In the extreme and positive practice early followed by Great Britain can be found precedents for the claims to most absolute control of later days. King Edgar in 964 seems to have assumed the title not merely of King of the land but of the circumjacent seas. Later, acts of Parliament were passed assuming sovereignty over the neighboring seas. The formula used by the English kings usually implied that while they assumed the dominion, they proposed to exercise the authority and defend the seas.

In the English seas, as elsewhere, the exercise of protection was not a gratuitous function of the state. In some seas tolls had been collected for protecting the foreign vessels from pirates, etc. The requirement of a salute of the flag was common in the English seas. The sovereignty of the English seas was formally recognized to reside in the English crown by a memorial presented by the representatives of merchants of several states in the early part of the fourteenth century. These British claims and the exercise of control continued. Selden, in his book "Mare Clausum " (1635), gave expression to the most extreme forms of these claims.

What had been done by England was done by many other states, so that the movement of vessels upon the seas and in the waters near the coasts of many countries was often fraught with impediments and inconveniences. The extreme claims to control by Spain and by Portugal in the period of the sixteenth century to all the neighboring waters to 100 miles' limit and even beyond if the waters were not under another sovereignty, and some claims to the whole Atlantic Ocean within certain lines, seem to have brought a reaction. From the beginning of the seventeenth century, particularly from the issue of Grotius's "Mare Liberum" in 1609, the doctrine of limited control gained in influence. That this control should be effective was the principle advocated by Bynkershoek in 1702 in his "De Dominio Maris." That effective control could be maintained to a limit of cannon shot from shore appealed to the minds of men as reasonable, and this is the form which was embodied in many treaties,

LATER IDEAS ON MARGINAL SEA.

15

and this doctrine became the basis of modern practice. The varying methods which had been resorted to in earlier times gradually assumed a degree of uniformity under the spread of the doctrine of Bynkershoek that the land dominion ended with the range of arms, " potestas terrae finitur ubi finitur armorum vis." The doctrine of the Roman law freedom of the sea was revived and amplified and brought to the support of the modern doctrine of the exercise of control.

Later ideas. The ideas of the right to exercise jurisdiction within the marginal sea became more definite as the limits of this area became better established. The questions most frequently arising related to fishing. It has gradually come to be recognized that in absence of treaties the exclusive right to regulate fishing in marginal seas is in the adjacent state and also that a state or states can make regulations for their own nationals beyond the marginal limits. The basis of later ideas changed somewhat, and it was considered that the marginal sea should be under jurisdiction of the adjacent state, not merely because a shot could reach across the area, but because such jurisdiction was necessary for the well-being of the state, and even for its safe and convenient existence, and that the exercise of such jurisdiction within a limited area would not involve any disadvantage to other states which would be commensurate with the advantage to the adjacent state.

The exercise of jurisdiction within this marginal area has now come to cover in time of peace the execution of municipal laws in regard to revenue, sanitary and fishery regulations in an exclusive manner, and the execution of somewhat less rigorous regulations in regard to navigation and criminal offenses, unless the criminal act takes effect outside the vessel. In time of war there is still much difference in the practice of states. Examples of varying domestic regulations may be found in the legislation of many states. During the eighteenth century maritime jurisdiction received much attention.

Great Britain.-A statute of 9 George II, c. 35 (1736), assumes jurisdiction over any person or persons who

"shall be lurking, waiting, or loitering within 5 miles from the seacoast or from any navigable river" and suspected of intended violation of the revenue laws. (Sec. 18.) In the same act jurisdiction is assumed "within 2 leagues of the shore" (sec. 22) and transshipment of goods without payment of duties is prohibited "within the distance of 4 leagues from any of the coasts of this kingdom." The regulation relating to the jurisdiction over 2 leagues was in 1763, by a statute of 4 Geo. III, Cap. 15, extended to the American colonies.

Early opinion in United States.-A letter of Jefferson, Secretary of State, to the British minister, of November 8, 1793, showed the attitude of the Government at that time:

