If at present cannon carry to 12 or 15 miles, the territorial sea of modern adjacent States ought also to extend to 15 miles.

Page 43-An agreement between the Powers with respect to the limits of the territorial sea is a condition sine qua non of success in establishing measures of protection in the open sea for the preservation of the legitimate interests of the nations and the rights of their subjects.

It is desirable that this agreement be arrived at soon by reason of the great interests connected with maritime fishing, which States are obliged to defend in virtue of their own sovereignty, with the concurrence of other nations.

However, up to the time when this international agreement shall have become an accomplished fact, each State has the incontestable right of declaring, as its territorial sea, the waters which it dominates by batteries from the shore. In view of the necessity of defining the range of cannon, and in view of the exigencies of maritime navigation and international commerce, the adjacent State may limit this range of cannon to a distance of a number of miles fixed by itself. Instead of the limit of 3 marine miles, the adjacent State has the incontestable right of taking 10 miles or eyen more.

In our opinion the limit of 10 miles is more in accord with the mean range of modern cannon, and a more efficacious protection of the interests of the adjacent population which live upon maritime fishing.

VON MARTENS: Précis du Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe. Vergé's second edition. Paris, 1864.

Volume 1, § 40, page 141.—What has been said about rivers and lakes (that they are the property of the State) is equally applicable to straits and gulfs; above all, to those which do not exceed the ordinary width of rivers or the double range of cannon.

Likewise, a nation may assume an exclusive right over those neighboring portions of the sea (mare proximum) susceptible of control from the shore. Different opinions have been expressed upon the distance to which the rights of the master of the shore extend. All nations of Europe to-day agree that the rule is that straits, gulfs, and the adjacent sea belong to the owner of the shore, at least as far as the range of a cannon placed on the shore. A number of treaties have adopted the more extended principle of 3 leagues.1

1 Vergé adds the following note to this section: We must distinguish between the open sea and the littoral sea, between the seas open to all and those included within the territory of one or several States. The sea can not become the object of exclusive property,

$ 41, page 144-Adjacent seas.-Can a nation acquire an exclusive right over rivers, straits, gulfs too wide to be covered by a cannon shot fired from the shore, or over parts of an adjacent sea which exceed the range of cannon or even the distance of 3 miles? No one doubts that such an exclusive right could be acquired against an individual State which consents to recognize it. However, it seems that this consent is not an essential requisite for such an acquisition, provided the master of the shore is in a position to maintain it by the aid of the local police or by a fleet, and that the security of his territorial possessions offers a justificatory reason for the exclusion of foreign States. If such portions of the sea are susceptible of domination, it is a question of fact to determine which of these straits, gulfs, or adjacent seas, situated in Europe, are free from domination, which are dominated and which are the object of dispute.

$42.-We generally recognize as free: First, the Straits of Gibralter beyond the cannon shot; second, the Sea of Spain, the Aquitaine Sea, the North Sea, the White Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea. We do not contest the exclusive right of Great Britain over St. Georges Channel; of the King of Denmark over the Great and Little Belt and the Sound; of the Turks over the Archipelago, the Sea of Marmora, and the straits which lead to the Black Sea; of the King of Naples over the Strait of Messina; of Holland over the Zuyder Zee; and of Sweden over the Gulf of Finland.

But the following rights of countries over certain portions of sea have been vigorously and often contested: Of the British Empire to property over the four seas which wash that island, particularly the British Channel and the Pas-de-Calais; the claim of Venice to the Adriatic Sea; the claim of Genoa to the Gulf of Genoa. Contests over the empire of the Baltic Sea have likewise been raised between the States which border it and between foreign nations and Denmark, which possesses the key to the sea. She still believes herself authorized to close the sea against hostilities in time of war.

partly because, not being capable of occupation, nobody can oppose its use. The territorial sea may become the property of a State because its possession may be continuous as if it were a river, lake, or part of the continental territory. All treaties, also, recognize that nations in the interest of navigation, fishing, and defence have the right of establishing their laws in the adjacent territorial seas, just as all publicists agree in ascribing property in the territorial seas to the adjacent State. But the extent of this privileged portion of the sea has long been debated. Older authors carry the limits of the maritime territory very far, some to sixty, others to a hundred miles.

