view, that it may be passed over almost in silence, merely referring to the proclamation issued by the President to United States fishermen, warning them against infringing the conditions of the Convention of 1818, as evidence of the fact that his government had received notice of the intention of that of Canada to proceed against trespassers on Canadian maritime territory. Such notice to a government in cases of blockade being considered equivalent to notice to each of its subjects. (19)

The following is the second charge:

"The statutes of the Dominion of Canada assume a still broader and more untenable jurisdiction over the vessels of the United States, as they authorize officers or persons to bring vessels hovering within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of Canada, into port to search their cargo, to examine the master on oath touching the cargo and voyage, to inflict upon him a heavy pecuniary penalty if true answers are not given; and if such a vessel is found preparing to fish within three marine miles of any of such coasts, bays, creeks or harbours without a license, or after the expiration of the period named in the last license granted to it, they provide that the vessel, with her tackle, &c., &c., shall be forfeited. It is not known that any condemnations have been made under this statute. Should the authorities of Canada attempt to enforce it, it will become my duty to take such steps as may be necessary to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States."

The clauses of the Statutes referred to in the foregoing extract from the President's message, are—

31 Vic. Cap 61, § 2.-"Any commissioned officer of Her Majesty's navy, serving on board of any vessel of Her Majesty's navy, cruising and being in the waters of Canada for the purpose of affording protection to Her Majesty's subjects engaged in the fisheries; or any commissioned officer of Her Majesty's navy, fishery officer, or stipendiary magistrate, on board of any vessel belonging to or in the service of the Government of Canada, and employed in the service of protecting the fisheries; or any officer of the Customs of Canada, sheriff, magistrate, or other person duly commissioned for that purpose, may go on board of any ship, vessel, or boat, within any harbour in Canada, or hovering (in British waters) within three marine miles of any of the coasts,

(19) Abdy's Kent, p. 367; Lawrence's Wheaton, ed. 1863, pp. 836, 837; appendix No. 4.

bays, creeks, or harbours in Canada, and stay on board so long as she may remain within such place or distance."

33 Vic. Cap 15, § 1.-" The third section of the above-cited Act'shall be and is hereby repealed, and the following section is enacted in its stead :

"3. Any one of such officers or persons as are above-mentioned, may bring any ship, vessel, or boat being within any harbour in Canada, or hovering (in British waters) within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours in Canada, into port, and search her cargo, and may also examine the Master upon oath touching the cargo and voyage; and if the Master, or person in command, shall not truly answer the questions put to him in such examination, he shall forfeit four hundred dollars; and if such ship, vessel, or boat be foreign, or not navigated according to the laws of the United Kingdom, or of Canada, and have been found fishing, or preparing to fish, or to have been fishing (in British waters) within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of Canada, not included within the above-mentioned limits, without a license, or after the expiration of the period named in the last license granted to such ship, vessel, or boat, under the first section of this Act, such ship, vessel, or boat, and the tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture, stores, and cargo thereof, shall be forfeited."

The charge made in the Message, then, is simply, that the Parliament of Canada has no right in law to impose upon United States vessels coming into the maritime territory of Canada conditions such as those provided for in the foregoing clauses,

It has already been shewn that the maritime territory of Canada extends seawards to a distance of three marine miles from its coasts, bays, creeks and harbours. (Ante p.

The clauses of the Statutes complained of do not assume jurisdiction over the open sea, but are strictly confined in their operation to the maritime territory of Canada.

Wheaton thus defines the rights of a State over its maritime territory: "The general usage of nations superadds to this extent of territorial jurisdiction a distance of a marine league, or as far as a cannon shot will reach from the shore along all the coasts of the State. Within these limits its rights of property and territorial jurisdiction are absolute, and exclude those of every other nation. (20)

(20) Lawrence's Wheaton, pt. 2, c. 4, 2 6, p. 320.

Heffter in "Le Droit International Public de l'Europe," at $75, says

"Les États maritimes ont le droit incontestable, tant pour la défense de leurs territoires respectifs, contre des attaques imprévues, que pour la protection de leurs intérêts, de commerce et de douanes, d'établir une surveillance active sur les côtes et leurs voisinages, et d'adopter toutes les mesures nécessaires pour fermer l'accès de leurs territoires à ceux qu'ils refusent d'y recevoir, ou qui ne se seront pas conformés aux dispositions des règlements établis. C'est une conséquence naturelle de ce principe général : 'ut quod quisque propter defensionem sui fecerit, jure fecisse videatur.' Chaque nation est donc libre d'établir une surveillance et une police de ses côtes comme elle l'entend, à moins qu'elle ne soit liée par des traités.

