Nevertheless, even those who lay burdens upon foreign- ers, or appropriate things common to all, rely upon a pos- session which is to some extent real. For since original occupation created private property, therefore detention of a thing, though unjust, gives an appearance of ownership. But have the Portuguese completely covered the ocean, as we are wont to do on land, by laying out estates on it in such a way that they have the right to exclude from that ocean whom they will? Not at all! On the contrary, they are so far from having done so, that when they divide up the world to the disadvantage of other nations, they cannot even defend their action by showing any boundaries either natural or artificial, but are compelled to fall back upon some imaginary line. Indeed, if that were a recognized method, and such a delimitation of boundaries were suffi- cient to make possession valid, our geometers long since would have got possession of the face of the earth, our astronomers of the very skies.
But where in this case is that corporal possession or physical appropriation, without which no ownerships arise? There appears to be nothing truer than what our learned jurists have enunciated, namely,1 that since the sea is just as insusceptible of physical appropriation as the air, it cannot be attached to the possessions of any nation.
But if the Portuguese call occupying the sea merely to have sailed over it before other people, and to have, as it were, opened the way, could anything in the world be more ridiculous? For, as there is no part of the sea on which some person has not already sailed, it will necessarily follow that every route of navigation is occupied by some one. Therefore we peoples of today are all absolutely excluded. Why will not those men who have circumnavigated the globe be justified in saying that they have acquired for themselves the possession of the whole ocean! But there •Johannes Faber on Institutes II, 1, S.
40 MARE LIBERVM navem per mare transeuntem non plus iuris, quam vestigii reKnquere. Verum etiam quod sibi sumunt neminem ante ipsos eum Oceanum navigasse, id minime verum est. Magna enim pars eius de quo agitur maris, ambitu Mauritaniae, iam olim navigata est; ulterior et in orientem vergens victoriis Magni Alexandri lustrata est, usque in Arabicum sinum.1 Olim autem hanc navigationem Gaditanis percognitam fuisse, multa argumento sunt. Caio Caesare Augusti filio in Arabico sinu res gerente signa navium ex Hispaniensibus naufragiis agnita. Et quod Caelius Antipater tradidit, vidisse se qui ex Hispania in Aethiopiam commercii gratia navigasset. Etiam Arabibus, si verum est, quod Cornelius Nepos testatus est, Eudoxum quendam sua aetate cum L/athyrum Regem Alexandriae fugeret, Arabico sinu egres- sum Gades usque pervectum. Poenos autem, qui re maritima plurimum valuerunt, eum Oceanum non ignorasse longe clarissimum est, cum Hanno Carthaginis potentia florente circumvectus a Gadibus ad finem Arabiae, praeter- navigato scilicet promontorio quod nunc Bonae Spei dicitur, (vetus videtur nomen Hesperion ceras fuisse) omne id iter, situmque litoris et insularum scripto complexus sit, testa- tusque ad ultimum non mare sibi, sed commeatum defuisse.
Ab Arabico autem sinu ad Indiam, Indicique Oceani insulas, et auream usque Chersonesum, quam esse lapanem 'credunt plerique, etiam re Romana florente navigari solitum, iter a Plinio descriptum,2 legationes ab Indis ad 'Pliny, Naturalis historia II, 69; VI, 27 [(31) Vol. 1, pp. 482-488 Mayhoff]; Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III.
'Pliny, Naturalis historia VI, 20 (23).
