eral. See also the two letters from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. to the Ministry of Defense, Naval Section, and to the Ministry of Justice, dated respectively March 25 and May 26, 1908: "The boundary begins at the extreme coastline at low tide." Moreover, given the configuration of our shore line, there will not be at points where the measurements from the land are to begin any appreciable difference between the figures at high tide and those at low tide.

It may be asked whether we should take into consideration any rock at all, whatever its distance from shore and place the boundary line of our territorial waters one league beyond it. The letters. patent lay down no restrictions, neither can an order of this nature— it does not attempt to trace the boundary line in all its details along the coast-undertake to give exact indications on this subje t.

It would seem, however, to be equitable to take into a count, in any event, rocks that are not more than two geographical leagues distant. If a circle with a one league radius be drawn around such a rock (the width fixed upon for the territorial sea), this cir le will touch a line drawn the same distance from the coast. It may also happen-and this is indeed the case with our country-that there are certain rocks strung out from shore and so closely connected therewith that the boundary line must manifestly be pla ed one league beyond the farthest out, as the letters patent provide.

If there is an isolated rock at a greater distance than two leagues from land, its importance must of course be determined according to the circumstances.

If it should be necessary to lay down in principle what rocks along the coast are to be considered as "the farthest out," the method most in conformity with the terms of the letters patent of 1812-which make the boundary line pass beyond the most distant islands and islets and do not even mention the coast line of the mainland-would be to consider as Norwegian the entire area of the sea between these rocks and the shore and to extend the boundary line of the territorial waters one league beyond the straight lines drawn from rock to rock. If the provision of the law gives any indication, it would seem to be that its intention is to consider the islands and islets as so many connecting points of the basic lines. In this way we obviate in general the necessity of drawing the boundary line in the shape of an arc beyond the rocks (or in the shape of semicircles around them with a one league radius), as well as of drawing a complete cir le around a particular rock which is given a parcel of territorial sea separate from the rest of the zone.

How far apart, however, should two of "the most distant" rocks be to admit of the drawing of such a connecting line, from which the boundary of the territorial waters shall be measured? Lines

should be drawn, at any rate, between rocks that are not more than two leagues apart; but it will be necessary to consider the particular circumstances in each instance.

We must pursue the same course when it is a question of determining the boundary line off the coast where the "skjærgaard” begins and where the coast assumes the character of a fjord at whose entrance there are rocks.

The various circumstances to be taken into consideration in each particular instance may be of a historical, an economic or a geographical nature; for example, a time-honored conception with regard to the boundary, and undisturbed possession of fisheries carried on by the population along the coast since time immemorial and necessary to its existence; the practical advantages of a line easy to ascertain on the spot; the natural boundaries of fishing banks.

The pilot law of May 26, 1899, which requires the payment of pilot fees upon entering when a vessel crosses for the first time the boundary line separating the open sea from the waters enclosed by the "skjærgaard" (§ 3), leaves it to the King to fix this boundary line (§4). Therefore, on February 4, 1900, a royal decree was promulgated, containing, among other things, provisions relating to the passage of this boundary all along the Norwegian coast. These provisions, even if they were enacted for a special purpose, may clearly in certain places refer to what are to be understood as waters enclosed by the "skærgaard" in the general meaning of the expression. (It is proper to remark here that as regards the fjords, when there is a continuous line of islets and rocks in front of their entrances, the provisions of the law do not, in any event, give any indication as to what are to be considered Norwegian interior waters.) The provisions are governed by the purpose for which they are promulgated; for example, in the case of the Varangerfjord the lines pass into the interior; they likewise pass into the interior all along the coast of the Bay of Loppehav in such a way. however, that a line is drawn outside of the rocks that are periodically above water, Østre Gaasene and Nordboen. At certain points along the coast the pilot boundaries also pass over submarine reefs.1

As regards the territorial sea off the prefecture of Romsdal, with its "skjærgaard" or group of islands and islets and its fjords, we have seen above that two decrees had been promulgated, one in 1869

1 The decree of March 16, 1910, on the rules for the prevention of collisions of vessels, etc., contains a certain number of special provisions for the "interior waters of Norway": according to $32 of the decree, we must understand by this expression "Norwegian ports, streams, canals and lakes, as well as all waters inside the line of the 'skjærgaard' fixed by the pilot law." The preceding decrees on the same subject contained the expression Norwegian waters inside of the skjærgaard" alongside of the words ports, etc., without any precise designation.

and the other in 1889; these may serve as an indication when it is a question of the boundary off other portions of our coast having the same character. These decrees make the basic lines pass between islands that are situated very far apart and at the very extremity of the "skjærgaard" (with the exception of certain unsubmerged rocks), and they take into consideration the special conditions of the place. In the ministerial statement which gave rise to the first of these decrees, the Department even indicates that it will issue the necessary instructions, so that the boundary line "as far as the Stordyp extends shall be considered as coinciding with the line drawn so as to follow the greatest depth of this hollow"; the Department supposes therefore that the boundary line need not in its practical application follow the geometric line at a distance of one league from the basic line, but that it may deviate somewhat therefrom where the natural conditions so require.