Other authors consider that the extent of the territorial sea should not be regulated uniformly, but ought to be proportioned to the importance of the adjacent State. In the midst of these contradictory opinions we must, to follow Hautefeuille, recur to the causes which have induced the exception to the liberty of the seas on the part of these adjacent waters and which have placed them under the domain of the adjacent State. [These causes are as mentioned in the extract made from Hautefeuille's work.]

The maritime domain is not measured from every point of the shore. An imaginary line is drawn from headland to headland, which is taken as the point of departure for the cannon shot. This is the case with small bays, gulfs of wide extent being assimilated to

the open sea.

There are likewise outside of Europe a multitude of contests relative to adjacent seas of European possessions in Africa, India, and America. A part only have been regulated by treaty.1

§ 153, page 399.-The property and empire of the master of the shore extend in general over all those parts of the rivers, lakes, gulfs, straits, or neighboring seas which are within the range of a cannon placed on the shore, and the rights resulting therefrom, generally designated under the collective name of droit littoral (strandrecht), include the following: First, the exclusive right of taking fish, coral, pearls, etc., and the property which the sea throws on the shore; second, the exclusive right of navigation, passage, entrance, and sojourn in the roadsteads and ports, subject to the exceptions which result from the liberty of commerce recognized in Europe to-day by virtue of legislation, treaties, or usage; third, the right of collecting customs and establishing tolls for sojourn in ports and roadsteads, for the expenses incurred in securing the safety of vessels, such as for lighthouses, fortifications, coast guards, etc.; fourth, the right of exercising all rights of sovereignty comprised under the collective name of jurisdiction.

MOLLOY: De Jure Maritimo et Navali. London, 1744.

Book I, chapter 5, page 75.—1. After the writings of the illustrious Selden, certainly 'tis impossible to find any prince or republic or

1 Vergé makes the following comment upon this section:

It is with reason that Pinheiro-Ferreiro reproaches our author with confusing objects that are distinct. The Sound, the Strait of Messina, and the Straits which connect the Black Sea and the Mediterranean can not be assimilated to St. Georges Channel, the Zuyder Zee, and even to the Gulf of Finland. The people situated on the shore of the former could not dispute its use to other nations. They can not be injured by the enjoyment of its use by others. On the contrary, the free navigation of these straits may be very profitable for them. But the question here is of straits or gulfs whose free use could not be accorded to foreign nations without harming the riparian peoples, which have the right to exclude foreigners who refuse to fulfill the conditions under which consent to receive them is extended. It is evident, in fact, according to the principles set forth in the preceding paragraphs that all gulfs and straits can not belong throughout all their extent to the territorial sea of the State whose coasts they wash. For gulfs and straits of wide extent, the sovereignty of the State is limited by the range of cannon shot. Beyond this these gulfs and straits are assimilated to the high seas and their use belongs to all nations. According to de Cussy (Phases, vol. 1, p. 97), we may mention the following as being considered belonging to the territorial sea subject to the laws and surveillance of the adjacent States. The Sea of Azorf and the Sea of Marmora, the Zuyder Zee and the Dollart, the Gulfs of Bothnia and Finland, the Gulf of St. Lawrence in America, a part of the Gulf of Mexico within the respective limits fixed by the nations whose territory is bordered by that gulf, the tail of the Adriatic Sea, and a number of other European gulfs and straits. Straits or passages of sea are considered as free sea in which a ship passing through the center is beyond the range of cannon. Such are the Straits of Gibraltar, the English Channel, the Mozambique, Bering, Malacca, Davis, etc., straits, even the Sound, in spite of the navigation dues formerly established by Denmark.