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 40 is not a single person in the world who does not know that a ship sailing through the sea leaves behind it no more legal right than it does a track. And as for the assumption of the Portuguese that no one has sailed that ocean before themselves, that is anything but true. For a great part of that sea near Morocco, which is in dispute, had already been navigated long before, and the sea as far east as the Arabian gulf has been made famous by the victories of Alexander the Great, as both Pliny and Mela tell us.1 There is also much to substantiate the belief that the inhabitants of Cadiz were well acquainted long ago with this route, because when Gaius Caesar,* the son of Augustus, held command in the Arabian gulf, pieces were found of shipwrecks recognized as Spanish. Caelius Antipater also has told us in his writings that he himself saw a Spaniard who had sailed from Spain to Ethiopia on a commercial voyage. Also the Arabians knew those seas, if the testi- mony of Cornelius Nepos is to be believed, because he says that in his own day a certain Eudoxus, fleeing from Lathyrus, king of Alexandria, sailed from the Arabian gulf and finally reached Cadiz. However, by far the most famous example is that of the Carthaginians. Those most famous mariners were well acquainted with that sea, because Hanno, when Carthage was at the height of her power, sailing from Cadiz to the farthest confines of Arabia, and doubling the promontory now known as the Cape of Good Hope (the ancient name seems to have been Hyperion Ceras), de- scribed in a book the entire route he had taken, the appear- ance of the coasts, and the location of the islands, declaring that at the farthest point he reached the sea had not yet given out but his provisions had.
Pliny's description of the route to the East,2 the em- 1 Pliny, Natural History II, 69; VI, 27; Pomponius Mela, De situ orbis III.
• Natural History VI, 20.
* [Strictly speaking, Gaius was the grandson of Augustus, but was adopted as his son.]
41 MARE LIBERVM Augustum, ad Claudium etiam ex Taprobane insula, deinde gesta Traiani et tabulae Ptolemaei satis ostendunt. lam suo tempore Strabo * Alexandrinorum mercatorum classem ex Arabico sinu, ut Aethiopiae ultima, ita et Indiae, petiisse testatur, cum olim paucis navibus id auderetur. Inde magna populo Romano vectigalia; addit Plinius 2 impositis sagit- tariorum cohortibus piratarum metu navigatum; solamque Indiam quingenties sestertium, si Arabiam addas et Seres, millies annis omnibus Romano Imperio ademisse; et merces centuplicato venditas.
Et haec quidem vetera satis arguunt primes non fuisse Lusitanos. In singulis autem sui partibus Oceanus ille et tune cum eum Lusitani ingressi sunt, et numquam non cognitus fuit. Mauri enim, Aethiopes, Arabes, Persae, Indi, earn maris partem cuius ipsi accolae sunt, nescire neutiquam potuerunt.
Mentiuntur ergo qui se mare illud invenisse iactant.
Quid igitur, dicet aliquis, parumne videtur, quod Lusi- tani intermissam multis forte saeculis navigationem primi repararunt, et, quod negari non potest, Europaeis gentibus ignotam ostenderunt, magno suo labore, sumptu, periculo?
1 Geographica II et XVII.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 41 bassies from the Indies to Augustus, and those from Ceylon to the emperor Claudius, and finally the accounts of the deeds of Trajan, and the writings of Ptolemaeus, all make it quite clear that in the days of Rome's greatest splendor voyages were made regularly from the Arabian gulf to India, to the islands of the Indian ocean, and even so far as to the golden Chersonesus, which many people think was Japan. Strabo says * that in his own time a fleet of Alex- andrian merchantmen set sail from the Arabian gulf for the distant lands of Ethiopia and India, although few ships had ever before attempted that voyage. The Roman people had a large revenue from the East. Pliny says 2 that cohorts of archers were carried on the boats engaged in trade as protection against pirates; he states also that every year India alone paid into the Roman imperial treasury 500,000 sesterces,* or 1,000,000 sesterces if the revenues from Arabia and China be added; further, that the merchandise brought from the East sold for one hundred times its original cost.
These examples cited from ancient times are sufficient proof that the Portuguese were not the first in that part of the world. Long before they ever came, every single part of that ocean had been long since explored. For how possibly could the Moors, the Ethiopians, the Arabians, the Persians, the peoples of India, have remained in ignorance of that part of the sea adjacent to their coasts!
Therefore they lie, who today boast that they discovered that sea.
