AMERICAN TREATY PROVISIONS.

19

This practice for the enforcement of revenue laws seems to meet with little objection, and is also observed by other states.

American treaty provisions.—In the treaty between the United States and Great Britain in 1794, Article XXV, it is provided that

Neither of the said parties shall permit the ships or goods belonging to the subjects or citizens of the other to be taken within cannon shot of the coast, nor in any of the bays, ports, or rivers of their territories, by ships of war or others having commission from any prince, republic, or state whatever. But in case it should so happen, the party whose territorial rights shall thus have been violated shall use his utmost endeavors to obtain from the offending party full and ample satisfaction for the vessels so taken, whether the same be vessels of war or merchant vessels.

This article expired in 1807.

The treaty of Gaudalupe-Hidalgo of 1848 between the United States and Mexico states:

ART. V. The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, 3 leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande.

This portion of the treaty was reaffirmed in the Gadsden treaty of 1853. To a complaint of the British minister in regard to this clause in 1848, Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, replied:

I have had the honor to receive your note of the 30th April last objecting, on behalf of the British Government, to that clause in the fifth article of the late treaty between Mexico and the United States by which it is declared that "the boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico 3 leagues from land" instead of 1 league from land, which you observe is acknowledged by international law and practice as the extent of territorial jurisdiction over the sea that washes the coasts of states."

In answer I have to state that the stipulation in the treaty can only affect the rights of Mexico and the United Sates. If for their mutual convenience it has been deemed proper to enter into such an arrangement, third parties can have no just cause of complaint. The Government of the United States never intended by this stipulation to question the rights which Great Britain or any other power may possess under the law of nations. (1 Moore, Digest Int. Law, p. 730.)

Opinions. Pradier-Fodéré, summing up various doctrines, says:

La prolongation de la souveraineté et de la jurisdiction de l'etat sur la portion de mer qui, touchant immédiatement ses côtes, forme en quelque sorte la ligne défensive de son territoire et peut être considérée comme une continuation de sa frontière, est fondée sur le droit de l'etat d'assurer sa sécurité et la protection des intérêts commerciaux et fiscaux du pays. (Cours de Droit Int. Pub. II, ch. 5.)

Wheaton, speaking of the "marine league, or as far as a cannon shot will reach from the shore," says:

Within these limits its (the state's) rights of property and territorial jurisdiction are absolute, and exclude those of every other nation. (International Law, Pt. II, sec. 177.)

British territorial waters jurisdiction act of 1878 says:

Any part of the open sea within 1 marine league of the coast measured from low-water mark shall be deemed to be open sea within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions.

The British Manual of Naval Prize Law, prepared by Prof. Holland and issued in 1888, declares, in regard to war powers, that

2. These powers may be exercised in any waters except the territorial waters of a neutral state. The territorial waters of a state are those within 3 miles from low-water mark of any part of the territory of that state, or forming bays within such territory; at any rate, in the case of bays the entrance to which is not more than 6 miles wide.

Hautefeuille shows that the early publicists fixed varying limits to maritime domain. Casaregis gives 100 miles; Baldus and others, 60 miles; Loccenius, two days' journey; many treaties indicate 2 leagues; some writers think the extent and power of the state should determine. (I Droits et Devoirs de Nations Neutres, Titre I, chap. 3, sec. 1.) He finally concludes: "La plus grande portée du cannon monté à terre est donc réellement la limite de la mer territoriale." (Ibid.) He argues for this, as many since have argued, that this area, being within range of cannon, is under effective control of the adjacent state and should belong to that state.

BELLIGERENT AND NEUTRAL WATERS.

21

The proposition that hostilities in time of war be restricted to the area within the jurisdiction of the two belligerents, and that the high seas be free from conflict, has been made. Neutral and belligerent commerce would under this plan be exempt on the high sea and belligerent war vessels would be liable only in belligerent waters. Under such a regulation it would seem necessary to extend the jurisdiction in the marginal sea in order to permit hostilities with the long-range guns of the present day.

It should be said of all declarations by states, or by rulers fixing or claiming maritime jurisdiction of an exceptional character or to an exceptional extent, that such declarations do not create rights as against other states. The citizens of the states making the declarations may be under obligations to observe their provisions, but the rights appertaining to the citizens of other states by the law of nations are not abridged by domestic acts of adjacent states.

