[Inclosure. Translation.] Mr. Bayless to the President of Peru. WASHINGTON, October 29, 1912. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the courteous note of September 23, 1912, from His Excellency Señor A. B. Leguia, ex-President of the Republic, in which His Excellency is good enough to appoint me, jointly with Doctor George M. Converse, engineer for the sanitation of the city of Iquitos, Peru. I am glad to inform you that I accept the position and that I shall leave New York for Iquitos on November fifth. Very respectfully, SAMUEL E. BAYLESS. RUSSIA. EXTENSION BY RUSSIA OF THE THREE-MILE LIMIT OF TERRITORIAL WATERS TO TWELVE MILES FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES AND CONTROL OF FISHERIES. File No. 861.0145. The Russian Embassy to the Department of State. [Memorandum.] The British Government contend that a law recently promulgated in Russia and subjecting to the Russian customs regulations the waters of the sea within 12 nautical miles from the Russian shores, is contrary to the principles of international law. Sections 2760, 2867 and 3067 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provide for a zone of 4 leagues (equal to 12 miles) within which the authority of the United States customs officers is exercised. In view of the above-stated contention of the British Government, the Imperian Russian Foreign Office is anxious to learn whether the British Government have ever protested against the enactment of the American law, either when it was originally passed or at a later date, and what was the nature of the reply offered by the United States to such a protest. IMPERIAL RUSSIAN EMBASSY, Washington, April 12, 1910. File No. 861.0145. The Department of State to the Russian Embassy. [Memorandum.] Referring to the inquiry contained in the memorandum of the Russian Embassy of the 12th instant, in connection with the subject of the Russian law assuming, for customs purposes, a jurisdiction of twelve nautical miles from the coasts, it may be stated that there is no record of any protest having been made at any time by Great Britain against the enactment of sections 2760, 2867 and 3067 of the Revised Statutes of the United States providing for a zone of four leagues from the coast within which the authority of the United States customs officers is exercised. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 18, 1910. File No. 861.0145/2. The American Ambassador to the Secretary of State. No. 363.] AMERICAN EMBASSY, St. Petersburg, September 30, 1910. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy and translation of a law approved by the Emperor December 10/23, 1909, and pro mulgated January 1/14 last, whereby the area of supervision by the Russian customs authorities is extended to twelve marine miles from low-water mark. I learn from the British Embassy that shortly after the promulgation of this law, the British Government gave notice that with reference to this question it reserved the rights of its subjects as fixed by international usage. The Russian Government replied that, in the absence of treaty provisions to the contrary, the determination of the limits to which customs supervision could be extended was a question not of international usage but of domestic regulation; and it instanced similar enactments of other Powers, including the United States (presumably referring to section 2760 of the Revised Statutes, quoted in Moore's Digest, I, 725, § 151); and it asked for a more precise statement of the rights which the British Government had declared its intention of reserving. The British Government thereupon expressed its unwillingness to acquiesce under any circumstances in a claim to jurisdiction over marginal seas beyond the generally recognized three-mile limit. To this expression of views the Russian Government has not yet replied. I am informed from the same source that, notwithstanding some misleading comment published at the time, the recent seizure of the British steamer Onward (as to which a Russian official communiqué was transmitted in this Embassy's No. 277 of July 20 last) did not involve the question raised by this law: the Onward was seized on the charge of fishing within Russian territorial waters; but she was voluntarily released by the Russian Government upon its appearing that when arrested she was, though perhaps within twelve miles of a line from headland to headland of the White Sea, at a distance of more than twelve miles from the shore. The case is therefore of no significance as indicating the intention of the Russian Government to insist upon the extension of its territorial control over the marginal seas, whether for customs purposes only, or for other jurisdictional purposes. One of the Secretaries of the Japanese Embassy has recently made inquiry of this Embassy as to the attitude of the Department of State on this question. While careful not to make any specific statement, he gave the impression that his Government is endeavoring to learn the attitude of the other Powers with a view to remonstrating against the Russian claim if it finds that it may rely upon support in such a protest. I am informed by the German Embassy that its Government has not made any remonstrance in this matter; whether it intends to do so I have not yet been able to learn. I have therefore the honor to request that the Department instruct me what action, if any, it desires me to take in regard to this question. I have [etc.] [Inclosure. Translation.