No. 279.
Mr. Fish
to Sir Edward Thornton.
Washington, January 22, 1875.
Sir: The instruction from the foreign office to Mr. Watson, of the 25th of September last, a copy of which was communicated by that gentleman to this Department, in his note of the 17th of October, directs him to ascertain the views of this Government in regard to the extent of maritime jurisdiction which can properly be claimed by any power, and whether we have ever recognized the claim of Spain to a six-mile limit or have ever protested against such claim.
In reply I have the honor to inform you that this Government has uniformly, under every administration which has had occasion to consider the subject, objected to the pretension of Spain adverted to, upon the same ground and in similar terms to those contained in the instruction of the Earl of Derby.
We have always understood and asserted that, pursuant to public law, no nation can rightfully claim jurisdiction at sea beyond a marine league from its coast.
This opinion on our part has sometimes been said to be inconsistent with the facts that, by the laws of the United States, revenue-cutters are authorized to board vessels anywhere within four leagues of their coasts, and that by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, so called, between the United States and Mexico, of the second of February, 1848, the boundary line between the dominions of the parties begins in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land.
It is believed, however, that in carrying into effect the authority conferred by the act of Congress referred, to, no vessel is boarded, if boarded at all, except such a one as, upon being hailed, may have answered that she was bound to a port of the United States. At all events, although the act of Congress was passed in the infancy of this Government, there is [Page 650] no known instance of any complaint on the part of a foreign government of the trespass by a commander of a revenue-cutter upon the rights of its flag under the law of nations.
In respect to the provision in the treaty with Mexico, it may be remarked that it was probably suggested by the passage in the act of Congress referred to, and designed for the same purpose, that of preventing smuggling. By turning to the files of your legation, you will find that Mr. Bankhead, in a note to Mr. Buchanan of the 30th of April, 1848, objected on behalf of Her Majesty’s government, to the provision in question. Mr. Buchanan, however, replied in a note of the 19th of August, in that year, that the stipulation could only affect the rights of Mexico and the United States, and was never intended to trench upon the rights of Great Britain, or of any other power under the law of nations.
I have, &c.,