Demonstratum est[98a] nec populo nec privato cuipiam ius - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - their rights were bound to observe that condition. It is true that the jurist is speaking of private estates and of private law, but in speaking here of the territory of peoples and of public law the same reasoning applies, because from the point of view of the whole human race peoples are treated as individuals. Similarly, revenues levied on maritime fisheries are held to belong to the Crown, but they do not bind the sea itself or the fisheries, but only the persons engaged in fishing.[95] Wherefore subjects, for whom a state or a ruler is by common consent competent to make laws, will perhaps be compelled to bear such charges, but so far as other persons are concerned the right of fishing ought everywhere to be exempt from tolls, lest a servitude be imposed upon the sea, which is not susceptible to a servitude. The case of the sea is not the same as that of a river,[96] for as a river is the property of a nation, the right to fish in it can be passed or leased by the nation or by the ruler, in such a way (and the like is true with the ancients) that the lessee enjoys the operation of the injunction _de loco publico fruendo_ by virtue of the clause ‘He who has the right to lease has leased the exclusive right of enjoyment’.[97] Such a condition cannot arise in respect to the sea. Finally those who count fishing among the properties of the Crown have not examined carefully enough the very passage which they cite to prove their contention, as Isernia* and Alvotus† have noticed. * [Andrea d’Isernia (c. 1480-1553), an Italian commentator, called often Feudistarum Patriarcha.] † [Probably a misprint for Alvarus (Alvarez).] It has therefore been demonstrated[98] that neither a nation nor an individual can establish any right of private ownership - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - aliquod proprium in ipsum mare (nam diverticulum excipimus) competere posse, cum occupationem nec natura, nec usus publici ratio permittat. Huius autem rei causa instituta fuerat haec disputatio, ut appareret Lusitanos mare quo ad Indos navigatur sui iuris non fecisse. Nam utraque ratio quae proprietatem impedit, in hac causa est quam in ceteris omnibus infinito efficacior. Quod in alii difficile videtur, in hac omnino fieri non potest; quod in aliis iniquum iudicamus, in hac summe barbarum est, atque inhumanum.