The importance of the precautionary measure mentioned above to avoid cutting through fishing banks was recently shown in a particular instance in the arbitration case with Sweden concerning the waters washing the Griseböer. It was a question, it is true, of dividing the boundary waters and not of drawing a line between territorial waters and the high sea; but it may be of interest to cite this case. The parties were in agreement that the passing of the line through important fishing grounds would entail serious inconveniences. This agreement of the parties contributed to causing the line to be drawn, by virtue of the judgment of October 23, 1909, between the Griseböer and the Skjöttegrunde and not cutting any other important fishing ground.

Moreover, there is not in international practice, so far as appears from international treaties or laws, any indication that we may make use of. The Norwegian "skjærgaard," which extends along the whole length of a broken coast rich in fjords, with groups of islands and islets so different in character, has not many counterparts, and the question of details in the method of measuring the boundary line of territorial waters-details such as those mentioned in this work— does not play so important a part in other countries as it does in our

own.

If incidents should arise which have to be settled according to our laws in force, we shall have-as we have endeavored to demonstrate above certain indications and principles, which could be gathered either from the interpretation of these laws or from practice and which might serve to indicate the minimum of what should be considered Norwegian territory outside of the "skjærgaard." But we could not know for certain the actual extent of this territory without express provisions for each specific place.

PORTUGAL

1787, December 9/20.—Treaty of commerce with Russia.1

ARTICLE 24. In accordance with the same principles, the two high contracting Parties engage, reciprocally, in case that one of them should be at war against any other Power whatsoever, never to attack the vessels of his enemies save at the range of a cannon from the shore of his ally.

1842, July 3.-Treaty with Great Britain for the suppression of traffic in slaves, in which cannon range is considered as the extent of the marginal sea.2

1885, October 2.—Convention with Spain regulating the exercise of fishing rights on the coasts of the two countries.3

II. The boundary line within which the general right of fishing is reserved exclusively to the fishermen subject to the respective jurisdictions of the two nations is fixed at 6 miles, reckoned from the lowwater mark at neap tides.

In bays whose opening does not exceed 10 miles the 6 miles will be reckoned from a straight line drawn from one point of the opening to the other.

The said miles are geographical miles of 60 to a degree of latitude. III. Each of the two States will have the right to make regulations for the exercise of fishing rights on their respective seacoasts for a distance of 6 miles therefrom, within which limit the fishermen of that nation only will be permitted to ply their trade.

The two States agree that the employment shall be prohibited of double boats, "muletas," or tackle of an injurious character within a distance of 12 miles, each State having the right to cause the detention of persons who violate this Regulation until the case against them is drawn up, with the necessity, however, of handing them over within a period of eight days to the competent authority of the neighboring Kingdom, in order that they may be subject to the penalties prescribed by the Laws and Regulations of their own country.

VI. The fishing boats of one of the two countries must not approach any point on the coast of the other to a distance less than the 6 miles specified in Article II, except under the following circumstances, which will be considered as of force majeure:.

1 Martens, Recueil de traités, 2d ed., vol. 4, p. 328.

2 See ante, p. 547.

3 Translation. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 77, p. 1182.

1893, March 27.-Treaty of commerce with Spain, recognizing six miles as the limit of exclusive fishery rights for the two countries.1

1909, October 26.-Fisheries law of Portugal.2

ARTICLE 1. Foreign vessels are prohibited from fishing in Portuguese territorial waters within the limit of three nautical miles measured from the line of extreme low water.

Sole §. As regards bays, the three-mile limit shall be observed in accordance with the principles of international law.

1866, November 28.—Decree of the Supreme Court of Prussia establishing the extent of the territorial sea at cannon range.*

The bordering States have only the power to take measures in the interest of the protection of navigation and commerce along the coasts. and it is from this point of view, only, that international law has admitted the necessary extension of the territorial sea out to the range of a cannon.

RUSSIA

1787, January 6/17.-Treaty of commerce with the Two Sicilies, establishing cannon range as the extent of territorial waters.5

1787, January 11.-Treaty with France, establishing the extent of territorial waters at cannon range.

1787, January 17.—Treaty with Naples, fixing cannon range as the limit of the neutral zone.

1787, December 9/20.-Treaty of commerce with Portugal establishing cannon range as the extent of the territorial sea.

1 See post, p. 626.

Translation. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 102, p. 788.

See also Germany.

Translation. For the French text, see Paul Godey, La mer côtière, p. 11, note 1; Goltdammer, Archives, vol. 15, p. 77.

See ante, p. 598.

See ante, p. 521.

See ante, p. 618.