with a view to learn its wishes as to the continuance of the convention." The correspondence here ended. In the summer of 1844 the United States put afloat in Lake Erie the side-wheel bark Michigan, which was built at Pittsburg and removed in sections to Erie. Her registered tonnage was 498 tons, and she was armed with two 8-inch guns and four 32-pound carronades. The British minister at Washington remonstrated and requested explanations, and the vessel was ordered not to leave Erie till further orders. At the same time it was stated that there was reason to believe that the British Government still had in commission on the lakes a larger force, both in number and tonnage, than was authorized by the agreement of 1817, and it was suggested that, in view of the substitution of steam for sails, and of the increase in the size of vessels, since the agreement was made, a revision of it would be justified. The Michigan appears to have remained in the lakes without further objection till 1856, when Lord Clarendon, though disclaiming any wish or purpose to complain, apprized Mr. Dallas, who was then United States minister in London, that he had been written to respecting the existence at Detroit of a revenue cutter whose size and armament were incompatible with the arrangement of 1817. An inquiry on the subject was subsequently made by Lord Napier. The Michigan was not in fact a revenue cutter, but was under the control of the Navy Department. Her presence was again referred to by Lord Lyons in 1861. In 1864, with a view to enable the United States to take measures against the acts of Confederate agents, who were endeavoring to carry on hostilities from Canadian territory, the House of Representatives adopted a joint resolution looking to the termination of the arrangement of 1818. The resolution was not then considered in the Senate, and in the autumn of 1864 Mr. Seward instructed Mr. a Mr. Fox, Brit. min., to Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, Nov. 30, 1841, H. Doc. 471, 46 Cong. 1 sess. 24. Mr. Pakenham, Brit. min., to Mr. Calhoun, Sec. of State, July 23, 1844, H. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 24-25. Mr. Calhoun, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pakenham, Brit. min., Sept. 5, 1844, enclosing copy of a letter of Mr. Mason, Sec. of Navy, Sept. 4, 1844, H. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 25. d Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Guthrie, Sec. of Treasury, Dec. 16, 1856, 46 MS. Dom. Let. 169; Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dobbin, Sec. of Navy, Dec. 23, 1856, 46 MS. Dom. Let. 180. e Lord Napier, Brit. min., to Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, Apr. 9, 1857, H. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. "6. f Lord Lyons, Brit. min., to Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, Aug. 31, 1861, H. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 27. Adams, then minister in London, to advise the British Government that the Secretary of the Treasury had chartered two propellers for defensive purposes in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and also to give the six months' notice of termination required by the arrangement. This Mr. Adams did November 23, 1864. Pursuant to the terms of the notice, which was afterwards ratified by a joint resolution of Congress, approved February 9, 1865, the arrangement was to terminate on the 23d of the following May. But before that time, with the decline of the Confederate cause, the situation on the border greatly improved, and in March, 1865, Mr. Adams was instructed to say that the United States was "quite willing that the convention should remain practically in force." Mr. Seward subsequently stated, in response to an inquiry on the subject, that the instruction to Mr. Adams "was intended as a withdrawal of the previous notice within the time allowed, and that it is so held by this Government.” ₺ Soon after the withdrawal of the notice, Mr. Seward, replying to a request of Sir Frederick Bruce for explanations as to the construction of several vessels prepared for the reception of a powerful armament, which were reported to be destined for service on the Lakes, stated that they were "intended exclusively for revenue purposes, and that their armament, if any, will not be allowed to exceed the limit stipulated in the conventional arrangements." 66 с Mr, Seward had previously stated, in a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, that he was not "prepared to acknowledge" that the purpose of the arrangement of 1817 was to restrict the armament or tonnage of vessels designed exclusively for the revenue service." d In the negotiations leading up to the arrangement of 1817 the distinction between naval forces and the revenue service was at times clearly expressed, but the final notes did not record it. But, since Mr. Seward's note to Sir Frederick Bruce, it seems to have been admitted on both sides that the arrangement did not preclude the maintenance of a revenue service. In 1892 the United States revenue service on the Lakes comprised three steamers: The Perry, stationed at Erie, 281.54 tons, armed with two 3-inch rifles; the Fessenden, at Detroit, 329.81 tons, with one 30-pounder Parrott gun, two 24pounder Dalghren howitzers, and two 3-inch rifles; the Johnson, at Milwaukee, 499 tons, with one 30-pounder Parrott and two 24 a Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to England, March 8, 1865, H. Doc, 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 33. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Sir F. Bruce, Brit. min., June 16, 1865, H. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 34. c Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Sir F. Bruce, Brit. min., Nov. 4, 1895; H. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 34. d Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Chase, Sec. of Treasury, May 7, 1864, 64 MS. Dom. Let. 228. pounder howitzers. It was stated at the same time that two vessels for the Canadian Government had been constructed at Owen Sound, Ontario, which, although styled revenue cutters and destined to suppress smuggling on the St. Lawrence River and the lakes, were capable of adaptation to naval purposes; and that another revenue cutter of similar type had been launched from Hamilton, Ontario. The naval force of the United States on the Lakes in 1892 was confined, as it had been for many years, to the single iron side-wheel steamer Michigan, then rating 685 tons and carrying four howitzers. It did not appear that any British or Canadian naval vessels had for many years been stationed on the Lakes. As the result of the foregoing examination it may be said (1) that the arrangement of 1817 is "to be regarded as still in existence, and only terminable in good faith by six months' notice of abrogation on either side; " (2) that, in respect of the engagement to limit the effective force on each side to four vessels not exceeding 100 tons burden apiece, and each armed with one 18-pounder cannon, it does not respond to the enormous changes wrought in the conditions of intercourse upon the Lakes;" (3) that the reason of the prohibition to build or arm other vessels of war on the Lakes has been removed by the opening of an outlet by water to the sea; (4) that the arrangement should therefore be modified to fit the new order of things." 