Waters of belligerents.—In time of war the marginal sea or other waters may be within the jurisdiction of a belligerent or within the jurisdiction of a neutral. The marginal seas or other waters within the jurisdiction of the belligerent, unless exempt by special treaty agreement, are within the legitimate area of hostilities.

Neutral waters.-The neutral has the right of jurisdiction of waters which appertain to neutral territory. In early times the belligerent paid little attention to neutral claims. From the days of the armed neutrality of 1780 neutral rights have gradually received more consideration. For a considerable period the obligation rested upon the neutral to protect its neutrality. The authorities upon international law enumerated degrees and kinds of neutrality, and the belligerents took advantage of any special privileges which would be of service to them. Treaties were often made in times of peace which would give to one state special privileges not enjoyed by other states in time of war. Later even the idea of impartiality

was considered as insufficient evidence of a spirit of neutrality because the operation of impartial rules might easily be favorable to one state while unfavorable to another; e. g., the grant of unlimited loans to each belligerent might be of great service to a belligerent which had no resources, and of no service to a belligerent which had abundant resources.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, particularly after the Alabama award, the doctrine of neutrality became more and more defined, and the idea that a neutral should refrain from all connection with the hostilities became general. Certain burdens were placed on the neutral by the expansion of the " due-diligence" clause. The idea that there were certain duties of abstention, prevention, toleration, and regulation was gradually recognized. as in state loans, use of territory as base, visit and search, sojourn of vessels in neutral ports, etc.

National regulations and claims.-The regulations enacted by domestic legislation show considerable variation, and the claims are sometimes even more divergent.

Austria-Hungary. The Austro-Hungarian regulations seem generally to recognize a cannon shot and a marine league as interchangeable expressions, but have special regulations extending revenue jurisdiction to 12 miles, and special regulations for fisheries and in time of

war.

Belgium.-The Belgian regulations of 1901 contain very detailed and specific provisions in regard to the use of territorial waters. These regulations provided for the duration of sojourn of foreign ships of war even in time of peace. In time of war the regulations are very stringent; e. g., the commander of any belligerent vessel may be invited "to furnish accurate information touching the flag, the name, the tonnage, the engine power, the crew of his vessel, her armament, the port of departure, the destination, as well as other information necessary to determine, if need be, the repairs or supplies of provisions and coal that may be necessary." (Art. XII.)

NATIONAL REGULATIONS AND CLAIMS.

23

Brazil. The regulations in regard to the use of Brazilian waters, issued at the time of the Spanish-American war in 1898, were definite in form, though not describing exactly what area is included in territorial waters.

XX. Neither of the belligerents may take prizes in the territorial waters of Brazil, place themselves in ambuscade in the ports or anchorages, islands, or capes situated in those waters to watch for hostile ships coming in or going out; try to get information in regard to those which are expected, or are to go out; or, finally, to make sail to chase a hostile ship sighted or signaled.

All necessary means, including force, will be employed to prevent prize taking in territorial waters.

XXI. If prizes brought to the ports of the Republic shall have been taken in territorial waters, the things coming out of them shall be taken possession of by the competent authorities, in order to restore them to their lawful owners, the sale of such things being always taken and considered as void.

XXII. Ships which shall try to violate neutrality shall be immediately warned to leave the maritime jurisdiction of Brazil, and nothing shall be furnished them.

The belligerent who shall infringe the requirements of this circular shall be no more admitted into the ports of Brazil.

France. The Instructions issued by France on December 19, 1912, provide:

ARTICLE V. Respect des droits des États neutres.-22. Vous vous conformerez strictement aux interdictions imposées aux belligérants par la Convention XIII de La Haye, du 18 octobre 1907, concernant les droits et devoirs des Puissances neutres en cas de guerre maritime.

23. Pour l'application de cette Convention, vous considérerez les eaux territoriales comme ne s'étendant jamais à moins de trois milles des côtes, des îles ou des bancs découvrant qui en dépendent, à compter de la laisse de basse mer, et jamais au delà de la portée de canon.

Vous trouverez dans l'annexe II le tableau des Puissances qui. soit dans un texte légal ou réglementaire, soit dans une déclaration de neutralité. ont fixé la limite de leurs eaux territoriales, quant au droit de la guerre, à une distance de la côte supérieure à trois milles.

Vous respecterez toute limite de cette nature qui se trouverait ainsi régulièrement fixée avant l'ouverture des hostilités. (See Appendix.)