Well then, some one will say, does it seem to be a matter of little moment that the Portuguese were the first to re- store a navigation interrupted perhaps for many centuries, and unknown — as cannot be denied — at least to the nations of Europe, at great labor and cost and danger to them- 1 Geography II and XVII.
• Natural History XII, 19.
* [A Roman sestertius was about four cents.]
42 MAKE LIBERVM Immo vero si in hoc incubuerunt ut quod soli reperissent id omnibus monstrarent, quis adeo est amens, qui non plurimum se illis debere profiteatur? Eandem enim gra- tiam, laudemque et gloriam immortalem illi promeruerint, qua omnes contenti fuerunt rerum magnarum inventores, quotquot scilicet non sibi, sed humano generi prodesse stu- duerunt. Sin Lusitanis suus ante oculos quaestus fuit, lucrum quod semper maximum est in praevertendis nego- tiationibus, illis sufficere debuit. Et scimus itinera prima proventus interdum quater decuples, aut etiam uberiores dedisse, quibus factum ut inops diu populus ad repentinas divitias subito prorumperet, tanto luxus apparatu, quantus vix beatissimis gentibus in supremo progressae diu fortunae fastigio fuit.
Si vero eidem in hoc praeiverunt, ne quisquam sequere- tur, gratiam non merentur, cum lucrum suum respexerint; lucrum autem suum dicere non possunt, cum eripiant alienum. Neque enim illud certum est nisi ivissent eo Lusitani, iturum fuisse neminem. Adventabant enim tempora, quibus ut artes pene omnes, ita et terrarum et marium situs clarius in dies noscebantur. Excitassent vetera, quae niodo retulimus, exempla, et si non uno impetu omnia patuissent, at paulatim promota velis fuissent litora alio semper aliud monstrante. Factum denique fuisset, FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 42 selves? On the contrary, if they had laid weight upon the fact that they were pointing out to all what they alone had rediscovered, there is no one so lacking in sense that he would not acknowledge the greatest obligation to them. For the Portuguese will have earned the same thanks, praise, and immortal glory with which all discoverers of great things have been content, whenever they have striven to benefit not themselves but the whole human race. But if the Portuguese had before their eyes only their own financial gain, surely their profit, which is always the largest for those first in a new field of enterprise, ought to have satisfied them. For we know that their first voyages re- turned a profit sometimes of forty times the original in- vestment, and sometimes even more. And by this overseas trade it has come about that a people, previously for a long time poor, have leaped suddenly into the possession of great riches, and have surrounded themselves with such outward signs of luxurious magnificence as scarcely the most pros- perous nations have been able to display at the height of their fortunes.
But if these Portuguese have led the way in this matter in order that no one may follow them, then they do not de- serve any thanks, inasmuch as they have considered only their own profit. Nor can they call it their profit, because they are taking the profit of some one else. For it is not at all demonstrable that, if the Portuguese had not gone to the East Indies, no one else would have gone. For the times were coming on apace in which along with other sciences the geographical locations of seas and lands were being better known every day. The reports of the expedi- tions of the ancients mentioned above had aroused people, and even if all foreign shores had not been laid open at a single stroke as it were, yet they would have been brought to light gradually by sailing voyages, each new discovery pointing the way to the next. And so there would finally 43 MARE LIBERVM quod fieri potuisse Lusitani docuerunt, cum multi essent populi non minus flagrantes mercaturae et rerum externa- rum studio. Venetis qui multa iam Indiae didicerant, cetera inquirere promptum fuit. Gallorum Brittonum indefessa sedulitas, Anglorum audacia coepto non defuisset. Ipsi Batavi multo magis desperata aggressi sunt.
Nulla igitur aequitatis ratio, ne probabilis quidem ulla sententia a Lusitanis stat. Omnes enim qui mare volunt imperio alicuius subici posse, id ei attribuunt qui proximos portus et circumiacentia litora in dicione habet.1 At Lusitani in illo immenso litorum tractu paucis exceptis praesidiis nihil habent quod suum possint dicere.
