CIHM Microfiche Series (Monographs) ICIVIH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Inatituta for Himorical MIcroraproductiona . ' Inatitut Canadian da microraproductiont hiatoriquaa 1996 Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes technique et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available (or filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming are checked below. D Coloured covers / Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged / ' — ' Cruverture endommag^ I I Covers restored and/or laminated / — Couverture restauree et/ou pelliculee I I Cover title missing / Le litre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps / Cartes g^raphlques en couleur rn Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black) / Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations / ' — PlarKhes et/ou illustrations en couleur I I Bound with other material / — Reli^ avec d'autres documents I I Only edition available / I — I Seule Edition disponible I I Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin / La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge int^rieure. I I Blank leaves added during restoratkms may appear ' — ' within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming / II se peut que ceitaines pages blanches ajout^s lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas Hi film^es. L'Institut a microfilme le meilleur examplaire qu'il lui a 6te possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem- plaire qui sont peut-Stre uniques du point de vue bibli- ographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modifications dans la meth- ode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages / Pages de couleur I ] Pages damaged/ Pages endommagSes I I Pages restored an*or laminated / ' — ' Pages restaurSes et/ou pellk:ul«es r^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed / '-^ Pages decolorees, tachet^es ou piquees r~} Pages detached/ Pages d«achies r^ Showthrough / Transparence r^ Quality of print varies / I — ' Quality inhale de I'impression I I Includes supplementary material / — Comprend du materiel supplementaire I I Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been relilmed to ensure the best possible image / Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont iti filmees a nouveau de fa9on k obtenir la meilleure image possible. I I Opposing pages with varying colouration or ' — discolourations are filmed twice to ensure the best possible image / Les pages s'opposant ayant des colorations variat>les ou des dteol- orations sont filmees dei'x fois afin d'obtenir la meilleur image possil-ie. Addittonal comments / Commentaires suppKmentaires: PagiiMtfon Is as follom i p. [175]-190. Thii ittin it f ilmad at ttw rtduetion ratio chtcfcMl bttow/ C« document tst f ilmi au taux de rMuction iiMlique ci-deuous. lOX 14X 18X 22X MX »x 1 ._ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28 X 32 X Th* copy tilmad hara has baan rapreducad thanks 10 tha ganaroaity of: National Library of Canada L'anamplaira film* (ut raproduil 9ries i la e*n4roaiM da: Bibllothaqua nationala du Canada Tha imagat appaaring hara ara tha bast quality pouibia eonaidaring tha condition and lagibility ot tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming eenuact apacificatiena. Original eopia* in printad papar covara ara (llmad baginning with tha front covar and snding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- lion, or tha back eovar whan appropriata. All othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or lllusiratad impraa- sion. and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illuatratad imprasaion. Tha laat racordad frama on aach microficha shall contain tha symbol -^ (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol V (moaning "END" I. whichavar applias. Mapa. platas. charts, ate, may ba filmad at diffarant raduetion ratios. Thosa too larga to ba antiraly includad in ona axposura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand cornar, laft to right and top to bottom, as many framas as raquirad. Tha following diagrama illustrata tha mathed: Laa imagas suivsntas ont it* raproduitas avac la plus grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at da U nanaia da I'axamplaira film*, at an eontormit* avac laa conditions du contrat da filmaga. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura tn papiar aat imprimta sont fllm*s an commancant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soil par Is darnMra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'Imprasslon ou d'illustrstion, soit par la sacond plat, salon la caa. Toua laa autraa axamplairaa originaus sont film*s sn commancant par la pramiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaaion ou d'illuatration at an tarminant par la darnitra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Un das symbolaa suivanta spparaitra sur la darnitra imaga da chaqua microficha. salon la caa: la symbola — » signifia "A SUIVRE". la aymbola ▼ aignifia "FIN". Us cartaa. planchas, tablaaux. ate. pauvant atra filmto * das taux da reduction diffirants. Lorsqua la documant aat trop grand pour atra raproduit an un saul clich*. il aat film* * partir da I'angia aup*riaur gaucha. da gaucha * droita. at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra d'imagas nacaasaira. Las diagrammas suivanis illuatrant la mathodo. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 MiCROcarv iisoiution tkt cha>t (ANSI ond ISO TEST CHAliT No. 2) 10 I.I ■ Z5 12.2 1.8 1:25 III U III 1.6 1^ 1^ 11^ ^ /1PPLIED IN/MGE Inc ^S". 1653 East Main Street r,a Rochealer. Ntm Yorti 1*609 USA i^B (716) 482 - 0300 - Phone ^ (716) 2BB-5989 -Fox Reprinted from the Transactions of the Auemcan Pisheries Society for June, 1919. Vol. XLVIII, No. 3. , > „i^ TERRITORIAL WATERS AND A SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF THE THREE MILE UMIT. By Prof. E. E. Prince, M. A., LL. D., D. Sc. Dcminion Commissioner of Fisheries, Ottawa, Canada, On May 19, 1917, a Gennan submarine seized the Norwegian steamer "Thorum" about four miles of! the coast of Norway, and all who are interested in fisheries questions regarded this occurrence with special attention. It is generally thought that a three mile limit is universally carried out, but in this case Norway protested that her territorial waters had been invaded, and international law violated, because she had always adhered to a limit of four miles. No doubt many people who regard themselves as well informed on the question of territorial rights on che sea coast, learned with stirprise that Norway had, for over seventy years, enforced a limit greater than three miles, and in various national and munici- pal agreements had consistently carried this out. As long ago as June 18, 1745, Norway had enforced a four-mile limit. MANY CODNTKIES CLAIH UORE THAN THREE MILES. But Norway is not the only counti-y that has enforced a more extended territorial limit of three miles, although her cctirse is one of the few that has been recopnized generally by other maritime nations. Spain, as long ago as December 17, 1774, also claimed six nautical miles along her coasts and the coasts of her colonies, and re-asserted this in several royal decrees, in 1775, 1785 and 1867. In 1869 it may be remembered that Spain re-asserted a claim to a six-mile limit around Cuba and her West Indian poscessions. Spain's last decree, dated August 4, 1874, aroused, however, serious objections on the part of Great Britain and the United States. Italy has also enforced a limit of four or five miles ; although in some special conventions with Austria she adopted a three-mile limit, but it is doubtful how far this latter limit has been adopted. Indeed, when discussing this territorial question with the Western Powers in 1891, the Italian Government refused to recognize a three-mile limit, and certainly Genoa has never idinquished her claim to complete territorial rights extending over the waters ' 176 American Fisheries Society 1 p '^'f™" ■^.''"- ^' '^ intercstinK to note under the Treaty of Pans 1,W, ,t ,s specfi.d that Freneh fishennen shall have the hbcrty o, fishmK ,n the Gulf of St. Lawrence on condition that they do not eon,e w:thm a limit of nine geographical miles of the coast nor nearer Cat-e Breton Island than 45 miles. The lar^e claim o Grea Bntam to exclusive authority over the waters all arid her shor.s. and extending. :n the North Sea to France and to Non^-ay, was cons.dcraMy interfered with by various Royal and Parhamentary Concessions. Indeed, up to IS.M the fishemen of Belpum had the right to fish within three miles of the Br^sh shores under a charter of Charles II, and the French fishe™,en a so ela,med pnv.legcs, which up to then, the Dutch fishe™en had solely enjoyed. These concessions were of so uncerta™ a character that the British Government admitted until ,S.5, ha? he foreign fishermen referred to might continue to fish within temtonal hm.ts ,f they proved to the satisfaction of the English atThrHa tr'"!"'''^™- AsMLuisMariaDragostaed a The Hague Tribunal m 1910, in the coastal waters a century miles ^nn '; "'"' """' ^"^ ^^ ™"°"^ "^"""^ "P to 00 mdes, 100 m,les, or a two days' journey from the shore, and the ^LJ n """°'' '^"'^'^y ^"'J contradiction in the iX H ,T 1 ™' """'"P'^^ '° '"<"''' '" various seas. Indeed, the pnncple of "land kenning," i. e., claiming as much TZ 'h Tu """"'f ""' *'^ ''"'^"^^ '^"'^ ^^' v-b'« from a sh p at sea, had been adopted before the time of Grotius. INTERNATIONAL THREE-MILE LIMIT INVALID. It is an error, therefore, to claim, as has been very generally claimed, that a three-mile limit is an ancient accTpfed i^fe imiversally recognized and admitted down to our own time.' If It be asserted that such a limit is a canon of international law we are dnven to ask, "What is international law?" about which so much has been said and written. INTERNATIONAL LAW IS REALLY INTERNATIONAL MORALITY. It is true that quite an extensive legal literature has grown up smee the t.me of Grotius (1625), and other less known jurists who gave definiteness to the general tendency of civilized nation^ NATKJNAI. UBIARV CANADA MmiOTHiCQUE NATBJNAIE Prince. — Territorial Wattrs 177 I i on this subject, chiefly in the fanvms "lie jure