Our author mentions the ancient claims of Great Britain, Venice, and Genoa to property in the seas which border or surround them. Not only have these claims been contested, but time has brought justice and the principle of the entire liberty of the seas as existing for the profit of all nations is daily making progress.

single person imbued with reason or sense that doubts the dominion of the British Sea to be entirely subject to that imperial diadem. Page 77.-4. And as the sea is capable of protection and government, so is the same no less than the land subject to be divided amongst men, and appropriated to cities and potentates, which long since was ordained of God as a thing most natural.

NAVAL WAR COLLEGE (UNITED STATES).1

[The United States Naval War College at Newport, R. I., was established October 6, 1884, under General Order No. 325 of the Secretary of the Navy. Its purpose is to throw open to officers of mature years the most comprehensive course possible of professional study. It is therefore a place for the discussion of definite problems relative to naval campaigns, which discussion is participated in by officers of all ranks. Through lectures delivered by eminent specialists, instruction is given in tactics, strategy, logistics, political history, and international law. Discussions on the latter subject are based upon material furnished by naval officers and international lawyers, and the conclusions reached through this collaboration are consequently of great value and weight.]

MARGINAL SEA AND OTHER WATERS.

What regulations should be made in regard to the use in time of war of the marginal sea?

Regulations.

1. Acts of war are prohibited in neutral waters and in waters neutralized by convention.

2. "Belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of neutral powers and to abstain in neutral waters from all acts which would constitute, on the part of the neutral powers, which knowingly permitted them, a nonfulfillment of their neutrality."

3. The area of maritime war:

(a) The sea outside of neutral jurisdiction.

(b) Gulfs, bays, roadsteads, ports, and other waters of the bellig

erents.

4. Limitations:

(a) Marginal sea.-The jurisdiction of an adjacent State over the marginal sea extends to 6 miles (60 to a degree of latitude) from the low-water mark.

(b) Roadsteads.-The jurisdiction over roadsteads is the same as over the sea.

(c) Gulfs and bays.-The jurisdiction of an adjacent State over the sea extends outward 6 miles from a line drawn between the oppo

1 International Law Topics and Discussions, 1913 (Washington, 1914), pp. 11, 33. 2 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1885, vol. 1, p. 103.

site shores of the entrance to the waters of gulfs or bays where the distance first narrows to 12 miles.

(d) Straits.-(1) Straits not more than 12 miles in width are under the jurisdiction of the adjacent States. (2) Innocent passage through straits connecting open seas is permitted.

The admission of the claim of the right to exercise jurisdiction over the marginal sea would carry the corresponding obligation to exercise this jurisdiction. There would therefore be an increase in the extent of right together with that of duty.

The proposed assumption of a jurisdiction by the United States to the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean would involve obligations which the Government would probably be reluctant to assume. The claims to 100 miles, 60 miles, 20 miles, etc., would likewise involve large obligations. It should therefore be emphasized that the possession of jurisdiction, if granted, carries obligations as well as rights.

The extension of jurisdiction in the marginal seas is a corresponding reduction of the area which has formerly been considered as the high seas, an area generally recognized by all the States of the world as being outside the limits of possible appropriation or exclusive jurisdiction. Any change from the 3-mile limit which may be regarded as properly accepted should therefore be by general agreement of the maritime States.

The rights and duties of belligerents and neutrals would be materially modified by such a change.

The exercise of jurisdiction over area beyond the 3-mile limit has been generally admitted for purpose of enforcement of revenue laws and granted by convention for fishing and other purposes. There would accordingly be little difficulty in introducing more uniformity in these practices. Several States have signified willingness to make changes in their domestic regulations.

NUGER: Des Droits de l'État sur la Mer Territoriale. Paris, 1887.

Page 176.-We find in old treaties the tendency to carry far out the limits of the "maritime territory "-to use an expression common at that time-owing to the terror inspired at that time by pirates and maritime excursions without declaration of war. Thus Cussy says that "several treaties have formerly established the

1

1 Cussy, Phases et causes célèbres du droit maritime des nations, 1856, vol. i, p. 92.