Summary.-A review of opinions, practice, treaties, and decisions shows that for fishing and neutrality the 3-mile limit has been generally recognized. For revenue, sanitary, and certain police purposes a wider jurisdiction has been admitted. Certain states in early times claimed very wide sovereignty over the sea. Some states at present claim more than 3 miles as the range of their jurisdiction. The present tendency as shown in international conferences is to extend the limits of maritime jurisdiction. Many states have shown a tendency to adopt 6 miles as the limit of maritime jurisdiction. Many treaties still exist which provide that the range of cannon shot determines the limit. It would seem, therefore, that indefiniteness has been and is common in the fixing of the limits of the jurisdiction of marginal seas. A definite limit is particularly to be desired. The development of guns and their increased and increasing range makes the doctrine of the limit of cannon shot uncertain. An uncertain and varying standard of measurement must lead to misunderstandings and often produce difficulties which should be avoided. Admittedly the present range of cannon shot would be an extreme limit of claim of jurisdiction. The 3-mile limit would be a most conservative claim. Many states have under differing conditions supported a claim to a limit between these. Such a limit should be within reasonable control of the adjacent state and should not be an undue impairment of the acknowledged freedom of the seas. It should be a limit which has received a reasonable support. Such requirements seem to be met in the following provisions:

Conclusion.-a (1) The jurisdiction over the marginal sea extends to 6 miles (60 to a degree of latitude). (2) The adjacent state has the right to exercise such jurisdiction over the marginal sea as is necessary for its wellbeing and for the maintenance of its obligations. (3) "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 non fulfillment of their neutrality."

Gulfs and bays.-Geographically a gulf is sometimes defined as a large bay, and a bay is defined as an expanse of water between two headlands. The headlands may be relatively near, and the definition is clear; but headlands may be very remote, and questions as to the nature of the expanse may arise. The Gulf of Mexico, the Bay of Biscay, the Gulf of Guinea, the Bay of Bengal, show the possible range of the terminology. Such areas as these may in most respects at the present time be treated. in the same manner as open seas.

There are, however, smaller gulfs and bays as to the jurisdiction of which there are controversies. When the mouth of the gulf or bay is not more than 6 miles wide, the jurisdiction is admittedly within the adjacent state or states. If one state is sovereign over all the coast of such a bay, its jurisdiction is exclusive.

In the North Atlantic fisheries arbitration the British contention was that the word "bays" in the treaty of 1818 meant" all those waters which, at the time, everyone knew as bays," while the United States maintained that it was confined "to coast indentations whose headlands are not more than 6 miles apart."

The United States has, however, maintained a wider limit for gulfs, from time to time, since the founding of the Republic. In 1793 an opinion of the Attorney General, in regard to the capture of the British ship Grange by the French frigate L'Embuscade, claimed "that the Grange was arrested in the Delaware, within the capes, before she had reached the sea," and that "to attack an enemy in a neutral territory is absolutely unlawful." The question then arises as to whether the attack within the Capes Henlopen and May was within neutral jurisdiction, and the question of jurisdiction on the sea was by specific statement excluded. In support of the claim that the bay was within the jurisdiction of the United States, the Attorney General, Edmund Randolph, further says of Delaware Bay:

It communicates with no foreign dominion; no foreign nation has ever before exacted a community of right in it, as if it were a main sea; under the former and present Governments the exclusive jurisdiction has been asserted; by the very first collection law of the United States, passed in 1789, the county of Cape May, which includes Cape May itself and all the waters thereof, theretofore within the jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey, are comprehended in the district of Bridgetown; the whole of the State of Delaware, reaching to Cape Henlopen, is made one district. Nay, unless these positions can be maintained, the Bay of Chesapeake, which, in the same law, is so fully assumed to be within the United States, and which, for the length of the Virginia territory, is subject to the process of several counties to any extent, will become a rendezvous to all the world, without any possible control from the United States. Nor will the evil stop here. It will require but another short link in the process of reasoning to disappropriate the mouths of some of our most important rivers.

Such a statement implies that neutral jurisdiction may be claimed in bays where the headlands are more than 6 miles apart. The demand for the restoration of the ship Grange was granted by France, thus giving a provisional recognition of the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States in the Delaware Bay.