Deinde vero etiam qui Mari imperaret, nihil tamen posset ex usu communi deminuere, sicut Populus Romanus arcere neminem potuit, quo minus in litore imperi Romani cuncta f aceret, quae iure gentium permittebantur.2 Et si quicquam eorum prohibere posset, puta piscaturam qua dici quodam- modo potest pisces exhauriri, at navigationem non posset, per quam mari nihil perit.
Cui rei argumentum est longe certissimum, quod ex Doctorum sententia ante retulimus, etiam in terra, quae cum populis, turn hominibus singulis in proprietatem attributa est; iter tamen, certe inerme et innoxium, nullius gentis 1 Gloss, on Lib. VI, I, 6, 3 (De electione, c. Ubi periculum, § Porro); on Digest II, 12, 3 (De feriis, L. Solet [Grotius has Licet]).
* Digest I, 8, 4 (De divisione rerum, L. Nemo igitur); Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 43 have been accomplished what the Portuguese showed could be done, because there were many nations with no less ardor than theirs to engage in commerce and to learn of foreign things. The Venetians, who already knew much about India, were ready to push their knowledge farther; the in- defatigable zeal of the French of Brittany, and the boldness of the English would not have failed to make such an at- tempt; indeed the Dutch themselves have embarked upon much more desperate enterprises.
Therefore the Portuguese have neither just reason nor respectable authority to support their position, for all those persons who assume that the sea can be subjected to the sovereignty of any one assign it to him who holds in his power the nearest ports and the circumjacent shores.1 But in all that great extent of coast line reaching to the East Indies the Portuguese have nothing which they can call their own except a few fortified posts.
And then even if a man were to have dominion over the sea, still he could not take away anything from its common use, just as the Roman people could not prevent any one from doing on the shores of their dominions all those things which were permitted by the law of nations.2 And if it were possible to prohibit any of those things, say for example, fishing, for in a way it can be maintained that fish are ex- haustible, still it would not be possible to prohibit naviga- tion, for the sea is not exhausted by that use.
The most conclusive argument on this question by far however is the one that we have already brought forward based on the opinions of eminent jurists, namely, that even over land which had been converted into private property either by states or individuals, unarmed and innocent pas- sage is not justly to be denied to persons of any country, exactly as the right to drink from a river is not to be 'Glossators on lab. VI, I, 6, 3; on Digest II, 12, S. * Digest I, 8, 4; Gentilis, De jure belli I, 19.
44 MARE LIBERVM hominibus iuste negari; sicut et potum ex flumine. Ratio apparet, quia cum unius rei naturaliter usus essent diversi, eum dumtaxat gentes divisisse inter se videntur, qui sine proprietate commode haberi non potest, contra autem eum recepisse, per quern domini condicio deterior non esset f utura.
Omnes igitur vident eum qui alterum navigare prohibeat nullo iure defendi, cum eundem etiam iniuriarum teneri Vlpianus dixerit; * ali autem etiam interdictum utile pro- hibito competere existimaverint.2 Et sic Batavorum intentio communi iure nititur, cum fateantur omnes, permissum cuilibet in mari navigare etiam a nullo Principe impetrata licentia; quod Legibus Hispanicis diserte expressum est.8 1 Digest XLIII, 8, 2 (Ne quid in loco publico, L. Praetor ait, § Si quis in mari).
•Gloss, on Digest XLIII, 14 (Ut in flumine publico).
* Baldus on Digest I, 8, 3 (De divisione rerum, L. Item lapilli); Zuarius, Consilia duo de usu maris I, 3, part. tit. 28, L. 10 et 12.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 44 denied. The reason is clear, because, inasmuch as one and the same thing is susceptible by nature to different uses, the nations seem on the one hand to have apportioned among themselves that use which cannot be maintained con- veniently apart from private ownership; but on the other hand to have reserved that use through the exercise of which the condition of the owner would not be impaired.
