivers may be appropriated, because the reverse is their situation. Were they open to all the world, they would prove the inlets of perpetual disturbance and discord; would soon be rendered barren by the number of those who would share in their products; and moreover they may be defined.

666

"A river, considered merely as such, is the property of the people through whose lands it flows, or of him under whose jurisdiction that people is.'-Grot., b. 2, c. 2, s. 12.

"Rivers might be held in property; though neither where they rise, nor where they discharge themselves, be within our territory, but they join to water above and below, or the sea. It is sufficient for us that the larger portion of water, that is, the sides, is shut up in our banks, and that the river, in respect to our land, is itself small and insignificant.'-Grot., b. 2, c. 3, s. 7; and Barbeyrac, in his note, subjoins, that neither of these is necessary.

"Rivers may be the property of whole states.'-Puff., b. 3, c. 3, s. 4. "To render a thing capable of being appropriated, it is not strictly necessary that we should enclose it, or be able to enclose it, within

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »