CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN".' Ill 



from headland to headland, and that the jurisdiction of Her Majesty 

 extends 3 murine miles outside of this line; thus closing all the bays 

 on the coast or shore, and that great body of water called the Bay of 

 Fundj-, against Americans and otliers, making the latter a British 

 bay. This doctrine of the headlands is new, and has received a proper 

 limit in the convention between France aud Great Britain of the 2nd 

 August, 1839; in which "it is agreed tliat the distance of 3 miles, 

 fixed as the general limit for tlie exclusive right of fishery upon the 

 coasts of tlie two countries, shall, with respect to bays the mouths of 

 which do not exceed 10 miles in width, be measured from a straight 

 line drawn from headland to lieadland." 



The Bay of Fundy is from {i5 to 75 miles wide and 130 to 140 miles 

 long; it has several bays on its coast; thus the word "bay," as 

 applied to this great body of water, iuis the same meaning as that 



applied to the Bay of Biscay, the Bay of Bengal, over which 

 146 no nation can have the right to assume sovereignty. One of 



tlie headlands of tlie Bay of Fundy is in the United States, and 

 ships bound to Passama(iuoddy must sail through a large space of it. 

 Tlie islands of Crand Menan (British) and Little Menan (American) 

 are situated nearly on a line from headland to lieadland. These 

 islands, as represented in all geographies, are situated in the Atlantic 

 Ocean. The conclusion is therefore in my mind irresistible that the 

 Bay of Fundy is not a British bay, nor a bay within the meaning of 

 the word as used in the Treaties of 1783 and 1818. 



The Agent for tlie rinited States before the Halifax 

 Fisheries Comiriission, 1877, quotes this decision, and adds 

 the following note: 



This Convention between Franco and (lireat Britain extended the rroceedinj^s of 

 headland doctrine to bays 10 miles wide; thus going beyond the gen- .f l;,'^'^.^ f'ish- 

 eral rule of international law, according to which no hays are treated ,si„n^ ig;;^ p'."l53 

 as within the territorial. jurisdiction of a State which are more than (uote). 

 6 miles wide on a straight line measured from one lieadland to the 

 other. 



SECRETARY IJOITT WELL'S OPINION. 



The principle of the marine league was in 1872 applied 

 by Mr. Bontwell, TTnited States Secretary to the Treasury, 

 m his letter of instructions to the Collector of Customs at ^of^'iog"'*'*' ^^' 

 San Francisco, dated l!»lh April, 1872, already quoted, as 

 follows : 



I do not see that the Fnited States would have the Jurisdiction or 

 power to drive off y)arties going \\\) there for that jiurpose [to take 

 fur-seals], unless they made such attemjit within a marine league of 

 the shore. 



I SECRETARY FISH'S OPINION. 



The same principle was affirmed in respect of the waters 

 now ill question by Mr. Fish, the United States Secretary see «»<«, p. 109. 

 of State, who wrote to the United States Legation in Eus- 

 sia on the 1st December, 1875: 



There Avas reason to hope that the practice, which formerly pre- Wharton's "Di- 

 vailed with powerful nations, of regarding seas and bays, usually of gpst," sec. 32, p. 

 large extent near their coast, as closed to any foreign commerce of ^"''• 

 fishery not specially licensed by them, was, without exception, a pre- 

 tension of the past, and that no nation would claim exemption from 

 the general rule of jjiiblic law which limits its maritime jurisdiction 

 to a marine league from its coast. We should particularly regret if 

 Russia should insist on any such pretension. 



The same position was taken up by the United States 

 in their brief tiled with the Halifax Fisheries Commission 

 in 1877. 