IwUi ct iiacis. " Yet even j;reat jurists have felt that intenialiunal law is a flimsy thint;, and one of the Rreatcst mwlem writers on the matter found himself compelled to speak of it as a branch of jurispmileiice, which is the creation of moralists, merely moulded by the acinncn of IcKal authorities and the wisdom of statesmen. It was so well-known a writer as Professor Sheldon Amos who admitted that international law was very immature, ambiKUfius, and indefinite, and was lacking in legislative authority. The opinion of John Austin, an eminent authority on jurisprudence, is generally admitted to be sound, and he does not hesitate to say that "international laws are improperly so termed," the laws bcin^ framed and emphasised merelj' by the opinion of an indeterminate body of men. As the three-mile limit derives its authority from such indefinite moral and ethical principles and summaries of international sentiment and oblij^ation, its founda- tion is vague and unstable. John Austin very i)roperly designates it "positive international morality." Law, to have any force or meaning as Sir Henry Maine stated, im]jlies not only an author- ity to pronounce it law and to define it, but a tribunal capable of enforcing it. There exists no international tribunal sufficiently powerfu' to bind sovereign States by its decrees, and use com- pulsion if they transgress those decrees During the great war some interesting questions arose as to the cargoes held in seized German steamers at the Antipodes, and the New Zealand Chamber of Commerce, in the capital city of Wellington, when discussing the question of charging certain costs against the seized ships found tlic objection raised that such could not be done under international law, because at the end of the %var these seized steamers must be handed back to the German owners. The President, Mr. C. W. Jones, a prominent New Zealand merchant, thereupon declared to his colleagues that "there has been no such thing as international law since the great war began." International law, it was claimed, can be violated with impunity and amounts to little more than international etiquette or morality. Important maritime powers in former days assumed authority over vast oceans and seas, and had even Papal sanction for these extensive territorial claims. The known oceans of the world were 178 Ametican Fisktrits Soeitty largely divided amongst the leading states as their iidtional property. Britain, when she became a great maritime power, and rival of Spain and the Netherlands, asserted very wide rlaims over the seas. The House of Commons, in 1660, declared that foreign vessels were prohibited from fishing within eight or ten miles of British coasts; but the prohibition was generally ignored. During the eighteenth century the principle of ".-rmotuni vis" became pre-eminent, owing to the great naval wars, and waters within cannon-shot of the shore became regarded as territorial. Bynker- shoek's principle " terrae dominum finitttr ubi finitur armorum vis " appealed to warring nations, so that a 3-mile limit became regarded as equivalent to armed power, or force of arms, i. e., equivalent to the range of guns, and the exclusive right of fishery within such limit became an implication; but it is doubtful if three miles ever was the real limit of artillery range and certainly the limit is obsolete in modem warfare; even for civil and national protective and other purposes. A three-mile limit has always been regarded as quite insufficient. When Venice was an independent power, she exercised absolute dominion over the whole of the Adriatic sea. Every ship entering that sea had to acknowledge her authority, ccisent to be examined, and pay the tribute enforced. The Pope, who possessed Ferrara, about 50 miles south of Venice, was annoyed that his ships were overhauled and their cargoes taxed by Venice, and he called the Venetian Ambassador to Rome to explain the position That officer explained that Venice had absolute and perpetual dominion over the Adnatic sea by enact- ment of the "Donation of Constantine. " The Adriatic Sea is about 500 miles long, and averages more than 100 miles in width. Although the excessive and obsolete claims over the "common ocean," to use M. Drago's words, have been largely relinquished, the assertion of exclusive property over large tracts of water, has not been abandoned by many of them. It is an interesting fact that the very first definition of the three-mile limit of coastal jurisdiction was contained in the Treaty of 1818, between the United States and Britain, but neither of the nowers signing that Treaty has rigidly carried out a three-mi's limit even on its own shores. The United States has always exer::ised the rights of exclusive property over Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, and other areas, and Britain quite recently insisted upon her I [ 1 L Prince— rerritonitl H'alrrs 170 rights in the Moray Firth, beyond l"..e distance of three miles from shore. TRRF.E PREVALENT ERRORS REGARDING TIIREE-lillE LI.IIT. Pre! ''ling ideas upon the question of territorial waters seem to mc iirgently require revision, hence I venture to brinj: the 8ubject before the Americ n Fisheries Society for consideration. The members of this Society are interested in ever>-thinK pertaining to the conservation of the fisheries, and if it can be shown that the so-called three-mile limit is insufficient and unsatisfactory from a fisheries' point of view, I venture to hope t.'e Society ma>' place itself on record as favoring a satisfactory .