66 66 Report of Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to the President, Dec. 7, 1892, S. Ex. The report here cited is substantially exhaustive, and the facts embraced For the text of correspondence in 1840, and 1864-5, see H. Doc. 471, 56 See, also, S. Report 449, 55 Cong. 2 sess. reprinted in H. Doc. 471, 56 "The records of the Department of Justice do not show that any opinion See letter of the Hon. Don M. Dickinson to Mr. Herbert, Sec. of Navy, Oct. 17, 1895, arguing that the prohibition to build or arm other vessels of war on the Lakes should not be held to prevent the building of such vessels there, "except they be armed, equipped, and maintained' as war-ships on those waters." (MSS. Navy Dept.) The Navy Department has declined to award contracts for the construction, even in parts, on the Lakes, of war vessels which might be held to contravene the arrangement of 1817. (H. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 38, 63-64, 67.) For a list of British and Canadian government vessels on the Great Lakes or in the St. Lawrence River, and capable of running back and forth through the canals, in 1895, see H. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 65. 66 As to the passage of four United States revenue cutters from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic coast after the outbreak of the war with Spain, see id, 65-71. For correspondence in 1898 touching the desire of the United States to construct on the Lakes a vessel to take the place of the U. S. S. Michigan, see id. 67-72. "An agreement was reached between the two Governments on May 30, 1898, for the creation of a joint high commission, to which should be referred for settlement various pending questions between the United States and Canada, among which was 'a revision of the agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the Lakes.'. . . . . In 1817 the Great Lakes were independent inland waters," there being then no navigable connection between them and the ocean. Under such circumstances to build and arm vessels on the Lakes meant to maintain' them there and to use them for no other purpose than as part of the permanent armament. . . . Moreover, at the time of making the arrangement the region of the Great Lakes was in large measure an uninhabited wilderness. To-day the Lakes are highways for an enormous traffic, and their ports. . have, among other things, peculiar advantages for the construction of certain classes of war vessels. . . . The American members of the Joint High Commission were therefore instructed to secure some agreement whereby. under proper conditions, such vessels should be constructed and passed through the Canadian canals to the ports of the United States on the Atlantic Ocean. It was likewise held that a proper construction of the arrangement did not prohibit the maintenance on the Lakes of vessels properly equipped for the purpose of training seamen and reserves in the Middle States, and that the employment of a proper training ship is not necessarily hostile to the spirit of the arrangement and should be so declared. It is understood that some satisfactory progress was made in the Joint High Commission toward the attainment of these ends, but the labors of the commission have been suspended without reaching a definite result." Report of Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to the President, Feb. 26, 1900, H. Doc. 471, 56 Cong. 1 sess. 2-3. 7. MARGINAL SEA. (1) GENERAL PRINCIPLES. Perels, in his work on the Admiralty, justifies the doctrine of the territoriality of adjacent waters on the three following grounds: (1) The security of a maritime state requires the possession of its marginal waters; (2) the surveillance of ships which enter those waters, whether passing through or stopping there, is demanded in order to guarantee the efficient police and the development of the political, commercial, and fiscal interests of the bordering state; (3) the enjoyment of the possession of territorial waters serves to sustain the existence of the population on the coast. Perels, Seerecht, §§ 24, 37, 74, 76–88. See, also, Latour, La Mer Territoriale au Point de Vue Théorique et Pratique, Paris, 1889. This author defines the territorial sea as the sea adjacent to the coasts, over which the bordering nation may from the shore employ its armed forces, and thus exercise the power which is necessary to defend its territory and coasts, assure the safety of its inhabitants, and guard its fiscal and commercial interests. In following out his discussion he maintains a distinction between the exercise by a nation of its protective power and the claim of exclusive possession. See, specially, Territorial Waters, Questionnaire, Replies and Report, in the 15th annual report of the Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, Genoa, 1892. "The principle that the littoral sea forms part of the territory is justified by the exigencies of the conservation and safety of the state, from the military, sanitary, and fiscal point of view, as well as from the point of view of industrial interests, especially that of the fisheries. . . "How far does the littoral sea extend? It seems reasonable, in virtue of its object and its accessorial quality, to say that it extends as far from the shore as the territorial power can be defended and maintained, that is to say, to the range of cannon shot. . . . ... "Some recent conventional, legislative, or judicial acts have replaced the range of cannon, which varies with the progress of armaments and weapons, by a fixed distance of a marine league, that is to say three marine miles or a twentieth of a degree of latitude," which was formerly the range of cannon shot. "The rational principle of the range of cannon was formulated by Bynkershoek, in chapter 2 of his dissertation de domino maris (1703): Generaliter dicendum esset, potestatem terrae finiri ubi finitur armorum vis.' Rivier, Droit des Gens, I. 145, 146, 147. See, also, Latour, La Mer Territoriale au Point de Vue Théorique et Pratique, 1889; Barclay, Annuaire, Institut de Droit Int. XIII. 125–162; Plocque, Législation des Eaux et de la Navigation, 1870-1875: Pradier-Fodéré, Droit Int. II. § 617; Perels, Manuel de Droit Mar. Int. (trad. Arendt), § 5; A. Geouffre de Lapradelle, Le Droit de l'État sur la Mer Territoriale, 1898 (extract from La Revue Générale de Droit Int. Public); Phillimore (3rd ed.), I. 274; Wheaton (Dana's ed.), § 189; Creasey, First Platform of International Law, 233; Walker, Science of Int. Law, 171. Chancellor Kent suggested that, considering the long line of American coasts, the United States might claim control of the waters included within lines stretching from distant headlands, as, for instance, |