It is clear therefore to every one that he who prevents another from navigating the sea has no support in law. Ulpian has said * that he was even bound to pay damages, and other jurists have thought that the injunction utile prohibito could also be brought against him.2 Finally, the relief prayed for by the Dutch rests upon a common right, since it is universally admitted that naviga- tion on the sea is open to any one, even if permission is not obtained from any ruler. And this is specificially expressed in the Spanish laws.3 1 Digest XLIII, 8, 2. •Glossators on Digest XLIII, 14.
•Baldus on Digest 1,8,3; Zuarius, Consilia duo de usu maris I, 3, 28, L. 10 and 12. [Philippus Zuerius (?— 1606) of Antwerp.]
CAPVT VI Mare aut iiis navigandi proprium non esse Lusitanorum titulo donationis Pontifidae Donatio Pontificis Alexandri, quae a Lusitanis mare aut ius navigandis solis sibi vindicantibus, cum inventionis deficiat titulus, secundo loco adduci potest, satis ex iis quae ante dicta sunt vanitatis convincitur. Donatio enim nullum habet momentum in rebus extra commercium positis. Quare cum mare aut ius in eo navigandi proprium nulli hominum esse possit, sequitur neque dari a Pontifice neque a Lusitanis accipi potuisse. Praeterea cum supra relatum sit ex omnium sani iudicii hominum sententia Papam non esse dominum temporalem totius orbis, ne Maris quidem esse satis intelli- gitur; quamquam etsi id concederetur, tamen ius annexum Pontificatui in Regem aliquem aut populum pro parte nulla transferri debuisset. Sicut nee Imperator posset Imperi provincias in suos usus convertere, aut pro suo arbitrio alienare.1 Illud saltern nemo negaturus est, cui aliquid sit frontis, cum ius disponendi in temporalibus Pontifici nemo concedat, nisi forte quantum eius rerum spiritualium necessitas requi- rit, ista autem de quibus nunc agimus, mare scilicet et ius navigandi, lucrum et quaestum merum, non pietatis negotium 'Victoria, De Indis I (II?), n. 26.
45 CHAPTER VI Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the Portuguese by virtue of title based on the Papal Donation The Donation of Pope Alexander, inasmuch as the title based on discovery is seen to be deficient, may next be in- voked by the Portuguese to justify their exclusive appro- priation of the sea and the right of navigation thereon. But from what has been said above, that Donation is clearly convicted of being an act of empty ostentation. For a Donation has no effect on things outside the realm of trade. Wherefore since neither the sea nor the right of navigating it can become the private property of any man, it follows that it could not have been given by the Pope, nor accepted by the Portuguese. Besides, as has been mentioned above, following the opinion of all men of sound judgment, it is sufficiently well recognized that the Pope is not the tem- poral lord of the earth, and certainly not of the sea. Even if it be granted for the sake of argument that such were the case, still a right attaching to the Pontificate ought not to be transferred wholly or in part to any king or nation. Similarly no emperor could convert to his own uses or alienate at his own pleasure the provinces of his empire.1 Now, inasmuch as no one concedes to the Pope in tem- poral matters a jus disponendi, except perhaps in so far as it is demanded by the necessity of spiritual matters, and inasmuch as the things now under discussion, namely, the sea and the right of navigating it, are concerned only with money and profits, not with piety, surely every one with 45 46 MAKE LIBERVM respiciant, sequi nullam hac in re fuisse illius potestatem. Quid, quod ne Principes quidem, hoc est, domini temporales possunt ullo modo a navigatione aliquem prohibere, cum si quod habent ius in mari id sit tantum iurisdictionis ac pro- tectionis? Etiam illud notissimum est apud omnes, ad ea f acienda quae cum lege Naturae pugnant, nullam esse Papae auctoritatem.1 Pugnat autem cum lege Naturae, ut mare aut eius usum quisquam habeat sibi proprium, ut iam satis demonstravimus. Cum denique ius suum auferre alicui Papa minime possit, quae erit facti istius defensio, si tot populos immerentes, indemnatos, innoxios ab eo hire quod ad ipsos non minus quam ad Hispanos pertinebat uno verbo voluit ex- cludere?