-eadjustment of the matter, a. d that the leading maritime nations may adopt a limit better fitted to conserve the just rights and interests of all concerned. Space will not permit reference to the "headlands question" and other points, and I shall keep the fisheries mainly in view. There are three common errors in the minds of many so-called experts regarding the three-mile limit. (1) It is regarded as very ancient and venerable, and as established by antiquity and usage and by the general consent of nations. (2) It is regarded as universally applied and adopted. (3) It is asserted to be a canon of international law. None of these assertions are true. Let me take the last first. If it be claimed that inter, ational law has laid down the principle that no territorial sovereignity exists, or can be claimed, beyond the three mile zone, we must ask, I repeat, "What is international law?" It is true that there are Conventions and Treaties and understanding- between nations. These are the only definite materials which can be regarded as having any force or binding powf. Apart from these, international law is a compoimd of vague affiimations and claims with little possibility of enforcement, and liable at any moment to be violated or to bt ignored with im unity. A great modem authority said that international law is "jus inter gentes" — con- sisting of natural and conventional elements, ant so far as it is a law of nature, it is of uncertain obligation, while even the positive elements in the shape of treaties, agreements, precedents, etc., 180 Amfrican Fisktries Society arc nnly rjlilitjatnry in n f:ir ;is ihr nations conri'rni'il ri'^;.iril them as hnvinc ttinnil forcv, Intfmaliimal law is indeed derived originally from >;iniral and abstract tlieory, and it is diflicult to see how it can have the same force and oljlinatinn as the criminal and civil laws of nations, Germany, when she ignored her solemn treaties and violated the requirements of international morality, showed how futile arc the claims made on behalf of iiiteniational law. It fails when most n«ded. It is merely a ci I lection of requirements in which the (pinions of an indetemiii^'ite b(;Ti trawliTs fnmi apiiriKiiliiii'^ williin four mills of her coast. Tlu' violation of this law rtinlirs tlic ofTi'tiiliTs liable to a iR'nalty of from one ilir>usunil to live tliousand knmirs, and tin. coiiliscation of tlie olTendiiin vesscN. The British (idvennretit (lin'ctly called the alteiilion of trawlers from British iKirts to the existence of this law. and in the oiriiial n i e from the Hoaril (jf Trade. London, dated Noveiiilier, I'.iiis. .ind si^jned hy the Assistant Secretary. Mr. \\...ter j. Ilowcll. and headed, "Notice to owners and skipiiers of trawKrs in territorial waters," it is stated thai "The Bo,ird of Trade desires to call attei'tion to the fact that a new law ' s recently come into force in Norway inider which fishing; wiin a trawl is forliiddcn in Norwc^inn l.Tritorial waters. ' * Territuria! waters of Norway are four Hii;;lish miles, not three miles. " Attempts ha\'e been r le at various times to induce Norway and Sweden to reduce this coastal limit, and when these two nations separated from each other the British forei^'n office urKcd Nor\vay to join in the North Sea Convention ( f ls,S'.'. but she rejected the proposal, because it would liave Iwrnnd her to a three-mile limit. It is inten'stiti;; to m ; that Denmark enforces a three-mile limit in her western wate but a four-mile limit in the Baltic Sea. It is by no means true, moreover, that the thrcc-mile limit has the authority of antiquity (jr the universal consen of leadiiiK nations, and some of the most famous jurists, such Martens, admitted that any nation mi),'ht acquire marine domii i beyond a three mile limit; indeed he asserted that three leaj.'ues, not three miles, was really the limit. Nor is the idea correct th:'.t K\i".- ran),'c in old limes was three miles, and that the limit was based on that. Indeed, the earliest authority to announce the theory was the Sicilian Secretary of the Italian legation at Paris. Oaliani, who first stated that a distance of three miles was equivalent to the range of Kims, yet that two leagues, or twice that distance, should be the area for obscrvin;; neutrality, or in other words should be the limit for enforcing territorial rights. Moreover there was uncertainty as to the ba.se from which the three mile . might be measured. Norway and Denmark and some other countries adopted a straight line drawn from point to point along their coast, and measured the three miles from that. An ancient 182 American Fisheries Society authority establishes a much greater distance than three miles, and the limits were