711.559/6
The Ambassador in Belgium (Fletcher) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 17.]
Sir: With reference to the Department’s unnumbered instruction of September 10 last, in regard to the proposal for a treaty to be concluded between the United States and Belgium with respect to the enforcement of prohibition on Belgian vessels within American territorial waters and measures for stopping smuggling of liquor, I have the honor to report as follows:
The extract from the Columbia Law Review quoted in the Department’s instruction regarding the extent of territorial jurisdiction claimed by Belgium seems to have been misconstrued. The six mile limit, or, more properly, the one myriameter (ten kilometer) limit, of the Belgian customs zone referred to does not extend beyond Belgian territory but rather from the Belgian frontier into Belgium. This limit has not been established to allow Belgian customs officials to exercise their right of visit but to prevent any person circulating in this zone from being in possession of new goods. It has likewise been established to prevent the erection within the zone in question of such buildings as might facilitate the smuggling of goods into Belgium.
The Pandectes Belges, “Douanes & Accises—Paragraph 1112”, reads as follows:
“Measures taken by the legislator to prevent smuggling by forbidding transport and circulation of merchandise within the restricted area unless furnished with justifying documents …57 Law of April 6, 1843, Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6. These laws would have been inefficacious if, at the same time, the storing of merchandise within the area in question had not been forbidden. In reality, buildings erected in the territory might serve for the concealment of the smuggled articles and might thus facilitate illegal enterprises designed to introduce merchandise into the country without paying the duties owing to the Treasury.
“Article 177 of the general law forbade any depot within the customs line. According to Article 177, modified by the law of June 7, 1832, covering the creation of a single customs section, it is forbidden to have or to establish stores or depôts of merchandise within a distance of one myriameter (10 kilometers) from the furthest land frontier and a half myriameter (5 kilometers) on the coast border. This distance was to be very exactly indicated in order to meet the provisions of the law and a Royal Decree covering the delimitation of this territory was issued on March 4, 1851.”
This Royal Decree of the 4th March 1851, which appeared in the Moniteur Beige of the 23rd March, 1851, describes “all the villages and places of Belgium where this custom limit has been established”. The line runs almost parallel to the frontier, of course, within the territory of Belgium. It is, therefore, obvious that the extract of the Columbia Law Review contains a mistake as it compares the custom limit to the fisheries limit and gives the impression that both of these limits are an extension of the Belgian territory.
According to Belgian Laws and Treaties and all authors on Belgian Public Law, without exception, the only extension of the Belgian territory by legal enactment is the three-mile limit. The waters within these three miles are, therefore, considered as an extension of the Belgian territory and called “territorial waters”. The greatest number of Belgian authors on Public Law state that this limit is calculated from the sea-shore at low-tide and extends to a distance of three miles, or about five kilometers. This limit has been accepted by Belgium in the Hague Convention of May 6, 1882 in regard to fisheries in the North Sea.57a
According to Paragraph 2 of this Convention, Belgian fishermen have the sole right of fishing in Belgian territorial waters, that is to say, within a limit of three miles along the Belgian coast. Paragraph 3 of this Convention states that the miles mentioned are geographical miles, (60 to a degree).
This Convention is embodied in the Belgian Law of August 19, 1891.
I have not discussed with officials of the Belgian Government the possibility of a treaty with the United States similar to that which is under discussion with England, as I have no doubt that if Great Britain and the United States are able to conclude a treaty on this subject which will give English ships the right to carry liquor under seal into our ports it will be very easy to conclude a similar treaty with Belgium, especially as few rum-runners will use Belgium as a base of operations, whereas there are legitimate shipping interests operating vessels to the United States.
I have [etc.]