Aut igitur dicendum est nullam esse vim eiusmodi pro- nuntiationis, aut quod non minus credibile est, eum Ponti- ficis animum fuisse, ut Castellanorum et Lusitanofum inter se certamini intercessum voluerit, aliorum autem iuri nihil diminutum.
1 Silvestris, In verbo Papa. n. 16.
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 46 any brains at all will agree that the Pope has no jurisdiction here. What of the fact that not even rulers, that is to say, temporal lords, can prohibit any one from navigation, since if they have any right at all upon the sea it is merely one of jurisdiction and protection! It is also a fact universally recognized that the Pope has no authority to commit acts repugnant to the law of nature.1 But it is repugnant to the law of nature, as we have already proved beyond a doubt, for any one to have as his qwn private property either the sea or its use. Finally, since the Pope is wholly unable to deprive any one of his own rights, what defense will there be for that Donation of his, if by a word he in- tended to exclude so many innocent, uncondemned, and guiltless nations from a right which belongs no less to them than to the Spaniards?
Therefore, either it must be affirmed that a pronuncia- mento of this sort has no force, or, as is no less credible, that it was the desire of the Pope to intercede in the quarrel between the Spaniards and the Portuguese, and that he had no concomitant intention of violating the rights of others.
1 Silvestris, In verbo Papa. n. 16.
CAPVT VII Mare aut ius navigandi proprium non esse Lusitanorum titulo praescriptionis aut consuetudinis Vltimum iniquitatis patrocinium in praescriptione solet esse aut consuetudine. Et hue igitur Lusitani se conf erunt; sed utrumque illis praesidium certissima iuris ratio prae- cludit. Nam praescriptio a iure est civili, unde locum habere non potest inter reges, aut inter populos liberos; 1 multo autem minus ubi ius naturae aut gentium resistit, quod iure civili semper validius est. Quin et ipsa lex civilis praescrip- tionem hie impedit.2 Vsucapi enim, aut praescriptione acquiri prohibentur, quae in bonis esse non possunt, deinde quae possideri vel quasi possideri nequeunt, et quorum alienatio prohibita est. Haec autem omnia de mari et usu maris vere dicuntur.
Et cum publicae res, hoc est populi alicuius nulla tem- poris possessione quaeri posse dicantur, sive ob rei naturam, sive ob eorum privilegium adversus quos praescriptio ista procederet, quanto iustius humano generi, quam uni populo id beneficium dandum fuit in rebus communibus? Et hoc est 1 Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 51.
'Donellus, V, 22 et seq.; Digest XVIII, 1, 6 (De contrahenda emptione, L. Sed Celsus); XLI, 3, 9 (De usucapionibus, L. Usucapionem), 25 (L. Sine); Lib. VI, V, 12 (De regulis iuris, Reg. Sine possessione); Digest L, 16, 28 (De verborum significatione, L. ' Alienationis '); XXIII, 5, 16 (De fundo dotali, L. Si fumluni).
47 CHAPTER VII Neither the Sea nor the right of navigation thereon belongs to the Portuguese by title of prescription or custom The last defense of injustice is usually a claim or plea based on prescription or on custom. To this defense there- fore the Portuguese have resorted. But the best established reasoning of the law precludes them from enjoying the protection of either plea.
Prescription is a matter of municipal law; hence it can- not be applied as between kings, or as between free and independent nations.1 It has even less standing when it is in conflict with that which is always stronger than the municipal law, namely, the law of nature or nations. Nay, even municipal law itself prevents prescription in this case.* For it is impossible to acquire by usucaption or prescription things which cannot become property, that is, which are not susceptible of possession or of quasi-possession, and which cannot be alienated. All of which is true with respect to the sea and its use.