} W. W. ROCKHILL. Law extending the Maritime Customs area. Law approved by the Council of Empire and by the Imperial Duma, and supremely confirmed, concerning the extension of the maritime customs area. To interpret in the following manner the fourth paragraph of the supplement to paragraph 2 of the Customs Regulations (Collection of Laws, volume VI, Edition of 1994): 1. The surface of the water for twelve marine miles from extreme low-water mark from the seacoasts of the Russian Empire, whether mainland or islands, is recognized as the Marine Customs area, within the limits of which every vessel, whether Russian or foreign, is subject to supervision by those Russian authorities in whose charge is the guarding of the frontiers of the Empire. Memorandum of the Solicitor's office of the Department of State. [Memorandum.] OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, MUNICIPAL SEIZURES BEYOND THE THREE-MILE LIMIT. The American Ambassador at St. Petersburg reports that the Emperor has approved a law promulgated January 1/14, 1910, whereby the area of supervision by Russian customs authorities has been extended twelve marine miles from low-water mark. Inasmuch as enforcement of this law may lead to seizures of American vessels beyond the ordinary limit of territorial waters, it is necessary to examine the question whether such seizures would be consistent with rules of international law. The British" Hovering Act" of 1734 assumed for certain revenue purposes a jurisdiction of four leagues from the coast by prohibiting foreign goods from being transshipped within that distance without payment of duties. Boyd says this act has long since been repealed and the present legislation distinguishes as to extent of jurisdiction claimed for revenue purposes between British ships and foreign ships. There is no longer any authority under British law to visit foreign vessels beyond the three-mile limit. (Boyd's Wheaton, 241). Hall, however, states that within 4 leagues any customs officer may board and demand the manifest of any ship. (Hall, For. Juris. 243.) The United States in 1797 passed a similar law (probably suggested by the British Act) which has been incorporated in Revised Statutes. section 2760, which reads as follows: They [officers of the revenue cutters] shall go on board all vessels which arrive within the United States or within four leagues of the coast thereof, if bound for the United States, and search and examine the same, and every part 1" So be it" on the original is written in Ilis Imperial Majesty's own hand. (Note by the Minister.) December 23, 1909, new style. thereof, and shall demand, receive, and certify the manifests required to be on board certain vessels, shall affix and put proper fastenings on the hatches and other communications with hold of any vessel, and shall remain on board such vessel until they arrive at the port or place of their destination. The fact that the territorial limits have been in some cases fixed by treaty (for example, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848, Art. V), or changes suggested by that method (1 Moore, 732), would seem to show how definite and fixed nations regard the three-mile limit of territorial waters. The question of municipal seizure on high seas appears to be left open by the conventions of The Hague Conferences and the London Naval Conference. As indicating the attitude of the political department of the American Government, the following expressions of Secretaries of State may be given: Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, wrote to the British Minister in 1875, in regard to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the act of Congress on revenue seizures, that: 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. 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 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. Moore, 731.) (1 In 1879, Secretary of State Evarts instructed Mr. Foster, American Minister to Mexico, that An attack by Mexican officials on merchant vessels of the United States, when distant more than three miles from the Mexican coast, on the ground of breach of revenue laws, is an international offense, which is not cured by a decree in favor of the assailants, collusively or corruptly maintained in a Mexican court. (1 Moore, 731.) Secretary of State Evarts in 1881, writing to the Minister to Spain concerning the visitation and firing upon four American vessels near the Island of Cuba in 1880, said: This Government must adhere to the three-mile rule as the jurisdictional limit, and the cases of visitation without that line seem not to be excused or excusable under that rule. This Government frankly and fully accepts the disclaimer of the Government of His Majesty that any intention of discourtesy existed in these proceedings. It insists, however, on the importance of a clear understanding of the jurisdictional limit. It insists, likewise, on the distinction between the verification (according to the usual procedure of revenue cruisers), within a reasonable range of approach of vessels seeking Spanish ports in the due pursuit of trade therewith, and the arrest by armed force, without the jurisdictional three-mile limit, of vessels not bound to Spanish ports. (1 Moore, 732.) The validity of seizures under the above and similar municipal acts has been the subject of comment by various writers on international law. Mr. Dana in his notes to his edition of Wheaton says: Doubtless States have made laws for revenue purposes touching acts done beyond territorial waters, but it will not be found that, in later times, the right to make seizures beyond such waters has been insisted upon against the remonstrance of foreign States, or that a clear and unequivocal judicial precedent now stands sustaining such seizures when the question of jurisdiction has been presented. |