368 ORAL ARGUMENT OF KiR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I liavejust read it, Sir. It is 32 miles. 



1161 Senator Morgan. — That mast be a good way from the three 

 mile limit, somewhere. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Yes. 



Seuator Morgan. — It is the Norwegian construction of the three mile 

 limit. 



Mr. Gram. — The distance is calculated from the mouth of the fiords. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I think I may remind Senator Morgan that 

 there are bays on the American coast — Delaware Bay for instance — 

 which have been claimed by the United States as coming within that 

 principle of inner waters, land-locked waters, although they are wider 

 at the mouth than Varan ger Fiord. 



Senator Morgan. — I know of no case in which that question has been 

 brought up between the United States and any foreign Government. 



Sir Charles Russell. — That is another matter. I was merely sug- 

 gesting that; and I think Senator Morgan will admit the impeachment. 



The President. — This all shows that we must be extremely prudent. 



We will not attempt to define what is meant by territoi;jal waters; 

 and I believe indeed that question is not before us. 



Lord Hannen. — I think. Sir Charles, you will find it was brought up 

 with reference to the Bay of Fundy, before an Arbitration of which I 

 have some knowledge; and it was decided that the Bay of Fundy could 

 not be claimed by England. The United States disputed it. 



Senator Morgan. — Because there is an American island in the Bay 

 of Fundy. 



Sir Charles Russell. — However, as the learned President has said, 

 it does not touch this question, because it is not put as an extension of 

 jurisdiction beyond the three mile limit; but it is based upon the asser- 

 tion, right or wrong, that it is inner or land-locked waters of the terri- 

 tory. Whether that contention is right or wrong, it is not necessary to 

 consider. The illustration, whatever the case is, does not help the argu- 

 ment put forward. 



The next reference. Sir, is to Panama, which is referred to on page 

 105 of the Argument of the United States, where my friend says : 



Similar restrictions nijon the pearl fisheries in the open sea have been likewise 

 interposed by the Government of Colombia. 



A decree by the governor of Panama in the United States of Colombia, in 1890, 

 prohiliited the use of diving machines for the collection of pearls within a section 

 of the Gulf of Panama, which is between 60 and 70 marine miles in width, and of 

 which the most remote point is 30 marine miles from the main land. 



From the map which is referred to and set out at page 484 of the 

 First Volume of the Api)endix to the Case of the United States, it 

 would appear that there are two gulfs in the Bay of Panama, and not 

 one as might be gathered from the above statement, and that both, or 

 at least one of them, may fall within the principle of embayed waters. 



Our comment upon this matter at page 96 of the Counter Case is 

 this : 



1162 The law of Panama next referred to applies, and is alleged to apply, only 

 to pearl fisheries as to the title or want of title to Avhich, or their proximity 



to islands or coast, or whether in inland waters, nothiiL«; is said. Nor is there any- 

 thing to show that the law in question applies to foreigners. 



The assertion in the United States Case as to the area affected by the law is unsup- 

 ported by evidence; and it will be observed that the Map of the JPanama pearl fish- 

 eries in the Appendix, does not purport to come from the Panama Government, but 

 to be "prepared at the office of the Coast and Geode'tic Survey". From what mate- 

 rials it was so prepared is not explained; and as it refers to a Decree of 1890, and is 

 not dated, it may be supposed to have been made for exhibition to the Tribunal of 

 Arbitration. 