And since public things, that is, things which are the property of a nation, cannot be acquired by mere efflux of time, either because of their nature, or because of the prerogatives of those against whom such prescription would act, is it not vastly more just that the benefits accruing from the enjoyment of common things should be given to the entire human race than to one nation alone? On this point 1 Vasquius, Controversiae illustres, c. 51.
47 48 MARE LIBERVM quod Papinianus scriptum reliquit,1 ' praescriptionem longae possessionis ad obtinenda loca iurisgentium publica concedi non solere '; eiusque rei exemplum dat in litore, cuius pars imposito aedificio occupata fuerat. Nam eo diruto, et alterius aedificio in eodem loco postea exstructo, exceptionem opponi non posse; quod deinde similitudine rei publicae illus- trat, nam et si quis in fluminis diverticulo pluribus annis piscatus sit, postea, interrupta scilicet piscatione, alterum eodem iure prohibere non posse.
Apparet igitur Angelum et qui cum Angelo dixerunt 3 Venetis et Genuensibus per praescriptionem ius aliquod in sinum maris suo litori praeiacentem acquiri potuisse, aut falli, 'aut fallere, quod sane lurisconsultis nimium est fre- quens, cum sanctae professionis auctoritatem, non ad rationes et leges, sed ad gratiam conferunt potentiorum. Nam Martiani quidem responsum, de quo et ante egimus, si recte cum Papiniani verbis comparetur,8 non aliam accipere potest interpretationem, quam earn quae et lohanni olim et Bartolo probata est, et nunc a doctis omnibus recipitur: * ut scilicet ius prohibendi procedat quamdiu durat occupatio, 1 Digest XLI, 3, 45 (De usucapionibus); Code VIII, 11, 6 (De operis publicis, L. Praescriptio); XI, 43, 9 (De aquaeductu, L. Diligenter); Digest XLIII, 11, 9 (De via publica, L. Viam); XLI, 3, 49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.).
1 Consilia 286; Thema tale est: inter caetera capitula pacis.
• Digest XLIV, 3, 7 (De diversis temporalibus praescriptionibus, L. Si quisquam).
4 Duarenus, De usucapionibus, c. 3; Cuiacius on Digest XLI, 3, 49 (De usucapionibus, L. ult.); Donellus V, 22 on Digest XLI, 1, 14 (De adquirendo rerum dominio, L. Quod in litore).
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS 48 Papinian has said: J ' Prescription raised by long possession is not customarily recognized as valid in the acquisition of places known to international law as " public " '. As an ex- ample, to illustrate this point, he cites a shore some part of which had been occupied by means of a building constructed on it. But if this building should be destroyed, and some one else later should construct a building on the same spot, no exception could be taken to it. Then he illustrates the same point by the analogous case of a res publica. If, for example, any one has fished for many years in a branch of a river, and has then stopped fishing there, after that he cannot prevent any one else from enjoying the same right that he had.
Wherefore it appears that Angeli 2 and his followers who have said that the Venetians and Genoese were able to ac- quire by prescription certain specific rights in the gulfs of the sea adjacent to their shores, either are mistaken, or are deceiving others; a thing which happens all too frequently with jurists when they exercise the authority of their sacred profession not for justice and law, but in order to gain the gratitude of the powerful. There is also an opinion of Marcianus, already cited above in another connection, which, when carefully compared with the words of Papinian,* can have no other interpretation than the one formerly adopted by Johannes and Bartolus,* and now accepted by all learned men,4 namely, that the jus prohibendi is in effect only while occupation lasts; it loses its force if occupation 1 Consilia 286 [Angelus Aretinus a Gambellionibus (?-1445), a Toluminous commentator on the Digest and the Institutes].
•Digest XLIV, 3, 7.
4 Duren, De usucapionibus, c. 3; Cujas on Digest XLI, 3, 49 j Donellus • [Bartolus de Saxoferrato (1314-1357) the most famous of the Post-glos- gators, was called by many of his biographers ' Optimus auriga in hac oivili sapientia '.]
49 MARE LIBERVM