Tout navire qui franchit les limites maritimes d'une nation doit se conformer aux dispositions des règlements établis, peu importe qu'il soit entré, volontairement où par suite d'une force majeure. A cet effet les États Riverains jouissent de certains droits incontestés, qui sont:

10. Le droit de demander des explications sur le but du voyage du navire; si la réponse est refusée ou si elle parâit inexacte, les autorités des lieux peuvent, par des voies directes, prendre connaissance du véritable but du voyage et, en cas d'urgence, prendre des mesures provisoires commandées par les circonstances; 20. Le droit d'empêcher que la paix ne soit troublée dans leurs eaux intérieures et d'y intervenir de facto;

30. Celui de faire des règlements relatifs à l'usage des eaux qui baignent les côtes, par exemple, le droit de régler les différentes espèces de pêche;

40. Le droit de mettre l'embargo et d'établir des navires croiseurs pour empêcher la contrebande;

50. Enfin le droit de juridiction."

Ortolan in his "Règles Internationales et Diplomatie de la Mer," 1 vol. p. 159, thus expresses himself "On sent que l'espace maritime soumis ainsi, non pas à un droit de proprieté, mais à la souverainté d'un Etat, doit être nécessairement renfermé dans d'étroites limites. C'est à ce régime complet que répondent expressement la dénomination de mer territoriale et la limite commune de la plus forte portée du canon.

Bluntschli, in "Le Droit International Codifié," Nos. 309, 310 says:

"309. Sont, dans de certaines limites, soumises à la souveraineté de l'Etat riverain, a. La bande de mer située à portée de canon de la côte, b. &c.

"L'état riverain peut en conséquence prendre, à l'égard des parties de la mer ci-dessus designées toutes les mesures de sureté et d'ordre public qu'il juge nécessaires, et y réglementer la pêche et la navigation. Mais il n'est pas autorisé, en temps de paix, à interdire ou à entraver par des impôts la libre navigation dans les eaux dépendant de son territoire. 1o. L'état riverain peut, afin d'empêcher la contrebande, exiger des navires étrangers de n'aborder qu'à certains points du littoral; il peut pour sa sureté interdire l'approche du rivage aux navires du guerre, etc. Certains pays défendent encore aux pêcheurs étrangers d'exercer leur profession dans les eaux dépendant de leur territoire; les autres puissances se soumettent, parce qu'on ne peut pas refuser à un État de réglementer la pêche sur son littoral."

Domin-Petrushevecz in his "Précis d'un Code du Droit Interuational," art. 6, says:

"Le droit de pêche entièrement libre en pleine mer, sera reglé exclusivement par les états respectifs dans leur territoire maritime, précisé dans l'article précédent."

Vide also, 1 Phillimore, No. 197; 1 Twiss, §173, §182.

It will be observed that the President in his Message does not deny the right of the Parliament of Canada to declare forfeited vessels found fishing illegally in the maritime territory of Canada; he apparently protests merely against the bringing of vessels hovering in British waters within three miles of the shore, into port, the examination under oath of the master, the infliction upon him of a heavy pecuniary penalty, if true answers are not given, and the forfeiture of the vessel, &c., if found preparing to fish within the maritime territory of Canada, all proceedings authorised by the Statutes referred to.

It may be taken for granted then, that the authorities of the United States admit that for a violation of Canadian territory, not included within the limits specified in Article 1 of the Convention of 1818, by fishing therein, the Canadian Parliament has a right to inflict the penalty of forfeiture upon the offending vessel, and there can be no doubt that such right is under International Law incontestable.

It is necessary then at the present stage to inquire whether the boarding aud bringing of vessels hovering in the maritime terri

tory of Canada, not within the limits specified in Article 1 of the Convention of 1818, into port, the examination of the master under oath, and the infliction of a penalty upon him if true answers are not given, are according to the principles of International Law and the practice of nations.

The boarding of vessels coming into the maritime territory of a State by the proper officers of that State, is one recognised and practised by all nations; the authorities already referred to show the law upon the subject.

The statutes of the United States expressly provide for such boarding by their officers. (21)

The examination of the master in command of such vessel is also recognized and admitted by both the United States and Great Britain. In fact the public Statutes of both countries assume the right of causing vessels on their arrival within four leagues of their coasts, to be boarded by their respective officers. The statute of the United States, passed on the 2nd March, 1799, in the 80 section, thus provides :

"If the master or other person having the charge or command of any ship or vessel laden as aforesaid, and bound to any port or place of the United States, shall not upon his arrival within four leagues of the coast thereof, or within the limits of any district thereof, where the cargo of such ship or vessel, or any part thereof is intended to be discharged, produce such manifest or manifests as are heretofore required in writing, to the proper officer or officers upon demand thereof; and also deliver such copy or copies thereof, as aforesaid, according to the directions of this Act in each case, or shall not give an account of the true destination of such ship or vessel, which he is hereby required to do upon request of such officer or officers; or shall give a false account of such destination, in order to evade the production of such manifest or manifests; the said master or other person having the charge or command of such ship or vessel shall forfeit for every such neglect, refusal, or offence, a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars."

The statute of Great Britain, 9 Geo. 2, c. 35, also assumes jurisdiction over vessels within four leagues of the shores of the United Kingdom, but not to the extent of that assumed by the foregoing clause of the United States' statute.

(21) 1 Brightley's Digest, pp. 148, § 41; 334, § 80.