SIR: The President of the United States, thinking that, before it shall be finally decided to what distance from our seashores the territorial protection of the United States shall be exercised, it will be proper to enter into friendly conferences and explanations with the powers chiefly interested in the navigation of the seas on our coasts, and relying that convenient occasions may be taken for these hereafter, finds it necessary in the meantime to fix provisionally on some distance for the present government of these questions. You are sensible that very different opinions and claims have been heretofore advanced on this subject. The greatest distance to which any respectable assent among nations has been at any time given has been the extent of the human sight. estimated at upward of 20 miles, and the smallest distance, I believe, claimed by any nation whatever is the utmost range of a cannon ball, usually stated at a sea league. Some intermediate distances have also been insisted on, and that of three sea leagues. has some authority in its favor. The character of our coast. remarkable in considerable parts of it for admitting no vessels of size to pass near the shores, would entitle us, in reason, to as broad a margin of protected navigation as any nation whatever. Reserving, however, the ultimate extent of this for future deliberation, the President gives instructions to the officers acting under his authority to consider those heretofore given them as restrained for the present to the distance of one sea league, or three geographical miles, from the seashores. This distance can admit of no opposition, as it is recognized by treaties between some of the powers with whom we are connected in commerce and navigation and is as little, or less, than is claimed by any of them on their own coasts.

EARLY OPINION IN UNITED STATES.

17.

The law of June 5, 1794, the Neutrality Act, declares: SEC. 6. And be it further enacted and declared, That the district courts shall take cognizance of complaints by whomsoever instituted in cases of capture made within the waters of the United States or within a marine league of the coasts or shores thereof.

It is possible that the limits of the marginal sea may be extended by pushing out from land the line from which the marine league is to be measured. Such a method is mentioned in a letter of President Jefferson to the Secretary of the Treasury in 1804.

DEAR SIR: As we shall have to lay before Congress the proceedings of the British vessels at New York, it will be necessary for us to say to them with certainty which specific aggressions were committed within the common law, which within the admiralty jurisdiction, and which on the high seas. The rule of the common law is that wherever you can see from land to land all the water within the line of sight is in the body of the adjacent country and within common-law jurisdiction. Thus, if in this curvature ab, you can see from a to b, all the water within the line of sight is within common-law jurisdiction, and a murder committed at c is to be tried as at common law. Our coast is generally visible, I believe, by the time you get within about 25 miles. I suppose that at New York you must be some miles out of the Hook before the opposite shores recede 25 miles from each other. The 3 miles of maritime jurisdiction is always to be counted from this line of sight.

The United States has made other extreme claims at various times. The Gulf Stream has seemed to some the natural and proper limit of maritime jurisdiction. John Quincy Adams relates in his Memoirs that in 1805, on November 30, he paid a visit to President Jefferson.

The President mentioned a late act of hostility committed by a French privateer near Charleston, S. C., and said that we ought to assume as a principle that the neutrality of our territory should extend to the Gulf Stream, which was a natural boundary, and within which we ought not to suffer any hostility to be committed. M. Gaillard observed that on a former occasion, in Mr. Jefferson's correspondence with Genet, and by an act of Congress at that period, we had seemed only to claim the usual distance of 3 miles from the coast; but the President replied that he had then assumed that principle because Genet by his intemperance forced us to fix on some point, and we were not then prepared to assert the claim of jurisdiction to the extent

19148-14--2

we are in reason entitled to; but he had then taken care expressly to reserve the subject for future consideration, with a view to this same doctrine for which he now contends. I observed that it might be well, before we ventured to assume a claim so broad, to wait for a time when we should have a force competent to maintain it. But in the meantime, he said, it was advisable to squint at it, and to accustom the nations of Europe to the idea that we should claim it in future. (Memoirs, J. Q. Adams, p. 375.)

Bering Sea. After the acquisition of Alaska by purchase from Russia in 1867 the United States came into possession, according to the terms of the convention with the Czar, of "all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America. and in the adjacent islands" within the specified limits of the Russo-British treaty of February 28/16, 1825. Under this convention the United States advanced some of the claims that Russia had previously advanced. In 1890 Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, maintained that the irregular taking of seals in the Bering Sea was contra bonos mores, and that the United States had jurisdiction sufficient to prevent such acts. Great Britain maintained that fur seals in the high seas were res nullius. The matter of jurisdiction of the United States in Bering Sea was referred in 1892 to a tribunal of arbitration. This tribunal decided that the United States had no exclusive jurisdiction outside the ordinary 3-mile limit.

Revenue purposes.-The act of March 2, 1797, provided that the United States would assume jurisdiction for revenue purposes 4 leagues from the coast.

SEC. 2760. The officers of the revenue cutters shall respectively be deemed officers of the customs and shall be subject to the direction of such collectors of the revenue or other officers thereof, as from time to time shall be designated for that purpose. They shall go on board all vessels which arrive within the United States or within 4 leagues of the coast thereof, if bound for the United States, and search and examine the same, and every part thereof, and shall demand, receive, and certify the manifests required to be on board certain vessels, shall affix and put proper fastenings on the hatches and other communications with the hold of any vessel, and shall remain on board such vessels until they arrive at the port or place of their destination.