A somewhat more definite provision in regard to the method of measurement of the line of jurisdiction was proposed in a letter of Secretary of State Madison, May 17, 1800, to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, who were representing the United States in London. Madison suggested that an article be negotiated as follows:

It is agreed that all armed vessels belonging to either of the parties engaged in war, shall be effectually restrained by positive orders, and penal provisions, from seizing, searching, or otherwise interrupting or disturbing vessels to whomsoever belonging, whether outward or inward bound, within the harbours or the chambers formed by headlands, or anywhere at sea, within the distance of four leagues from the shore, or from a right line from one headland to another; it is further agreed, that, by like orders and provisions, all armed vessels shall be effectually restrained by the party to which they respectively belong, from stationing themselves, or from roving or hovering so near the entry of any of the harbours or coasts of the other, as that merchantmen shall apprehend their passage to be unsafe, or in danger of being set upon and surprised; and that in all cases where death shall be

HEADLAND DOCTRINE.

37

occasioned by any proceeding contrary to these stipulations, and the offender cannot conveniently be brought to trial and punishment under the laws of the party offended, he shall, on demand made within months, be delivered up for that purpose.

If the distance of four leagues cannot be obtained, any distance not less than one sea league may be substituted in the article. It will occur to you that the stipulation against the roving and hovering of armed ships on our coasts so as to endanger or alarm trading vessels, will acquire importance as the space entitled to immunity shall be narrowed.

The discussion in regard to this matter led to the drawing up of a convention which named 5 marine miles as the limit of maritime jurisdiction, but this convention was never ratified.

There was a long period of discussion over what constituted a bay, particularly in the claims as to fishing rights.

Headland doctrine.-The Netherlands declared in the neutrality proclamation during the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5 for the 10-mile limit of bays:

ART. VIII. Under the territory of the Kingdom is also included the seacoast to within a distance of 3 nautical miles of 60 degrees latitude at low-water mark. In regard to bays, that distance of 3 nautical miles shall be measured from a straight line athwart the bay as close as possible to the entrance at the first point at which the entrance to the bay exceeds 10 miles of 60 degrees latitude. (Foreign Relations U. S., 1904, p. 27.)

North Atlantic coast fisheries arbitration, 1909.-Question 5, submitted to arbitration at The Hague in the contention between the United States and Great Britain in regard to the North Atlantic coast fisheries under the treaty of 1818, raised the following point:

From where must be measured the "three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours" referred to in the said article?

The British contention in regard to bays was summarized in the British case, as follows, in a statement as to "Rights over inclosed waters: "

It is also undoubted law that a state can exercise sovereignty over certain portions of the sea inclosed within its territory by headlands or promontories.

But different considerations apply in the case of inclosed waters from those which affect the open sea. The possession of headlands gives a greater power of control over waters contained within them than there can be over the open sea, and the safety of a state necessitates more extended dominion over the bays and gulfs inclosed by its territories than over open waters. Moreover, the interest of other nations in bays and gulfs is not so direct if, as is commonly the case, they lie off the ocean highways. For these reasons the 3-mile rule has never been applied to inclosed waters, nor has any defined limit been generally accepted in regard to them. It is true that the understanding of nations has imposed some restrictions on the exercise of sovereignty over these waters, and that states do not now assert claims, such as were common in former times, over waters which from their size or configuration can not be effective'y controlled or which from their situation can not be fairly held to be the exclusive property of any one state. But these restrictions must depend on the particular circumstances of each case; they have never become formulated in any rule of general application. There was therefore no definite meaning which could have been assigned in 1818 to the term "bays in His Majesty's dominions" unless it were the meaning which His Majesty's Government contends should be put upon it; and there was no principle of the law of nations under which the meaning could be limited to bays of a certain extent only. (North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, British Case, p, 108, Vol. IV, U. S. Sen. Doc. 870, 61st Cong., 3d sess., p. 96.) Attempts have been made, it is true, by some writers to suggest a general principle capable of application to all inclosed waters. But these suggestions have led to no practical result. The difference in the considerations which affect particular cases has made it difficult, if not impossible, to formulate any general rule, and the difference in the considerations which affect the open sea on the one hand and inclosed waters on the other hand has made it impossible to apply the same general rule to both.

It is submitted, therefore, that the opinions of jurists establish that there is not any definite limit, whether 6 miles miles or more, beyond which inclosed waters, such as bays, may not be claimed as territorial waters by the state within whose shores they are inclosed, and that a fortiori there was no such limit in 1818. It follows that the word “bay” as used in the treaty was used in its ordinary sense and included all those tracts of water known at the time as bays. (North Atlantic Coast Fisheries, British Case, p. 121, Vol. IV, U. S. Sen. Doc. 870, 61st Cong., 3d sess, p. 108.)

American contention, 1909.-The contention of the United States in the North Atlantic coast fisheries arbitration was to restrict, under the treaty of 1818, the