fixed at GO miles, or 100 miles, or two days' journey from the shore, and so on, and it was not until the Treaty of 1818 that three marine miles assumed definiteness as a limit of coastal jurisdiction. M. Luis M. Drago, in his important addendum to the Award of The Hague Tribunal on the North Atlantic Fisheries (Sep- temper 7th, 1910), says "The Treaty of 18 IS is one of the few which mark an era in the diplomacy of the world. As :i matter of fact it is the very first which commuted the rule of the cannon-shot into the three marine miles of coastal jurisdiction," and Kluber specially referred to the Treaties of October 20th, 1818, and August 2nd, 1S39, as fixing a distance of three miles from low-water mark for coastal jurisdiction, but it must be added it fixes the limit only for the nations who are party to suc'.i conventions. The unratified Treaty of 1888, between Great Britain and the United States, specified three marine miles seaward from low water mark. It is to be noted, however, that unless the nature of the mile is defined, great uncertainty arises when three miles are mentioned in a Convention or Treaty, because the length of a mile varies in different countries and has undergone great changes at different periods of time. Before the reign of Elizabeth, an English mile was 5,000 feet, but in the thirty-fifth year of her reign, it was defined as eight furlongs, or 1,760 yards of 3 feet each. The English nautical or marine mile is 2,025 yards; but the German geographical mile is equivalent to four nautical miles, i. e., one-fifteenth of a degree. The German short mile is 6,859 yards, the French mile 4,263 yards, the Dutch mile 8,240 yards, and the Spanish mile is 4,635 yards. There is no uniformity in the terms used to define territorial limits, in various treaties. Thus in the North Sea Convention of 1882, between Great Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Belgium and Holland, three geographical miles are specified, whereas a marine league, or three marine miles is the distance mentioned in the Treaty (unratified) of 1888, between the United States and Britain. Three marine miles are specified in an early Fisheries Act in Canada, viz., the New Brunswick Act, passed on April 30th, 1851, by the Legislative Council and Assembly of New Brunswick (Act 14, Victoria, Cap 31). r Prince. — Territorial Waters 183 • I NO THREE-MILE LIMIT ON INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS, OREAT LAKES, ETC. The Great Lakes, though from a legal ix)int of view regarded as "high seas," and so defined by the Supreme Court of the United States, are really wholly territorial, being Canadian on one side of the boundary line and American on the other, a breadth ranging from 5 to 200 miles. The fishermen of one country are prohibited from operating in the waters on the further side of this imaginary line and the fishermen of nations other than the two bordering on the lakes are absolutely excluded altogether. They are in every sense extensive territorial waters separating two great countries. In the Gulf of Georgia and Juan de Fuca Straits, Canada and the United States, by the Award of October 21, 1872, each acquired territorial waters on either side of the boundary line ("the line of demarcation between the territories," the Treaty of 1846 expressef it), from one to twenty miles from shore, while by the Award of October 20, 1903, the United States acquired territorial wafers on the Alaskan boundary extending from four or five to thirty miles north of the line* extending from Cape Muzon to Cape Chacon; and Canada on the south side of that line acquired territorial waters of forty miles in breadth. LARGE TERRITORIAL LIMITS FOR SPECIAL FISHERIES. There are numerous instances where a special industry has required limits far in excess of those generally recognized for ordinary fishing operations, and large limits have been adopted without hesitation. The Russians, for example, reserved for a long time the White Sea for sealing, and in 1911 established a 12- mile limit in that sea or rather in Barents Sea; and Great Britain and Norway, assented to that claim. The line is drawn from Cape Svtoai to Cape Kanin. Norway, in like manner, closed Vanagar Fjord, in order to preserve the supply of whales. Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Russia, Germany and Holland passed con- current legislation to preserve the Jan Mayen Sealing Industry east • The Treaty defines the line as "the line of boundary between the territories." 