hundred leagues west of the Azores, as a boundary between the possessions of the two powers; all the territory to the west of that line was decreed to Spain, and all to the east of the same line to Portugal. Under this authority, which seems to have had international recognition, Portugal forbade all commerce with the East Indies and the west coast of Africa; Spain, claiming the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea as Spanish territory, forbade all commerce with Mexico, the west coasts of North and South America, and the islands of the Pacific.'

England at one time claimed that its jurisdiction over the narrow seas ended at the coast of France and the Netherlands. This claim was resisted, especially by the Dutch, and so successfully that it was largely reduced in importance, and, at the close of the seventeenth century, finally abandoned. Russia, in 1822, laid claim to exclusive jurisdiction over that part of the Pacific Ocean lying north of the fifty-first degree of north latitude, on the ground that it possessed the shores of that sea, on both continents, beyond that limit, and so had the right to restrict commerce with the coast inhabitants. England and the United States entered vigorous protests against the right of jurisdiction thus asserted by Russia, as being contrary to the principles of international law, and the claim was formally withdrawn in 1824."

Jurisdiction over Closed Seas. The question of jurisdiction over many such partly included bodies of water, sometimes called closed seas, has already been decided. The Chesapeake and Delaware bays are recognized as parts of the territory of the United States; Hudson Bay and the Irish Sea as British territory; the Caspian Sea belongs to Russia, Lake Michigan to the United States. The Black Sea, before Rus

See p. 14; Hall, pp. 141, 142; Heffter, §§ 73-77.

"I Phillimore, pp. 213-217; I Halleck, pp. 141-145; Hall, § 40. For correspondence, etc., in respect to the rules of the road at sea, see Foreign Relations of the United States,

1878, pp. 354, 355; Ibid. 1880, pp. 468–472, 521, 522; Ibid. 1894, pp. 47, 217, 260, 261; Ibid. 1895, part i. pp. 683-686. See also Lawrence, Int. Law, §§ 105-109; I Twiss, §§ 179-191; Pomeroy, §§ 144-157.

sia obtained a foothold upon it, formed part of the territories of the Ottoman Porte; it is now subject to the joint jurisdiction of Turkey and Russia. The Baltic is acknowledged to have the character of a closed sea (and to be subject to the control of the powers surrounding it), certainly to the extent of guaranteeing it against acts of belligerency when the powers within whose territory it lies are at peace.'

Rights of Ownership and Jurisdiction in the Case of Straits; Innocent Passage. The rights of possession and jurisdiction in the case of narrow straits depend upon the ownership of the territory separated by them. The right of navigating them depends upon the character of the bodies of water which they connect. If the connected seas are open to general commercial navigation, the right extends to, and includes, the use of the strait as a necessary means of communication. This is sometimes called the right of innocent passage. The Strait of Gibraltar is free, because the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea are open to the commerce of all nations. A similar rule applies to the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmora, and the Dardanelles, connecting the Black and Mediterranean seas, subject to the restrictions upon the passage of war vessels which are contained in the treaties of 1856, 1871, and 1878.

If the territory separated by the waters of a narrow strait belongs to a single state, the rights of civil and criminal jurisdiction over the separating strait are conceded to belong to the owner of the territory. The Strait of Messina, separating the island of Sicily from the Italian main - land, belongs to Italy, the Bosporus and Dardanelles to Turkey, the Great

'Hall, § 42; Lawrence, §§ 106109; Dana's Wheaton, §§ 178, 179, note 105; I Halleck, pp. 139–145; I Phillimore, pp. 209-217, 235-242. For a discussion of the right of property in the Bering Sea, see the Revue de Droit International, vol. xxv. pp. 417-466 (Th. Barclay). Ibid. xxvi. pp. 386, 401

(Édouard Engelhardt). See also I Twiss, $$ 180-182; I Ortolan, p.151.

2 Vattel, liv. i. chap. xxiii. § 292; I Phillimore, pp. 224-227. The Strait of Magellan was neutralized and thrown open to the use of all nations in 1879.-Foreign Relations of the United States, 1879, p.

23.

and Little Belt and the Sound to Denmark. If the territory separated by the waters of the strait belongs to different states, the strait belongs in part to each power. The line of demarcation is determined as in the case of boundary rivers, and the jurisdiction of the adjacent states is separated in the same manner.1

The Danish Sound Dues. The peculiar claim of Denmark to jurisdiction over the strait connecting the North and Baltic seas was long a fruitful source of complaint to all commercial nations. These claims were exercised in the form of a toll or tax, called Sound Dues, levied upon all shipping which passed through the strait in either direction. They were based, in part, upon immemorial prescription, and in part upon the expense incurred by Denmark in the maintenance of lights and buoys in the narrow and dangerous passage.

The question of the sound dues was settled in 1857 by a treaty entered into between Denmark and the great European powers. "The right of Denmark to levy these dues was not distinctly recognized, but compensation was made to her by the payment of a capital sum, on the ground of indemnity for maintaining lights and buoys, which Denmark stipulated to maintain and levy no further duties." As the treaty of 1857 dealt with other questions, of strictly European concern, to which the United States was unwilling to become a party, a separate treaty was entered into between that power and Denmark by which, in consideration of the payment of a lump sum, the shipping of the United States was to be exempted from similar levies in the future."

