right of fishery on the coasts of the United States and of the British Provinces was not to extend.'

§ 18. But, besides this claim of maritime territory over the mouths of rivers, bays and estuaries along the coast, different nations have at different times asserted a right of property to certain narrow seas and straits adjacent to their shores, and outside of any lines joining one cape or promontory with another. Such, for example, was the sovereignty formerly claimed by the Republic of Venice over the Adriatic; the supremacy claimed by England over the narrow seas; and the supremacy asserted by the King of Denmark over the sound and the two belts which form the outlet of the Baltic Sea into the ocean. Such claims have generally been placed on the ground of immemorial use, or prescription. The honours and duties demanded by the State asserting such maritime supremacy have been paid or refused by other nations, according to circumstances, but the claim itself has never been sanctioned by general acquiescence.2

19. The claim of Denmark, to impose what are called sound dues, was rested by the Danish publicists and diplomatists, not only upon immemorial prescription, sanctioned by a long succession of treaties with other powers, but upon a kind of vested right, originating in remote antiquity, recognised by the system of public law subsequently subsisting, and ratified by the acquiescence of all maritime nations from time immemorial; and they said the claim was originally founded in equity, and still has equitable considerations in its favour, in virtue of the expenses incurred by Denmark in improving the navigation of the sound for the general benefit of commerce. They admitted 'that the general principles of the law of nations would now hardly seem to sanction the imposition of tolls similar to the sound dues, where none before had existed.' The United States denied the right of Denmark to collect such dues, and adopted the conclusion

·

1 Cong. Docs. 32nd Cong. 1st Sess. Senate Ex. Doc. No. 100, Spe. Sess. No. 3; President's Message, Cong. Doc. 1855-6; Annales Marit. et Colo. 1839, part i. p. 861; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. ii. ch. iv. § 8; De Cussy, Droit Maritime, liv. i. tit. ii. § 41.

2 See ante, ch. v. § 18. Selden, Mare Clausum, passim; Stymann, De Jure Maritimo, lib. i. cap. iv. p. 179 et seq.; Gunther, Europ. Völkerrecht, t. ii. p. 46; Rayneval, Inst. du Droit Nat., liv. ii. ch. x. ; Bowyer, Universal Public Law, ch. xxviii.; Heffter, Droit international, §75; Hautefeuille, Des Nations Neutres, pt. i. ch. iii. § 2.

that they are under no obligation arising from international law or treaty stipulation, to yield to this claim,' while they admitted the necessity to keep up, at considerable expense, lighthouses, buoys, etc., for the security of this navigation,' and that the expenditure made by Denmark, for this purpose, may constitute an equitable claim upon foreign powers for remuneration to the extent they have participated in this advantage,' and that 'they would not hesitate to share liberally in compensating Denmark for any fair claim for expenses she may incur in improving and rendering safe the navigation of the sound.' 'In claiming an exemption of our ships and their cargoes from taxation, by Denmark, at the straits of the Baltic,' continues Mr. Marcy, the American Secretary of State, 'the United States are vindicating a great national principle of extensive and various application. If yielded in one instance, it will be difficult to maintain it in others. If exactions upon our trade at the entrance of the Baltic were acquiesced in by the United States, similar exactions might, on the same principle, be demanded at the Straits of Gibraltar and Messina, at the Dardanelles, and on all great navigable rivers whose upper branches and tributaries are occupied by different independent powers.' The dispute was amicably arranged by the convention of February 12, 1858, the sound and belts being made entirely free to American vessels and their cargoes, the United States paying a fixed sum en bloc for lighthouses, buoys, etc.1

§ 20. No one would now think of reviving the controversy which once occupied the pens of the ablest European jurists, with respect to the right of any one State to appropriate to its own use, and to the exclusion of others, any part of open sea or main ocean, beyond the immediate vicinity of its own coast; but it has sometimes been attempted to extend the principle of mare clausum to inland seas, not entirely enclosed within the territorial limits of a single State. Thus, in the treaties of armed neutrality of 1780 and 1800, and in the treaty of 1794, between Denmark and Sweden, the tranquillity

1 President's Messages. Dec. 1854 and 1855; Marcy, Cor. Dep. of State, on Danish Sound Dues; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. i. ch. ii.; Webster's Life and Works, vol. vi. p. 466 ; Cong. Doc. H. of R. 33rd Cong. 1st Sess. Ex. Doc. 108. In 1857 Great Britain also had compounded by the payment of 1,125,2057.

of the Baltic Sea was proclaimed and guaranteed; and in the Russian declaration of war against Great Britain of 1807, the inviolability of that sea, and the reciprocal guarantees of the powers bordering upon it, were stated as aggravations of the British proceedings, in entering the sound and attacking the Danish capital in that year. This attempt, on the part of the Baltic powers, to establish in themselves the exclusive control of the Baltic Sea, contrary to the well-established principles of international law, greatly weakened the force of their complaints against the proceedings of Great Britain toward Denmark. The law of nations does not permit any number of nations, bordering upon a sea, to combine together to close it against the commerce of the rest of the world.'

§ 21. It is generally admitted that the territory of a State includes the seas, lakes and rivers entirely inclosed within its limits. Thus, so long as the shores of the Black Sea were exclusively possessed by Turkey, that sea might, with propriety, be considered as a mare clausum; and there seemed no reason to question the right of the Ottoman Porte to exclude other nations from navigating the passage which connects it with the Mediterranean, both shores of this passage being also portions of the Turkish territory. But when Turkey lost a part of her possessions bordering upon this sea, and Russia had formed her commercial establishments on the shores of the Euxine, both that empire and other maritime powers became entitled to participate in the commerce of the Black Sea, and consequently to the free navigation of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. This right was expressly recognised by the treaty of Adrianople in 1829. But the right of free navigation of the Black Sea, and the consequent right of passage through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, was not construed to interfere with the right of territorial jurisdiction which the Ottoman Porte exercises over these straits.