184 American Fisheries Society of Greenland The Behnng Sea Tribunal in 1893. established a mrt nf nT ^""""^- ^ '™'"'' ==""'= °^ 1° "-"<=' ■" the north part of BehnnK Sea, and a 3()-mile zone around Robbins Islands were determined by an agreement between the United States Russia and Great Britain. Delaware Bay, which is 20 miles wide at the entrance and 30 miles across inside, and 70 miles lone IS recognized as within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, while Chesapeake Bay, which is 12 miles wide at the entrance expands mto a large arm of the sea, 270 miles long and It IS entirely closed to all foreign fishermen. Thus, when the fishery- interests of a nation require it, the so-called three-mile limit has been repeatedly set aside. i..n^'n ^"'nr", "" '"°"^ ^""''"S '" ^^"^''^ that the waters mside Queen Chariotte Islands, on the Pacific coast, are really territorial, and so long ago as 1890 Canadian patrol vessels warned W»Tk" f !r'^ ^^^'"'' "^''^''''^ '" 'hose waters.Captain Walbran of the D. 3. S. "Quadra" reported to the Department when this warning had been issued that his coming had been made known to many United States' vessels that had been fishing there and he lound only one operating, which left at once for Alaskari waters after being reminded of the warning, and, said the Captain not another vessel appeared in those waters for five weeks " dunng v>hich he continued his patrol. The fishermen, in other words, recognized that they were fishing in Canadian waters, and the area is certainly almost entirely enclosed on three sides by Dominion territory. The waters at one point are 75 miles wide but the mere width ,s not conclusive, as the entrance to Long Island Sound is 10 miles, and to Delaware Bay is neariy 30 miles Tr'tl, 'n ' t'"'^ """^'^ '"" "°"'^<=™ -d °f H-«e St™i ts or ather Dixon Entrance is territorial, and in Juan de Fuea Straits m the south, the waters north of the boundary line are also terri- tonal and It is difficult to see hnw any waters between these two boundary lines can be claimed to be "high seas. " VALIDITY or LARGER LIMITS THAN THREE MILES. It may be said that the larger limits which have been referred to are special cases, which are exceptions to the general rrile. This IS not so. Quite recently on the Scottish coast a Norwegian steam fishmg vessel, the "Niobe," was seized when traw'ing Prince. — Territorial Waters 185 ! .* in the Moray Firth.* Captain Mortonsen. in command of her, was found guilty of operating in waters five miles from the shore, on the ground that the Firth had been set aside by the Scottish Fishery Board under the authority of the British Parlia- ment as an area in which trawling was forbidden. The offender, when found guilty, protested that five miles from land was "high seas," but the Appeal Court, in London, dismissed this protest on the ground that the British Parliament had assumed jurisdiction over the waters in question, and it was not for a Law Court to decide whether it had gone beyond its authority, merely because a three-mile limit had been defined in the North Sea Convention in 1S82, and Norway was a party to it. Doctor Bassett Moore, one of the most eminent and scholariy authorities on International Law, said that this final decision was in accordance with United States' policy, for the Courts follow the decision of those Depart- ments of the Government to which the assertion of its interests is confined, i. e., legislative and executive. It is an error, therefore, to claim, as has been very generally claimed, that a three-mile limit is universally recognized and admitted. A slight examination of the facts shows that it is by no means universally recognized. Uruguay, ten or twelve years ago, claimed jurisdiction five miles from shore, and only receded from her position when Great Britain strongly protested; but she still exercises domination over one-half of the river La Plata. The other half belongs to the Argentine Republic. The river is 135 miles wide at the mouth of the estuary, and as much as 50 miles wide over 100 miles from the open sea. In 187fl the Chief Justice of England decided that a German captain had been illegally convicted of having caused the death of a number of British subjects in a collision with his steamer, the "Franconia," inside the three-mile limit. He stated that the conviction was based on International Law, not on a British Parliamentary Statute. It is very remarkable that no three-mile limit had been authorized by statute in Britain until forty years ago (1878) and in that year Parliament in London passed an Act * The Moray Firth, 148 square miles in area, had been elosetl by the Scottish Fishery Board, but foreign trawlers persisted in fishing there, njamtaining that the prohibition did not affect them, as a large portion of the Firth is outside territorial limits. 186 American Fisheries Society to remove the uncertainty. By this action of the British House of Commons, jurisdiction was declared to extend, according to International Law, to three miles from the coast hne The Umted States had taken like definite action long before. Indeed It was no other than George Washington who enforced authority over waters extendmg to one marine league, or three geographical mile.