Fishery in the High Seas. From the principle of the freedom of the high seas it follows that the right to fish in their waters is free to all mankind, and is subject to restriction or regulation, in the case of an individual, only by the munici

I Twiss. §§ 183-189; I Ortolan, pp. 146-150; Hall, § 41; Klüber, $$ 130, 131; I De Martens, § 40; I Phillimore, pp. 218-234; Dana's

Wheaton, §§ 181-190; I Dig. Int.
Law, § 29.

* I Phillimore, pp. 216, 217; I Twiss, § 188; I Dig. Int. Law, § 29; I Ortolan, pp. 147-150.

pal law of the state of which he is a citizen. Not only are the high seas free for purposes of fishery at all times and in all places, but the rules of international law make a humane exception from capture in behalf of fishing-boats of a belligerent while engaged in their legitimate pursuit in the territorial waters of the state under whose flag they sail.'

Coast Fisheries. The privilege of fishery, however, within the three-mile limit, is universally recognized as a right of property which is vested in the state to whose territory the waters are adjacent, and is in all respects subject to its regulation and control."

Piracy. Piracy is an offence against the law of nations, and may be defined as robbery committed upon the high seas. As pirates are regarded as the enemies of all mankind, and as the offence of piracy is committed in a place over which no state has exclusive jurisdiction, pirates may be apprehended by the public armed vessels of any nation; and persons charged with piracy may be tried, whatever their nationality, by the courts of the state to which such capturing vessel belongs. The punishment of piracy is death. The definition

1 Hall, §§ 14, 40-42; I Phillimore, pp. 211, 235; Lawrence, Int. Law, §§ 105-106; Maine, Int. Law, p. 76; Heffter, §73; Klüber, § 132; Ortolan, tom. i. chap. vii.; Creasy, § 243.

'I Twiss, p. 312; II Halleck, p. 151; Azuni, tom. i. chap. iii. art. viii.; II Ferguson, § 212; Heffter, § 137; II Calvo, § 932; II Ortolan, p. 51. For an account of the controversy between England and the United States in respect to the Canadian fisheries, see Hall, § 27 ; Lawrence's Wheaton, pp. 323-326, note; Dana's Wheaton, $§ 268-274, notes 10, 142; Creasy, § 243. For an account of the controversy between the same powers in respect to the seal fisheries in the Bering Sea, see Lawrence, Int. Law, § 106.

Dana's Wheaton, §§ 122-124, note 83; United States vs. Smith,

5 Wheaton, 157; I Halleck, pp. 49, 192, 396, note; Risley, p. 47. Piracy is defined by the law of nations to be a forcible depredation upon property on the high seas, without lawful authority, done animo furandi; that is, as defined, in this connection, in a spirit and intention of universal hostility. A pirate is said to be one who roves the sea in an armed vessel, without any commission from any sovereign state, on his own authority, and for the purpose of seizing by force and appropriating to himself, without discrimination, every vessel he may meet.-United States vs. Baker, 5 Blatchford, pp. 11, 12. The act of 1819, § 5 (3 Stat. 513; R. S. § 5368), referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, is a constitutional exercise of the

of piracy may be extended by a state, as to offences committed within its territorial waters, or by its citizens on the high seas, but such extensions of the definition have no international validity.

Ship Canals. Artificial ways of communication, like shipcanals, however important their construction may prove to be in its effects upon commerce, can acquire interest from the point of view of international law only when their use and control, especially in time of war, have been made the subject of treaty stipulation. Regarded simply as engineering constructions, the mere fact of their existence does not operate to diminish or modify, in any respect, the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the state within whose territory they are situated; which, indeed, can only be modified by treaty stipulations. The question of their construction and use, being a new one at international law, it is sufficient to say, at this point, that no existing rules apply to them, or can be made so to apply, by any process of construction. They are not arms of

power of Congress to define and punish that crime. Piracy is defined by the law of nations with reasonable certainty. Robbery, or forcible depredation upon the sea, animo furandi, is piracy by the law of nations. United States vs. Smith, 5 Wheaton, 153. Pirates may, without doubt, be lawfully captured on the ocean by the public or private ships of every nation; for they are, in truth, the common enemies of all mankind, and, as such, are liable to the extreme rights of war. And a piratical aggression by an armed vessel sailing under the regular flag of any nation, may be justly subjected to the penalty of confiscation for such a gross breach of the law of nations. But every hostile attack, in a time of peace, is not necessarily pirati cal. It may be by mistake, or in necessary self-defence, or to repel a supposed meditated attack by pi

rates.

It may be justifiable, and

then no blame attaches to the act; or it may be without just excuse, and then it carries responsibility for damages. If it proceed further, if it be an attack from revenge and malignity, from gross abuse of power, and a settled purpose of mischief, it then assumes the character of a private, unauthorized war, and may be punished by all the penalties which the law of nations can properly administer. The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheaton, 40 [41]; United States vs. Brig Malek Adhel, 2 Howard, 236. A vessel loses her national character by assuming a piratical character, and a piracy committed by a foreigner from on board such a vessel upon any other vessel whatever is punishable under § 8 of the act of 1790 (I_Stat. 113; R. S. § 5360); United States vs. Pirates, 5 Wheaton, p. 184. See also Foreign Relations of the United States, 1877, pp. 442-447.