Note 1180 — Chapter III · THE FISHERY CONVENTIONS.

A case occurred in 1908 in which the master of an English trawler, the Taurus, was convicted in a German court for trawling within the three-mile limit on the German coast, and the case was appealed on the ground that the place was outside the territorial waters, and was so shown on the English fishery charts. It was found, however, that the three-mile line on these charts did not take into account the dependent banks, whereas the German charts did take them into account, the limit running in some cases six or seven miles from the coast. It may be mentioned that as considerable parts of the Goodwin Sands are visible at low-water of neap tides, such parts are entitled to a three-mile limit in the same way as the dependent banks on the German coast. Recently, also, it has been found that the three-mile limit in the neighbourhood of the Scaw fluctuates considerably owing to the shifting of the shoals, and the Danish authorities, early in 1907, intimated that any case of alleged infraction of the limit by foreign fishing vessels would be judged of by the actual position of the line at the time, and not by what may be shown on any chart in use. The point in regard to banks was raised a century ago in connection with neutral rights in a case in which a British privateer captured a French corvette, the Africaine, on the coast of the United States, six miles from shore. It was argued that the capture was unlawful, because the place was within the neutral waters of the United States, the extent of which had been defined by Congress in 1794 as one marine league from the coast (see p. 574). It was contended that “coasts” included all the shoals or banks which, in Florida, extended to a distance of twenty miles from the land, and were therefore within territorial jurisdiction, and that the distance of protection should be reckoned from the outermost shoal. The American judge overruled the argument, because, although in a maritime sense this interpretation of “coasts” might be correct, it was too vague for juridical purposes, since the shoals vary, and there would be no fixed rule by which the boundary could be ascertained; and that the district courts would have to apply different rules at different places, instead of the one marine league everywhere. A somewhat similar question was argued in 1805 in the English Admiralty Court in the case of an American ship, the Anna, captured by a British privateer off the mouth of the Mississippi, at a point claimed to be within the neutral waters of the United States—viz., 1½ mile from an island, and “within view” of a fort, which was, however, five miles distant. A question raised was whether certain small mud-islands, formed of earth and drifted logs, and covered with reeds, where people occasionally went to shoot wild-fowl, was United States territory from which the marine league could be measured. It was argued that the islands had not sufficient consistency to support the purposes of life, and were sometimes scarcely distinguishable, and that since the distance of neutral protection “is reckoned according to the efficacy of protection, that is, within the range of firearms,” the land from which the extension is measured should be a place from which this protection could be in reality afforded. Lord Stowell, in deciding that they were United States territory, stated that the right of dominion did not depend upon the texture of the soil; and he quoted Bynkershoek’s formula as the rule of law, saying that the distance “has usually been recognised to be about three miles from the shore.” It may be said here that in the earlier writings and decisions about the limit of territorial waters, low-water mark is not specified, and in the case of the Twee Gebroeders (see p. 577) it is clear that sand-banks uncovered at low-water were not regarded as entitled to an independent zone, the distance being measured from terra firma.