<, from the coast of the United States, and he added that this did not fix the distance to which the United States might ulti- mately extend its authority. In conclusion, it is only necessary to point out (1) the three- mile limit has not been universally adopted or recognized* (2; Ancient wnters and modem writers who have been regarded as authonties have specified more extended limits. (3) Britain and the United States, though they have both specified three miles as the limit in various Conventions and Treaties, have them- selves claimed more, when occasion required, and have legally justified their claim. In Britain, until recently the three-mile limit had practically no legal force bect.use it had no statutory authorization. (4) Important legal institutions and Congresses have favored a greater limit than three miles. It is necessary only to refer to the International Law Association which took action at its annual meeting in 1895, the International Fisheries Conference, Bergen, 1898, the French International Law Institution, and other important bodies, all of which have urged that a greater limit than three miles should be adopted, and in many cases a ten-mile limit was ,:pecified. (5) For the object of fishery conservation a larger limit is very necessary. The spawning grounds for fish, and nurseries for the young, require to be pro- tected, and in a vast number of instances these are beyond the three-mile limits; while important industries such as the whale madcerel, halibut, and other fislieries, have been threatened with total extinction, and require closed areas or sanctuaries against the mtrusion of outsiders, so that when special reserves are established they can be effectively protected by the nation having ju risdiction, and a three-mile limit is usuaUy not enough. „„» 1™ 1""^ ^- °''*«° (?P- "*• P- 37) candidly admits that "there does eS.,1^^?l*° *" ^^ P"'™,' ™'^ °f international law, which may be "onsw! ered final, even m wEat refers to the marginal belt o^ muZ^tiZilll^^- Prince.— Territorial Waters 187 The great salmon fisheries both on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts require a larger limit than three miles, if they are to be safeguarded in the future. We know that on the Pacific coast the King or Quinnat salmon do not wander far from the rivers in which they spawn, probably twenty-five miles distance is the limit, but the great schools of sockeye salmon no doubt go further out, and descend into deep water to their feeding grounds. To protect these fish when approaching the estuaries of the most famous sahnon rivers, a larger limit than three miles is essential. There has always been the danger that Oriental nations might find it worth their while to send their fishermen across to the Pacific shores of the United States and Canada, and by the use of purse-seines, and other destructive implements, within five or ten miles of shore, destroy great masses of fish before they reach the estuaries or inshore waters, just as the French, Portuguese, and other European nations found it worth while to cross the Atlantic and exploit the cod and other fishing banks on our eastern Atlantic shores. The danger on the western coast is not imaginary, for fishing vessels from Asia have already visited American inshore grounds close to territorial limits. One such vessel, the Japanese halibut schooner, "Sunburst," was wrecked in the summer of 1908, while fishing close to Victoria, B. C. It is claimed that larger territorial limits would ward oflE many of the dangers, to which reference has been made, and would ensure that sahnon and other fish within ten or twelve miles from the coast would be free from the risk of reckless destruction by foreign fishermen. In the interest of the fisheries of most countries, a wider territorial jurisdiction is urgent, and would ultimately be beneficial even to other nations more distant who would gain by the pler.titude of fish that would ensue. In recent years there have been numerous respesentatiors in favor of a larger territorial area, and in 1893 one of the most prominent Parliamentary advocates of British fisheries protection and preservation, the late Lord Tweedmouth, strongly advocated a limit of six miles as desirable for adoption by maritime nations generally. He had been chairman of various fishery commissions in Britain, and was looked upon as the mouthpiece of fishing interests in the British House of Commons, and his emphatic opinion after long years of experience was, that the present limits 188 American Fisheries Society of three miles were altogether inadequate. FoUowinK the lead of this eminent man, that important and powerful association in Britain called "The National Sea Fisheries Protective Association," meetinR in Fishmongers Hall, London, on January Kith, 1,S04, passed a resolution which included the following: "That in view of the difficulties of making international fishery regulations, they are of opinion that the best method for effectively governing fishing operations, and, at the same time, for securing, so far as it may be found possible, the proper protection of spawning and immature fish, would be to throw the responsibility of these duties, so far as the waters immediately adjacent to the various countries are concerned, on those various countries: that, for the effective realization of this object, the present territorial limit of three miles is insufficient, and that for fishery purfmses alone this limit should be extended— provided such extension can be effected upon an international basis and with due regard to the rights and interests of all nations. " It may also be noted that Inspector W. E. Archer, one