¹ H.R. 8344, supplanting H.R. 7552 introduced by Mr. Dimond on June 17, 1937. The Dimond bill is identical with S. 2679, introduced in the Senate by Senator Bone on June 15,1937.

² See this Journal, Vol. 31 (1937), p. 101; ibid., Supp., p. 183.

³ Query, whether a special rule applies to sedentary fisheries.

⁴ Le droit international public de la mer, Tome III, p. 465 Google Scholar.

⁵ See Barnes, Kathleen, “The Clash of Fishing Interests in the Pacific,” Par Eastern Survey, Vol. V (1936), p. 243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kathleen Barnes and Homer E. Gregory, “Alaska Salmon in World Politics,” ibid., Vol. VII (1938), p. 47; Allen, Edward W., “The North Pacific Fisheries,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. X (1937), p. 136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Miss Barnes and Professor Gregory are completing a comprehensive study of the economic aspects of this question; the study is to be published by the Institute of Pacific Relations. Additional facts may be found in “Alaska Salmon Fishery,” Hearings before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess., on H.R. 8344, Feb. 1 and 2, 1938.

⁶ Aliens are excluded from fishing within “any of the waters of Alaska under the jurisdiction of the United States” by the Act of June 14,1906, as amended June 25,1938,52 Stat.—.

⁷ This actually began to happen off the Russian coast of Kamchatka where the Japanese also operated shore concessions obtained from the Soviet Government. The Japanese and Russian interests were equally injured and the Japanese Government regulated its off-shore fishermen. Allen, loc. cit., (supra, note 5), at p. 146.

⁸ See Jessup, , “L’Exploitation des richesses de la mer,” Recueil des Cours, Académie de droit international, Vol. 29, p. 488 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Department of State Press Releases, March 26, 1938, p. 413.

¹⁰ The Pacific Fisherman (June, 1938), Vol. 36, p. 17. This journal, speaking for the commercial fishing interests of the Pacific coast, contains frequent articles and editorials on the whole problem. See especially the issue for May, 1938, p. 18, and for July, 1938, p. 15.

¹¹ Ibid., loc. cit.

¹² See Jessup, loc. cit., (supra, note 8), p. 438 ff.

¹³ See the admirable collection of data in Daggett, , “The Regulation of Maritime Fisheries by Treaty,” this Journal, Vol. 28 (1934), p. 693 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Now ratified by the United States, Brazil, Great Britain (with colonies), Newfoundland, Canada, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, Ireland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, Italy, Latvia, Mexico, Monaco, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Sudan, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and Yugoslavia. United States Treaty Series, No. 880. Cf. this Journal, Vol. 31 (1937), p. 112; ibid., Supp., Vol. 30 (1936), pp. 167, 198.

¹⁵ The Canadian right to share in the fisheries does not seem to be questioned.

¹⁶ See Fulton, The Sovereignty of the Sea (1911), p. 694, and Ch. V, passim; Jessup, The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction (1927), pp. 19-20 and 462.

¹⁷ This question cannot be re-argued here. The present writer has set forth his view that the three-mile limit is established in international law; The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction, Ch. I. It may be noted that the constitutions of the three Pacific coast states all adopt the three-mile limit: California Constitution, 1879, Art. 21; Oregon Constitution, 1857, Art. 16; Washington Constitution, 1889, Art. 24. Cf. the extraordinary Louisiana law of June 30, 1938, purporting to extend the territorial waters of that state twenty-four miles outside the three-mile limit; Acts, Regular Sess., 1938, p. 169. Mr. Dimond, the delegate from Alaska, in the Hearings cited supra, note 5, has argued in a lengthy memorandum that the three-mile limit is not established in international law. His argument is interesting and seems to be based on the following propositions: International law is international morality (natural law), and no rule which does not accord with equity and good morals can be a rule of international law; it does not accord with equity and good morale to destroy the Alaskan salmon fishing industry; therefore the three-mile rule which would have that effect, is not international law. It is necessary to point out, however, that Mr. Dimond’s argument in general also rests upon several other propositions, notably the right of a state to take measures on the high seas for the protection of its vital interests, or in self-defense.

¹⁸ Jessup, loc. cit. (supra, note 8), p. 409 ff.

¹⁹ Meyer, The Extent of Jurisdiction in Coastal Waters (1937), p. 380.

²⁰ Acts of the Conference, Vol. III, Minutes of the Second Committee, League Doc. C. 351 (b). M. 145 (b). 1930. V, p. 135.

²¹ Hearings, op. cit. (supra, note 5), p. 55. Mr. Dimond is led to denounce the treaty of 1911 for the protection of the seal herd and to protest against what he calls the paying of “tribute” to Japan. He overlooks (inter alia) the fact that the treaty of 1911 is reciprocal; under Art. 13, Japan is obligated to deliver annually to the United States 10 per cent, of the sealskins taken on Japanese islands. In 1935, for example, 201 sealskins of a value of $4,814.75 were thus delivered. Alaskan Fisheries and Fur Industries in 1936, Appendix II to the Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries (U. S.) for 1937, p. 338.

²² Cf. the suggestion of the United States at the Hague Codification Conference, Acts of the Conference, he. cit., (supra, note 20), p. 196.

²³ 24 Stat. 475.

²⁴ Cf. Section 4 of the Dimond bill summarized supra. The British Government enforced a law forbidding the landing in Great Britain of fish caught in the Moray Firth by methods which were declared to be illegal for British subjects; 9 Edw. VII, с. 8. This measure was adopted after the conclusion was reached that aliens could not be forbidden to fish in the area in question.

²⁵ Secy. Root to Senator Lodge, Sept. 27, 1905; Senator Lodge to Secy. Root, Sept. 29, 1905; Root Papers, Library of Congress.

²⁶ Cf. the interjections of opinion by Representative Sirovich (New York) in the Hearings before the House Committee, op. cit., (supra, note 5), pp. 12, 14, 133.

²⁷ Address before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, Jan. 23, 1924; this Journal, Vol. 18 (1924), pp. 229, 233.

²⁸ See the report of the Twenty-third Commission of the Institut de droit international, Annaire, 1936, Vol. I, p. 329 ff.

²⁹ In 1936 the production of fishery products by United States fishermen off the west coast of Latin America and the east coast of Mexico, totaled a little over six million dollars. On the basis of a sample average, about 17 per cent, of the value of fishery products taken by United States fishermen annually is derived from waters off foreign coasts. (Information supplied by courtesy of the Bureau of Fisheries, United States Department of Commerce.)

³⁰ Cf. New York Times, Nov. 17, 1938, dispatch from Mexico City headed “Japanese in Mexico Keep Fishing Eights.”