principally following Mr. Wheaton's Elements of International Law, and Mr. Manning's Commentaries on the Law of Nations. 1168. The maritime territory of every State* extends to the ports, harbours, bays, mouths of rivers, and adjacent parts of the sea enclosed by headlands belonging to the same State." These must be included, in order to make the territorial jurisdiction continuous. 1169. "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 right of property and territorial jurisdiction are absolute, and exclude those of every other nation." "The rule of law on this subject is terræ dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum vis.” 1170. "The exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the British Crown over the enclosed parts of the sea along the coasts of the islands of Great Britain, has immemorially extended to those bays called the King's Chambers; i. e. portions of the sea cut off by lines drawn from one promontory to another. A similar jurisprudence is also asserted by the United States over the Delaware Bay, and other bays and estuaries forming portions of their territory." Such regulations are justified on the ground of their being essentially necessary to the security and interests of the State. 1171. Besides such regulations, "a jurisdiction and right of property over certain other portions of the sea have been claimed by different nations, on the ground of immemorial use. Such, for example, was the sovereignty formerly claimed by the republic. of Venice over the Adriatic. The maritime supre Wheaton, Part I., chap. iv. ↑ See also Grotius, J. B. et P. lib. 1., c. iii., § 10. macy of Great Britain over what are called the Narrow Seas, has generally been asserted merely by requiring certain honour to the British flag, in those seas." The Baltic Sea is claimed as mare clausum by the powers bordering on its coasts; and the Euxine was so claimed by Turkey, so long as she exclusively possessed its shores. Denmark asserts a supremacy over the Sound, and the Two Belts, which form the outlet of the Baltic. In opposition to such claims, the Freedom of the Seas is asserted by other States. They have asserted the Right to navigate the High Sea (mare liberum), as being essential to the Right of Commerce which belongs to all States. 1172. It is said by the jurists, that when a river flows through the territories of Different States, the innocent use of it for commercial purposes belongs to all the nations inhabiting the different parts of its banks; but that this is an imperfect Right, and must be regulated by convention.* Such conventions have been established, for instance, with respect to the Rhine and the Scheldt. We have already said (89) that imperfect Rights are improperly called Rights; and are really moral claims indicating what the other party ought to grant or to do. And it is plain that the general Duty of Humanity would lead a State to allow its neighbours to make such use of its rivers and straits as should be accompanied with no inconvenience to itself. But, as we have already said, by some a general Right of Commerce is asserted, which goes beyond this appeal to humanity. 1173. In time of War, this Right of Commerce comes in conflict with the Rights of War; and the conflict has, in modern times, given rise to many questions of international jurisprudence; and especially as regards Colonies of the belligerent parties. For it has been assumed, by modern European States, VOL. II. Wheaton, P. 11., c. iv., § 12. 11 2 that they have a Right to direct and limit the trade of their Colonies, as well as of the ports of the Mothercountry. : 1174. The question of which we have spoken, between the Rights of War, on the one hand, and the Rights of Commerce on the other, implies, among the Rights of War, the Right of seizing the private property of the citizens of the hostile State captured at sea. To this Right, of which we have already spoken, belligerents have added the Right of seizing also the property of neutrals, when taken in hostile ships and they have expressed their Rule in the maxim, "Enemy's ships make enemy's goods." This Maxim is consistent with what has already been said of the nature of War. All property is in some one's custody; this is in the enemy's custody. We deny their power of custody of property on the sea, and we strike a blow at them as a maritime State, by showing that they do not possess this power. The Neutral must attend to this, and must not place his goods in our enemy's vessels, except he is willing to share their fate. 1175. The Rights of Commerce are asserted in a Maxim similar in form to the one just stated; namely this: "Neutral ships make neutral goods;" or, "Free bottoms, free goods." But it is plain that this maxim must be limited and modified, or it might be used as a powerful mode of warfare. Thus belligerents have a Right to prevent neutrals from carrying to an enemy munitions of war. It is no interference with the Right of a third person to say that he shall not carry to my enemy instruments with which I am to be attacked. On the contrary, such Commerce is a deviation from neutrality; (or at least would be so, if it were the act of the State). If we allow neutral ships to be inviolable when they carry to the enemy Manning, B. 111., c. vii. the means of warfare, they, though professedly not parties to the contest, may greatly damage one of the belligerents, and transfer the success to the other side. Hence, belligerents have a Right to prevent neutrals to carry to either party goods which do not affect him in his belligerent character; but military stores are prohibited, under the title of Contraband of War. - 1176. Again, belligerents have, by the Laws of War, a Right to put a place in a state of blockade, and then to prohibit neutrals from entering it. Neutrals, who violate this Rule, are liable to confiscation for breach of blockade. According to modern practice, in order that a party may be liable to punishment for breach of blockade, three things are requisite to be proved :-the actual existence of the blockade :-that the party offending knew of it :-that he commit some act which was a breach of it. The definition of blockade is given in various Treaties. It is generally agreed, that a mere declaration cannot constitute a blockade: it must be actually enforced by a continued circuit of troops and ships. 1177. The maxim, that "free ships make free goods," has been a subject of much discussion in modern times, having been asserted by Confederacies calling themselves "Armed Neutralities," in opposition to the claims of Belligerents. Belligerents, seizing the property of an enemy on board a neutral ship, have, on their side, both the ancient authorities, and the usually received Principles of the Law of Nations. In opposition to the Right of Commerce, urged on the side of the above maxim, it is replied, that the Rights of War suspend many of the Rights of Commerce, as when they authorize seizure of contraband of war, or confiscation of a ship for breach of blockade. And the general Rule must be, that * Manning, B. III., c. ix. all Rights of Commerce are suspended, which, being nominally neutral, are really favourable to one of the belligerent parties. Now to carry goods for an enemy, who is so weak at sea, as not to be able to carry for himself, is to give him a great advantage. It deprives the stronger naval power of the benefit of his superiority. The Belligerent cannot be required to allow this. When it is urged, on the other side, that a Neutral has a Right to trade with both parties; it is replied, that he may trade with both, but not for one. If he gives his protection to the property of one of the belligerents, who is too weak to protect it himself, he makes himself his Ally, and is no longer neutral. An argument sometimes urged on this side is, that a ship is like a part of the territory of the state to which it belongs, and as such, not to be violated by the belligerent: but it is plain that this analogy is too loose to be of any force. If the doctrine were true, it would be a violation of neutral Rights to seize contraband of war in the ship, or to resist breach of blockade. And it is plain that the analogy does not hold in other cases; for when a ship comes into a foreign port, she and all on board are subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign state. 1178. There is another kind of limitation of the maxim, "free vessels make free goods," which has also excited much discussion in modern times. This limitation has been termed the "Rule of 1756,’* and is thus stated: "Neutrals are not allowed to engage in a trade with the colonies of belligerents during war, which trade is not allowed them during peace." In virtue of this Rule, the Stronger Naval belligerent power enforces, during war, in order to distress its enemy, the same restrictions on commerce with the Colonies of the Weaker, which the Weaker itself had during peace enforced, in order to its own * Manning, B. III., c. v. |