of the leading fishery authorities in Britain, laid great stress in some evidence he gave before the Sea Fisheries Commission in 1907, that the three-mile limit for fishery purposes was practically insignificant. Of special moment is the fact that at the commencement of the great war, in 1914, twenty-one American Republics, including Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Peru, Uruguay, etc., were moved to urge co-operation with the United States Government to extend the territorial marine limits, mainly to increase coast-wise trade between North and South America, but indirectly for the benefit of the sea-fishing industries also. Quite a large and representative body of men from these various republics arranged to confer with President Wilson upon this momentous subject. It has been widely felt that six mi'es was not a large enough limit, and the fishermen of Scotland twenty-five years ago urged upon the British Government that the territorial limits should be extended and the line fishermen, who formed the majority, specified a thirteen-mile limit as necessary, and demanded that within this limit no trawling should be permitted. The Govern- ment officials in London replied that the consent of foreign nations concerned would be required; but as we have seen this opinion was entirely baseless, as proved by the decision of the High Court I T Prince. — Territorial Waters ISO I of Appeal of England in the " Mortenscn case. " The well known Canadian HerrinR Commission, ISNO. which pulilishcd a sjilcndid report upon all phases of the industry, refer on p. 7!», to the |)roliibi- tion of trawling in the three-mile limit, and they say; "We consider trawling, esijecially within the tcrritoriallimits, to \>c exceedingly injurious to the herring fishery. It is established on undoubted authority in Britain and Ireland that trawling scares away the herring from the fishing grounds, drives them awa\' from the spawning grounds, and disturbs and destroys the spawn when deposited. The salmon, halibut, lobster, and flatfish fisheries generally, have been seriously injured, and in many cases destroyed, by the operations of the trawlers. We, therefore, consider that trawling and the use of all destructive seines and traps, calculated to disturb the herring in any way and to destroy large quantities of immature fish and spawn should be prohibited within the three-mile limit, and that efforts should be made by the Government to effect an international arrangement whereby the trawling on the high seas should be regulated and restrained when the herring schools are in close to the coasts so as not to drive them away from the fishing or spawning grounds, or disturb or destroy the spawn wh' ■ deposited on banks outside the terri- torial waters. " From a strictly scientific point of view the grounds stated by this Commission, for the action suggested, are not altogether well-founded, but it must be admitted that there is great force in the view that excessive fishing operations within short distances of the shore must injure all fisheries. The extension of the territorial limits would enable better supervision to be carried out, at greater distances from shore, and in 1915, the Canadian Government authorized by Order in Council a prohibition of trawling operations within a distance as great as twelve miles. Owing to war conditions, enforcement was post- poned. There is no reason, however, why such a special method of fishing as trawling only should be curtailed or controlled within that distance, but that all methods of fishing should be under wise regulation within a distance much greater than the present territorial limits off the shores referred to. Lastly, in order that some practical results may be possible, I have, as urged by some leading members of the American Fish- 19U American Fisheries Society erics Society, framed the following resolution.* which I would submit to the Society and ask for their valuable support. This draft resolution reads as follows: PKOPOSEO RESOttJItON. "The American Fisheries Society places itself on record u being in full agreement with L'Institut de Droit International, Paris, 1894; the International Law Association, London, 1896; The International Fisheries Conference, Bergen, 1898; and other important represenUtive bodies, which have urged the extension of the territorial limit in coastal waters, and have emphasized the fact that the three-mile limit populariy regarded as inter- nationally valid is entirely inadequate, and that in the interest of fishery conservation and protection, and in furtherance of inter- national amity, approves of a suggested larger territorial limit extending beyond the usually accepted three-mile limit on the coasts of the various maritime countries of the world. " ™.„i!,.?/ T°K °' ."» Socif -./, Dr. Prince was requested to frame tbis resolution to be printed in connection with his paper, in order that it may im^S^Sf.'t."'"'!-*"?? ^°J^ ""* '"^ mating. Members of the SocietV will please take notice that this resolution will come up for action at the commmg meeting at Louisville, Ky., Oct. 8 to 10, 1919.-Edito«.