페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Page.

Page. Rowe v. Granite Bridge Co. 90, Trustees of Watertown v. 92, 118, 121 Cowen

122, 202 Rust v. Boston Mill Corp. 233 Turner v. Blodget

120, 173 280

v. Low

[blocks in formation]

92,

Sale v. Pratt 225, 264, 273, 280 Udall v. Trustees of Brooklyn 240 Schuylkill Nav. Co. v. Freedley 95 United States v. Wiltzberger 4 Scott v. Wilson 45, 64, 78, 132

v. Grush

5, 6 Shaw v. Crawford

78 Shrunk v. Schuylkill Nav. Co., 76,

V.

193 Simpson v. Hand

114 Smith v. State of Maryland

Valentine v. Piper 228, 229, 232 41

Verplanck v. City of New et al. v. Yates

247

York Sparhawk v. Bullard 72, 227, 229, Vinton v. Welsh

243, 244

152 230, 233 Spring v. Russell

78, 94 v. Seavey

78 State v. Creek Co. Storer v. Freeman 71, 225, 227, Watertown v. White

153 229, 270

v. Draper 153 Stoughton (Town of) v. Ba- Water Power Co. v. Boston ker 287 & Wor. R. R. Co.

92 Striker v. Mayor, &c., of Waters v. Lilly

273 New York

240 Westfall v. Van Anker 132 White v. Whittier

192 T.

Wilson v. Black Bird Creek
Marsh Co.

63, 86, 90 Thompson v. Androscoggin

v. Forbes

77 Bridge

111

v. Inloes 173, 247, 248

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Page.

Page.
A.
Gray v. Bond

181, 193

Grimstead v. Marlowe 273 Attorney General v. Richards 21, 200, 202

H.
o. Parmeter 27,
201, 202 Hamilton v. Davis

293 v. Burridge 27, Harmond v. Pearson

113 201, 202 Henly v. Mayor, &c. of Lyme 96 v. Cleaver 117, Hill v. Smith

282 202 Hogarth v. Jackson

138 v. Johnston 200, Horne v. Mackenzie 69, 74, 75

201, 202 0. Philpot 201

K.
v. Forbes 202

Kiplock v. Neville
B.

L.
Bagott v. Orr 33, 135, 274
Ball v. Herbert
177 Lowe v. Govett

71, 261 Barnes v. Baker

202 Bath River Nav. Co. v. Willis 177

M. Bell v. Hull and Selby Rail

175 Mayor of Colchester v. Brooke 83 Blundell v. Catterall 17, 21, 22, 25, of Orford v. Richard26, 28, 67, 70, 86, 142, 178,

127, 274 179, 180, 191, 192, 195, 271. of Malden v. Woolvet 141 Bristol Harbor Case 202 Meller v. Spateman

273 Bruckelsbank v. Smith 111 Miles v. Rose

276

178

way Co.

son

son

C.

N. Carter v. Murcot

Newcastle (Town of) v. John

126, 270, 274 Chad v. Tilsed

201 280 City of Bristol v. Morgan 201

P. Constable's (Sir Henry) Case 22,

67, 78, 290 Penn v. Lord Baltimore 48 Crowder v. Tinkler 121, 202

R.
F.
Regina v. Randall

204 Fitzwalter's Case 22 Rex v. Clark

84 v. Crunden

35 G.

v. Lord Grosvenor 206

v. Lord Yarborough 258, 267 Gatewood's Case 273 v. Montague

86, 89

Page.

[ocr errors]

Pago.
Rex v. Pegham

97 Spencer v. Birming. and Lon-
v. Russell
203 don Railway Co.

122 v. Smith

74, 91 Stratton v. Brown 22, 23, 251, 267 v. Tindall

203 v. Trafford

266 v. Watts

113 Ripon (Earl of) v. Hobart 202 Robson v. Robinson

85

Vanderplanck v. Miller 114

274 Rogers v. Allen

287

Vooght v. Winch Rose v. Groves

120
Royal Fishery in River Banne
(Case of)

21, 73, 75
Ward v. Cresswell

274 S.

Warren v. Mathews 125, 142
Watson v. Shelby

277 Sampson v. Smith 122 Williams v. Wilcox

26, 85 Seymour v. Courtenay 126 Skinner et al. v. Chapman et al.

139

Y. Somerset (Duke of) v. Fogwell 22, 137, 143' Young v. Hichens

138

[ocr errors]

INTRODUCTION.

OF THE RIGHT OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER

THE SEA, ARMS OF THE SEA, AND NAVIGABLE RIV

ERS.

As the right of property in the sea, arms of the sea, and navigable rivers (the subject proposed) is involved with the sovereign right of territorial jurisdiction, and is co-extensive with it, the latter subject suggests a claim to attention as preliminary to an essay in exposition of the law of the former.

In regard to the jurisdiction of nations and states over the open sea, by virtue of jurisdiction over adjacent territory, it is only necessary to refer to the well established rule, that, from its nature, it cannot be possessed ; and that it is therefore regarded as the common property, as is signified by the common term, “common highway,” of nations. The dominion of a nation is allowed, however, to extend so far from the land as is necessary for its own safety.

· Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. (U. S.) R. 212 ; App. cxiv.

The writers upon maritime and international law admit, that every nation has jurisdiction to the distance of cannon shot, or maritime league, over the waters of its adjacent shores.' The Congress of the United States have recognized this limitation, by authorizing the District Courts to take cognizance of all captures, made within a marine league of the American shores. The power of a nation within its own territory, is absolute and exclusive, and the seizure of a vessel within the range of its cannon shot, by a foreign force, is an invasion of that territory, and an act of hostility. It is true, indeed, that the maritime authority of a nation, to secure itself from injury, may be extended beyond the limit of its territory, as in the instance of the acknowledged right of a belligerent to search a neutral vessel on the high seas for contraband of war."

History, however, it is well known, affords instances in which a greater extent of dominion over the sea has been arrogated by nations and states than the limit above prescribed, or than that consistent with strict justice. The naval strength of England has emboldened its monarchs to attribute to themselves as Lords paramount, the whole sea which surrounds their island, even as far as the opposite coasts."

I Vattel, 207 ; Bynk. 61; 1 Azuni, 204 ; Ib. 185.

Act of Congress, 1794, c. 50 ; 1 Kent, Comm. 29. • Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, (U. S.) R. 234 ; 1 Kent, Comm. 26. 4 Church v. Hubbart, ub. sup.

Selden's Mare Clausum, L. 1, b. 2 ; Vattel, 191; 1 Kent, Comm. 28.

« 이전계속 »