1 Bynkershoek, De Dominio Maris, cap. vii.; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. i. ch. xxiii. §§ 279, 286; Ortolan, Dip. de la Mer, tome i. pp. 120-126; Polson, Law of Nations, sec. v.; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. i. cap. ii. § 4; Hautefeuille, Des Nations Neutres, tit. i. chs. iii. iv. In consequence of the secret articles of Tilsit, England demanded the surrender of the Danish fleet, with the promise of its restoration when peace came. This proposal being rejected, Copenhagen was bombarded by the English fleet until Denmark accepted the proposal. Stern necessity and the law of self-preservation called for this measure on the part of England.

These straits are bounded on both sides by the territory of the Sultan, and are, in most parts, less than six miles wide, consequently, he has a right to exclude all foreign ships of war from entering or passing either the Dardanelles or the Bosphorus. This right has also been recognised in the treaties of 1840, 1841, and 1856, and may be considered as permanently incorporated into the public law of Europe.1

1 Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. i. tit. i. cap. iv.; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. ii. ch. iv. § 10; Martens, Précis du Droit des Gens, §§ 39, 156; Wheaton, Hist. Law of Nations, pp. 577, 583; Martens, Nouveau Recueil, tome viii. p. 143; Heffter, Droit International, § 76.

In 1871 a Conference met in London to consider certain complaints of Russia with respect to the Treaty signed at Paris on March 30, 1856, between England, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, by which the Black Sea was neutralised, and its waters and ports made free to all nations for merchant shipping, but not for ships of war, and by which Russia and Turkey engaged to maintain only six light ships of war in that sea. In October 1870, the Russian Minister, Prince Gortschakoff, had addressed a despatch to the European Powers, declaring that Russia had ceased to recognise the obligations of the above treaty respecting the neutrality of the Black Sea. To which Lord Granville, on behalf of England, replied by insisting on the obligatory character of treaties.

Russia was, therefore, compelled to listen to reason, and to accept a Conference. Art. XIV. of the above treaty, by the way, had expressly stipulated that it cannot be annulled or modified without the consent of the Powers signing the present treaty.'

On this article, Count Beust observed, 'We could not conceive nor admit a doubt as to the absolute force of this reciprocal engagement, even should one or other of the contracting parties think itself in a position to advance the most substantial considerations against the maintenance of any of the stipulations of a treaty, of which it had been agreed to declare, beforehand, that it could never be either annulled or modified without the assent of all the Powers that signed it.'

On January 17, 1871, the Plenipotentiaries of Germany, Austria, Great Britain, Italy, Russia, and Turkey, at the Conference of London, formally recognised that it is an essential principle of the law of nations that no power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting Powers, by means of an amicable arrangement.'

The result of the Conference was, that the neutralisation of the Black Sea was abrogated, and the principle of the closing of the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, such as it had been established by the separate convention of March 30, 1856, was maintained, with power to the Sultan to open the Straits in time of peace, to the vessels of war of the friendly and allied Powers, in the event that the Sublime Porte should consider it necessary, in order to secure the execution of the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris, 1856; the commission established by Art. XVI. of the Treaty of Paris, for the execution of the works necessary to clear the mouths of the Danube and neighbouring parts of the Black Sea from sand and other impediments, was prolonged for twelve years; and all the works of the Commission were to continue to enjoy the same neutrality hitherto afforded to them. But this provision was in no way to affect the right of the Porte to send, as theretofore, its vessels of war

§ 22. The great inland lakes, and their navigable outlets, are considered as subject to the same rule as inland seas: where enclosed within the limits of a single State they are regarded as belonging to the territory of that State; but if different nations occupy their borders, the rule of mare clausum cannot be applied to the navigation and use of their waters. No distinction is made between salt-water lakes, or inland seas, and fresh-water lakes. The right of territorial jurisdiction over the outlets of these inland waters, when narrow, and of excluding foreign ships of war, will be particularly discussed in another chapter.

§ 23. A river which flows, for its entire length, through the territory of a State, is regarded as forming part of its dominion, including the bays and estuaries formed by its junction with the sea. Where the entire upper portion of a navigable river is included within a single State, the part so enclosed is undoubtedly the property of such State. Where a navigable river forms the boundary of conterminous States, the middle of the channel.-the filum aquæ, or Thalweg-is generally taken as the line of their separation, the presumption of law being, that the right of navigation is common to them both. But this presumption may be rebutted or destroyed by actual proof of the exclusive title of one of the ripuarian proprietors to the entire river. Such title may have been acquired by prior occupancy, purchase, cession, treaty, or any one of the modes by which other public territory may be acquired. But where the river not only separates the conterminous States, but also their territorial jurisdictions, the Thalweg, or middle channel, forms the line of separation through the bays and estuaries through which the waters of the river flow into the sea. As a general rule, this line runs through the middle of the deepest channel, although it may divide the river and its estuaries into two very unequal parts. But the deeper channel may be less suited, or totally unfit, for the purposes of navigation, in which case the dividing line would be in the middle of the one which is best suited and ordinarily used for that

into the Danube, in its character of territorial power. This was signed March 24, 1871.